This research will investigate the relationship between legitimacy and maps and mapping in conflict resolution. It will do so through interviews and by investigating case studies of conflict resolution efforts. Perception of legitimacy in conflict resolution efforts extends beyond the role and representativeness of the actors involved to the tools and methods they use, including knowledge production, technology and approach to the framing of issues and problems. Evaluation of legitimacy in maps and mapping as part of conflict resolution can manifest as questions or judgments about who has the authority or right to map, what information sources and ways of knowing are legitimate, and what mapping processes and methods are legitimate.
Broadly speaking, adequate legitimacy perception concerning mapping among a conflict resolution effort’s participants can mean that maps and mapping effectively support conflict resolution efforts in the long term (i.e. positive peace). This is because the relevant voices, narratives, and framings are 1) allowed, 2) constructible, and 3) employed within the conflict resolution process. Conversely, inadequate legitimacy perception hampers optimal map use in conflict resolution by disallowing or marginalizing certain voices, information, methods or approaches to mapping. The effects can be severely deleterious, such as the continuance or introduction of negative peace by supporting privileged voices, inability to gain and maintain situational awareness because of inadequate visualization, and/or failure to appropriately address issues because they have not been sufficiently included in the geospatial framing of the conflict.