Ambiguity and Methodological Transparency in the Study of Civil War: An Answer to Thémner’s ‘Lingering Command Structures’ in Liberia

IF 1.2 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Ilmari Käihkö
{"title":"Ambiguity and Methodological Transparency in the Study of Civil War: An Answer to Thémner’s ‘Lingering Command Structures’ in Liberia","authors":"Ilmari Käihkö","doi":"10.1080/13698249.2022.2075248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Researchers who study civil wars and other armed conflicts are bound to face ambiguities. This article continues the discussion about research brokers in conflict zones that started in a 2019 special issue of Civil Wars and scrutinises the finding that Liberian wartime command structures continue to linger in informal guises long to the post-conflict. Absent transparent acknowledging of the ambiguities it glosses over, past scholarship risks a far too neat story that imbues arguments with untested assumptions. The result neither captures the complexity of contemporary realities of Liberian former combatants nor helps Liberia to move forward from its difficult past.","PeriodicalId":51785,"journal":{"name":"Civil Wars","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Civil Wars","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13698249.2022.2075248","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Researchers who study civil wars and other armed conflicts are bound to face ambiguities. This article continues the discussion about research brokers in conflict zones that started in a 2019 special issue of Civil Wars and scrutinises the finding that Liberian wartime command structures continue to linger in informal guises long to the post-conflict. Absent transparent acknowledging of the ambiguities it glosses over, past scholarship risks a far too neat story that imbues arguments with untested assumptions. The result neither captures the complexity of contemporary realities of Liberian former combatants nor helps Liberia to move forward from its difficult past.
内战研究中的模糊性和方法透明度:对thsammner在利比里亚的“挥之不去的指挥结构”的回答
研究内战和其他武装冲突的研究人员必然会面临歧义。这篇文章继续了从2019年《内战》特刊开始的关于冲突地区研究经纪人的讨论,并仔细研究了利比里亚战时指挥结构在冲突后很长一段时间内仍以非正式形式存在的发现。如果没有透明地承认它所掩盖的模糊性,过去的学术研究可能会有一个过于简洁的故事,给争论注入未经测试的假设。这一结果既没有反映出利比里亚前战斗人员当代现实的复杂性,也没有帮助利比里亚摆脱其艰难的过去。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Civil Wars
Civil Wars POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
18.20%
发文量
23
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信