描述性推论的政治性:冲突数据中存在争议的概念

IF 1.4 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
M. P. Broache, Agnes Yu
{"title":"描述性推论的政治性:冲突数据中存在争议的概念","authors":"M. P. Broache, Agnes Yu","doi":"10.1057/s41311-024-00591-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Descriptive research is sometimes understood as simply compiling and presenting objective facts, or ‘telling it like it is.’ We challenge this understanding, arguing that description involves a series of subjective, value-laden decisions that may reflect, reinforce, or alternatively undermine, existing narratives and power structures; accordingly, description is fundamentally, and unavoidably, political. We illustrate this argument with respect to descriptive research on violence against civilians by comparing how three descriptive research outputs—the Uppsala Conflict Data Program’s One-Sided Violence, the Political Instability Task Force’s Genocide and Politicide, and the Targeted Mass Killings datasets—define contested concepts relating to the distinction between combatants and civilians, identification of state actors, and intent. We demonstrate how differences in these definitions manifest in different descriptive inferences about violence in Burundi in 1993, and we discuss how an understanding of description as political relates to researchers’ responsibilities as compilers and users of descriptive data.</p>","PeriodicalId":46593,"journal":{"name":"International Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The politics of descriptive inference: contested concepts in conflict data\",\"authors\":\"M. P. Broache, Agnes Yu\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41311-024-00591-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Descriptive research is sometimes understood as simply compiling and presenting objective facts, or ‘telling it like it is.’ We challenge this understanding, arguing that description involves a series of subjective, value-laden decisions that may reflect, reinforce, or alternatively undermine, existing narratives and power structures; accordingly, description is fundamentally, and unavoidably, political. We illustrate this argument with respect to descriptive research on violence against civilians by comparing how three descriptive research outputs—the Uppsala Conflict Data Program’s One-Sided Violence, the Political Instability Task Force’s Genocide and Politicide, and the Targeted Mass Killings datasets—define contested concepts relating to the distinction between combatants and civilians, identification of state actors, and intent. We demonstrate how differences in these definitions manifest in different descriptive inferences about violence in Burundi in 1993, and we discuss how an understanding of description as political relates to researchers’ responsibilities as compilers and users of descriptive data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46593,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00591-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00591-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

描述性研究有时被理解为简单地汇编和呈现客观事实,或 "如实陈述"。我们对这种理解提出质疑,认为描述涉及一系列主观的、带有价值取向的决定,这些决定可能会反映、强化或破坏现有的叙事和权力结构;因此,描述从根本上说是政治性的,而且不可避免。我们通过比较三个描述性研究成果--乌普萨拉冲突数据计划的 "单边暴力"、政治不稳定特别工作组的 "种族灭绝和政治谋杀 "以及 "定点大规模屠杀 "数据集--如何定义与战斗人员和平民的区别、国家行为者的识别以及意图相关的有争议的概念,来说明针对平民的暴力的描述性研究的这一论点。我们展示了这些定义的差异如何体现在对 1993 年布隆迪暴力事件的不同描述性推断中,并讨论了将描述理解为政治性与研究人员作为描述性数据的编制者和使用者的责任之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The politics of descriptive inference: contested concepts in conflict data

Descriptive research is sometimes understood as simply compiling and presenting objective facts, or ‘telling it like it is.’ We challenge this understanding, arguing that description involves a series of subjective, value-laden decisions that may reflect, reinforce, or alternatively undermine, existing narratives and power structures; accordingly, description is fundamentally, and unavoidably, political. We illustrate this argument with respect to descriptive research on violence against civilians by comparing how three descriptive research outputs—the Uppsala Conflict Data Program’s One-Sided Violence, the Political Instability Task Force’s Genocide and Politicide, and the Targeted Mass Killings datasets—define contested concepts relating to the distinction between combatants and civilians, identification of state actors, and intent. We demonstrate how differences in these definitions manifest in different descriptive inferences about violence in Burundi in 1993, and we discuss how an understanding of description as political relates to researchers’ responsibilities as compilers and users of descriptive data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: International Politics?is a leading peer reviewed journal dedicated to transnational issues and global problems. It subscribes to no political or methodological identity and welcomes any appropriate contributions designed to communicate findings and enhance dialogue.International Politics?defines itself as critical in character truly international in scope and totally engaged with the central issues facing the world today. Taking as its point of departure the simple but essential notion that no one approach has all the answers it aims to provide a global forum for a rapidly expanding community of scholars from across the range of academic disciplines.International Politics?aims to encourage debate controversy and reflection. Topics addressed within the journal include:Rethinking the Clash of CivilizationsMyths of WestphaliaHolocaust and ChinaLeo Strauss and the Cold WarJustin Rosenberg and Globalisation TheoryPutin and the WestThe USA Post-BushCan China Rise Peacefully Just WarsCuba Castro and AfterGramsci and IRIs America in Decline。
×
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