理论作为分析一夫多妻制与冲突的指南:对Ash的回应(2022)

IF 2 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Clara Neupert-Wentz, Carlo Koos
{"title":"理论作为分析一夫多妻制与冲突的指南:对Ash的回应(2022)","authors":"Clara Neupert-Wentz, Carlo Koos","doi":"10.1177/20531680221144244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ash (2022, \"Ash\" hereafter), in this journal, re-assesses our 2020 article “Polygynous Neighbors, Excess Men, and Intergroup Conflict in Africa.” The article analyzed the relationship between polygyny (one man marrying several wives) and intergroup conflict events in Africa. Ash includes assessments that support our original results, though others lead Ash to call our findings into question. While some of Ash’s data transformations are reasonable robustness tests, others seem to be insufficiently rooted in theory and ignore statistical power. Specifically, using fatality counts as an outcome requires theorization, in particular against the backdrop of different underlying theoretical mechanisms, issues of measurement accuracy, and other statistical considerations. Overall, we argue that there are good theoretical and statistical reasons why some of the operationalizations in Ash are not appropriate substitutes for our outcome variable. We appreciate the re-assessment but dismiss the claim in Ash that its findings give sufficient evidence to change the conclusion in our article.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Theory as guide to the analysis of polygyny and conflict: A response to Ash (2022)\",\"authors\":\"Clara Neupert-Wentz, Carlo Koos\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20531680221144244\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Ash (2022, \\\"Ash\\\" hereafter), in this journal, re-assesses our 2020 article “Polygynous Neighbors, Excess Men, and Intergroup Conflict in Africa.” The article analyzed the relationship between polygyny (one man marrying several wives) and intergroup conflict events in Africa. Ash includes assessments that support our original results, though others lead Ash to call our findings into question. While some of Ash’s data transformations are reasonable robustness tests, others seem to be insufficiently rooted in theory and ignore statistical power. Specifically, using fatality counts as an outcome requires theorization, in particular against the backdrop of different underlying theoretical mechanisms, issues of measurement accuracy, and other statistical considerations. Overall, we argue that there are good theoretical and statistical reasons why some of the operationalizations in Ash are not appropriate substitutes for our outcome variable. We appreciate the re-assessment but dismiss the claim in Ash that its findings give sufficient evidence to change the conclusion in our article.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37327,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research and Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680221144244\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680221144244","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

阿什(2022年,以下简称“阿什”)在本期杂志上重新评估了我们2020年的文章《非洲的一夫多妻制邻居、过剩男性和族群间冲突》。文章分析了非洲一夫多妻制(一个男人娶几个妻子)与族群间冲突事件的关系。阿什包括了支持我们最初结果的评估,尽管其他评估让阿什对我们的发现提出了质疑。虽然Ash的一些数据转换是合理的稳健性测试,但其他数据转换似乎没有充分扎根于理论,忽视了统计能力。具体来说,使用死亡率计数作为结果需要理论化,特别是在不同的潜在理论机制、测量精度问题和其他统计考虑的背景下。总的来说,我们认为,有很好的理论和统计原因,为什么一些操作化在Ash不适合替代我们的结果变量。我们赞赏Ash的重新评估,但不同意它的发现提供了足够的证据来改变我们文章的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Theory as guide to the analysis of polygyny and conflict: A response to Ash (2022)
Ash (2022, "Ash" hereafter), in this journal, re-assesses our 2020 article “Polygynous Neighbors, Excess Men, and Intergroup Conflict in Africa.” The article analyzed the relationship between polygyny (one man marrying several wives) and intergroup conflict events in Africa. Ash includes assessments that support our original results, though others lead Ash to call our findings into question. While some of Ash’s data transformations are reasonable robustness tests, others seem to be insufficiently rooted in theory and ignore statistical power. Specifically, using fatality counts as an outcome requires theorization, in particular against the backdrop of different underlying theoretical mechanisms, issues of measurement accuracy, and other statistical considerations. Overall, we argue that there are good theoretical and statistical reasons why some of the operationalizations in Ash are not appropriate substitutes for our outcome variable. We appreciate the re-assessment but dismiss the claim in Ash that its findings give sufficient evidence to change the conclusion in our article.
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
Research and Politics
Research and Politics Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
34
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Research & Politics aims to advance systematic peer-reviewed research in political science and related fields through the open access publication of the very best cutting-edge research and policy analysis. The journal provides a venue for scholars to communicate rapidly and succinctly important new insights to the broadest possible audience while maintaining the highest standards of quality control.
×
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