Tilting at a windmill? The conceptual problem in contemporary peace science

Will H. Moore

doi:10.1177/0738894215593721

Tilting at a windmill? The conceptual problem in contemporary peace science

Will H. Moore

Politics and Global Studies, School of (SPGS)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

Peace scientists such as Kenneth Boulding, Ted Gurr, Thomas Schelling, and Charles Tilly were fastidious in their use of abstract concepts free of the political baggage that politicians, policymakers, and pundits necessarily foist upon the terms in the rough and tumble world of politics. Too much contemporary peace science fails to follow their lead. This essay describes this problem and proposes a useful heuristic to help us improve.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	356-369
Number of pages	14
Journal	Conflict Management and Peace Science
Volume	32
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894215593721
State	Published - Sep 26 2015

Keywords

Concepts
Islamism
extremism
science
social science
terrorism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Economics and Econometrics
Political Science and International Relations

Access to Document

10.1177/0738894215593721

Cite this

@article{89c10b046cac4311a2ef474d659d52a8,

title = "Tilting at a windmill? The conceptual problem in contemporary peace science",

abstract = "Peace scientists such as Kenneth Boulding, Ted Gurr, Thomas Schelling, and Charles Tilly were fastidious in their use of abstract concepts free of the political baggage that politicians, policymakers, and pundits necessarily foist upon the terms in the rough and tumble world of politics. Too much contemporary peace science fails to follow their lead. This essay describes this problem and proposes a useful heuristic to help us improve.",

keywords = "Concepts, Islamism, extremism, science, social science, terrorism",

author = "Moore, {Will H.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2015, {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2015.",

year = "2015",

month = sep,

day = "26",

doi = "10.1177/0738894215593721",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "32",

pages = "356--369",

journal = "Conflict Management and Peace Science",

issn = "0738-8942",

publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tilting at a windmill? The conceptual problem in contemporary peace science

AU - Moore, Will H.

PY - 2015/9/26

Y1 - 2015/9/26

N2 - Peace scientists such as Kenneth Boulding, Ted Gurr, Thomas Schelling, and Charles Tilly were fastidious in their use of abstract concepts free of the political baggage that politicians, policymakers, and pundits necessarily foist upon the terms in the rough and tumble world of politics. Too much contemporary peace science fails to follow their lead. This essay describes this problem and proposes a useful heuristic to help us improve.

AB - Peace scientists such as Kenneth Boulding, Ted Gurr, Thomas Schelling, and Charles Tilly were fastidious in their use of abstract concepts free of the political baggage that politicians, policymakers, and pundits necessarily foist upon the terms in the rough and tumble world of politics. Too much contemporary peace science fails to follow their lead. This essay describes this problem and proposes a useful heuristic to help us improve.

KW - Concepts

KW - Islamism

KW - extremism

KW - science

KW - social science

KW - terrorism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940039888&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940039888&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0738894215593721

DO - 10.1177/0738894215593721

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84940039888

SN - 0738-8942

VL - 32

SP - 356

EP - 369

JO - Conflict Management and Peace Science

JF - Conflict Management and Peace Science

IS - 4

ER -

Tilting at a windmill? The conceptual problem in contemporary peace science

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this