Abstract

We inductively tested if a coherent field of inquiry in human conflict research emerged in an analysis of published research involving “conflict” in the Web of Science (WoS) over a 66-year period (1945–2011). We created a citation network that linked the 62,504 WoS records and their cited literature. We performed a critical path analysis (CPA), a specialized social network analysis on this citation network (~1.5 million works), to highlight the main contributions in conflict research and to test if research on conflict has in fact evolved to represent a coherent field of inquiry. Out of this vast dataset, 49 academic works were highlighted by the CPA suggesting a coherent field of inquiry; which means that researchers in the field acknowledge seminal contributions and share a common knowledge base. Other conflict concepts that were also analyzed—such as interpersonal conflict or conflict among pharmaceuticals, for example, did not form their own CP. A single path formed, meaning that there was a cohesive set of ideas that built upon previous research. This is in contrast to a main path analysis of conflict from 1957–1971 where ideas didn’t persist in that multiple paths existed and died or emerged reflecting lack of scientific coherence (Carley, Hummon, and Harty, 1993). The critical path consisted of a number of key features: 1) Concepts that built throughout include the notion that resource availability drives conflict, which emerged in the 1960s-1990s and continued on until 2011. More recent intrastate studies that focused on inequalities emerged from interstate studies on the democracy of peace earlier on the path. 2) Recent research on the path focused on forecasting conflict, which depends on well-developed metrics and theories to model. 3) We used keyword analysis to independently show how the CP was topically linked (i.e., through democracy, modeling, resources, and geography). Publically available conflict datasets developed early on helped shape the operationalization of conflict. In fact, 94% of the works on the CP that analyzed data either relied on publically available datasets, or they generated a dataset and made it public. These datasets appear to be important in the development of conflict research, allowing for cross-case comparisons, and comparisons to previous works.

Highlights

  • In this article we seek to understand the emergence and evolution of a coherent scientific field of inquiry in the study of human conflict

  • The conflict literature reveals a number of competing arguments underlying the causes of conflict in human societies. Has this debate lead to a cohesive field of inquiry or has it produced a set of warring ideological factions? If so, what research forms the core of this field and what are the factors influencing a coherent body of work, if it exists? We compare our critical path analysis (CPA) to a similar analysis of conflict research published from 1957–1971 [1]

  • The CP was obtained from a citation network of 1,510,243 works—derived from the 62,504 Web of Science (WoS) records and cited literature of these works

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In this article we seek to understand the emergence and evolution of a coherent scientific field of inquiry in the study of human conflict. We view the emergence of a coherent field of scientific research in terms of two important concepts in scientometrics: intellectual or knowledge base (the work of preceding scholars) and research front (the building of, the construction of new knowledge). This is not meant to be a comprehensive review of the literature on conflict research, but rather we analyze whether or not there is a path of scientific influence over an extended period of time. We qualitatively and quantitatively analyze the critical path (CP) works in terms of topics, keywords, datasets used, authorship, and funding

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.