Suchergebnisse

In der geschichtswissenschaftlichen Analyse begann die erste Welle der Formalisierung in den 1950er Jahren und fing in den 1970er Jahren an, ihre Kraft zu verlieren. Dieser ersten Welle ist der Artikel gewidmet. Unter Formalisierung versteht der Autor die Vielfalt der Verfahren zur Beschreibung von Ereignissen, Strukturen und Prozesse mit Hilfe von expliziten Modellen dieser Ereignisse, Strukturen und Prozesse. Sie ist nicht unbedingt mit Quantifizierung oder Verwendung von Computern verbunden und beinhaltet vier Elemente: Konzeptualisierung, Messung, Modellerstellung und Bewertung. Diese Verfahren werden zusammen mit den Voraussetzungen ihrer Anwendung und den Bedingungen eines Wandels in der Disziplin in Richtung einer Weiterentwicklung solcher Forschungsaktivitäten erläutert. (ICG)

Common explanations of terrorism, here illustrated by the work of Jessica Stern and of US State Department analysts, have two significant weaknesses. First, they homogenize terror, assuming that one type of person, group, or action accounts for most instances of its use. Second, they focus on dispositions and motives, decision logics, emotions, or cultural templates of terror-producing actors prior to their action. Adequate explanations of terror must repair these defects by a) looking systematically at variation among producers of terror and b) shifting the focus to relations among actors. Terror is a strategy employed by a wide variety of persons and groups, involving a substantial range of actions.

Extends & applies the Dynamics of Contention (DOC) program of theory & research in contentious politics to argue that violent interactions provide opportunities for identification of strong mechanisms & processes that explain variable aggregate relations between repression & mobilization. Key elements of the DOC program are described, noting that it advances explanations for various types of phenomena. The focus is on collective violence that inflicts physical damage on persons/objects, involves two or more perpetrators, & results from coordination among persons who perform the violence. The taxonomy of violent episodes is explored, along with challenges presented by collective violence to the DOC program; DOC responses to them; the impact of broken negotiations; & implications for the analysis of relations between mobilization & repression. It is concluded that a mechanisms-processes view of explanation has the potential to overcome otherwise seemingly unmanageable problems. Although mechanisms conform to covering laws, it is necessary to recognize their regularities & the scales at which they operate. 3 Figures, 17 References. J. Lindroth

Extends & applies the Dynamics of Contention (DOC) program of theory & research in contentious politics to argue that violent interactions provide opportunities for identification of strong mechanisms & processes that explain variable aggregate relations between repression & mobilization. Key elements of the DOC program are described, noting that it advances explanations for various types of phenomena. The focus is on collective violence that inflicts physical damage on persons/objects, involves two or more perpetrators, & results from coordination among persons who perform the violence. The taxonomy of violent episodes is explored, along with challenges presented by collective violence to the DOC program; DOC responses to them; the impact of broken negotiations; & implications for the analysis of relations between mobilization & repression. It is concluded that a mechanisms-processes view of explanation has the potential to overcome otherwise seemingly unmanageable problems. Although mechanisms conform to covering laws, it is necessary to recognize their regularities & the scales at which they operate. 3 Figures, 17 References. J. Lindroth

Distinctions between quantitative and qualitative social science misrepresent the actual choices confronting analysts of observations concerning social processes. Analysts regularly (if not always self-consciously) choose between adopting and avoiding formal representations of social processes. Despite widespread prejudices to the contrary, formalisms are available and helpful for all sorts of social scientific evidence, including those commonly labeled as qualitative. Available formalisms vary in two important regards: (1) from direct to analogical representation of the evidence at hand; and (2) from numerical to topological correspondence between formalism and evidence. Adoption of formalisms facilitates the identification of erroneous arguments, hence the correction of analytic errors and the production of more adequate explanations.

Reasons—organized answers to the question "Why does (did, should) X do Y?"—vary between formulas and cause-effect accounts in one dimension and between popular and specialized statements on the other. Conventions, explanatory stories, codified justifications, and technical accounts all qualify as reasons. Choices among types of reasons and contents within each type vary as a function of social relations between givers and receivers. As professional analysts of reasons for social processes as well as of reasons that social actors provide for their actions, sociologists face serious challenges to their credibility. They can reply to those challenges by (1) building records of effective intervention in social affairs; (2) educating audiences in the logic of social science; (3) incorporating their own explanations into widely available explanatory stories; or (4) confining their conversation to each other. Sociologists who want to influence public understanding must adopt some combination of Options 1 to 3.

Social boundaries separate us fromthem. Explaining the formation, transformation, activation, and suppression of social boundaries presents knotty problems. It helps to distinguish two sets of mechanisms: (1) those that precipitate boundary change and (2) those that constitute boundary change. Properly speaking, only the constitutive mechanisms produce the effects of boundary change as such. Precipitants of boundary change include encounter, imposition, borrowing, conversation, and incentive shift. Constitutive mechanisms include inscription–erasure, activation–deactivation, site transfer, and relocation. Effects of boundary change include attack–defense sequences. These mechanisms operate over a wide range of social phenomena.

The terms terror, terrorism, and terrorist do not identify causally coherent and distinct social phenomena but strategies that recur across a wide variety of actors and political situations. Social scientists who reify the terms confuse themselves and render a disservice to public discussion. The U.S. government's own catalogs of terrorist events actually support both claims