Van Ingen, Michiel 
ORCID: 0000-0003-4443-0507
(2017)
Conflict studies and causality: critical realism and the nomothetic/idiographic divide in the study of civil war.
Civil Wars, 18 (4).
pp. 387-416.
ISSN 1369-8249
Abstract
The study of civil war has increased exponentially during the post-Cold War period. This has not, however, resulted in greater levels of consensus with regard to the causes and nature of this phenomenon. Indeed, as Jonathan Goodhand has shown, the conflict studies discipline is currently experiencing something of a ‘crisis of theory as well as a crisis of practice’ (2006, 29). This article aims to show, however, that this situation can be alleviated by drawing on the critical realist approach to the philosophy of science. This is the case, in short, because critical realism provides conflict studies authors with a more sophisticated and coherent understanding of causality than has previously been available to them. More specifically, it has developed a mechanism-based understanding of causality which transcends the persistent split between (1) nomothetically-oriented (or ‘universal law-oriented’) approaches, predominantly associated with the work of various neo-positivist authors, and (2) idiographically-oriented (or ‘single case-oriented’) approaches, associated with the work of a much more diverse group of authors. By making the case for this mechanism-based approach, however, this article also aims to show that critical realist philosophy paves the way for an alternative approach to social science. An approach, that is, which – rather than consistently abstracting from (historical/geographical) context in the way that neo-positivist studies do – systematically engages with the context in which civil wars take place.
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Download Statistics
Download Statistics