Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

introducing the Heidelberg approach to conflict research

  • Research, Dataset
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many conflict-data projects are based on narrow or disjointed concepts of political conflict. They either cover only limited segments of reality or put distinct but related forms of conflict phenomena in conceptual ‘bins’ rather than integrating them into a more comprehensive concept. In addition, conflict intensity is frequently measured by only one indicator, the number of fatalities, which represents only part of the consequences and none of the means of violent conflict. Means and consequences, taken together, constitute the intensity of a conflict. They ought to be combined to arrive at a valid measurement. The Heidelberg approach to conflict research addresses both issues, offering a broad yet differentiated and integrative concept of conflict and a multi-dimensional and multi-indicator approach to intensity. This improves our abilities to recognise and classify conflictive phenomena; to capture conflict-transformation; and to arrive at a valid measurement of intensity. The approach is applied in the new DISCON dataset, comprising data on 155 violent and non-violent interstate, intra-state, and substate conflicts in Asia and Oceania from 2000 to 2014, disaggregated into more than 6300 region-month intensities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albritton, R.B. (2006) ‘Thailand in 2005: The struggle for democratic consolidation’, Asian Survey 46(1): 140–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, K.E. (1963) Conflict and Defense. A General Theory, New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Praxis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chenoweth, E. and Lewis O.A. (2013) ‘Unpacking nonviolent campaigns. Introducing the NAVCO 2.0 dataset’, Journal of Peace Research 50(3): 415–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croissant, A. and Trinn, C. (2009) ‘Culture, identity and conflict in Asia and Southeast Asia’, Asien 110: 13–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahrendorf, R. (1959) Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (1949) Human Society, New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, J. (2009) ‘What causes civil war? Integrating quantitative research findings’, International Studies Review 11(4): 707–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drakos, K. and Gofas, A. (2006) ‘The devil you know but are afraid to face: underreporting bias and its distorting effects on the study of terrorism’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(5): 714–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberwein, W.-D. and Chojnacki, C. (2001) ‘Scientific necessity and political utility. A comparison of data on violent conflicts’, WZB Discussion Paper 01-304.

  • Fearon, J.D. and Laitin, D. (2003) ‘Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war’, American Political Science Review 97(1): 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, C.F. (1968) ‘Some conceptual difficulties in the theory of social conflict’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 12(4): 412–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1965) ‘Institutionalized conflict resolution: A theoretical paradigm’, Journal of Peace Research 2(4): 348–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1969) ‘Violence, peace, and peace research’, Journal of Peace Research 6(3): 167–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleditsch, N.P., Wallensteen, P., Eriksson, M., Sollenberg, M. and Strand, H. (2002) ‘Armed conflicts 1946–2001: A new dataset’, Journal of Peace Research 39(5): 615–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goertz, G. (2006) Social Science Concepts. A User’s Guide, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goertz, G. and Mahoney, J. (2012) A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (2016) Conflict Barometer 2015, Heidelberg: Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, http://hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/, accessed 5 Nov 2016.

  • Mack, R.W. (1965) ‘The components of social conflict’, Social Problems 12(4): 388–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack, R.W. and Snyder R.C. (1957) ‘The analysis of social conflict – Toward an overview and synthesis’, Conflict Resolution 1(2): 212–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, M .G. (2016) Major Episodes of Political Violence (MEPV) and Conflict Regions, 1946-2015. http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/MEPVcodebook2015.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2016.

  • Marshall, M.G., Gurr, T.R. and Harff, B. (2016) PITF – State Failure Problem Set: Internal Wars and Failures of Governance, 1955–2015, http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/PITFProbSetCodebook2015.pdf, accessed 25 July 2016.

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. and Walt, S.M. (2013) ‘Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for international relations’, European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 427–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minorities at Risk Project (2009) Minorities at Risk Dataset, College Park: Center for International Development and Conflict Management, http://www.mar.umd.edu/, accessed 25 July 2016.

  • Nelson, M.H. (2010) ‘Thailand’s People’s Alliance for Democracy: from ‘new politics’ to a ‘real’ political party’, in M. Askew (ed.) Legitimacy Crisis and Political Conflict in Thailand, Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, pp. 119–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obermeyer, Z., Murray, C.J.L. and Gakidou, E. (2008) ‘Fifty years of violent war deaths from Vietnam to Bosnia: Analysis of data from the World Health Survey Programme’, British Medical Journal 336(7659): 1482–1486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, G., D’Orazio, V., Kenwick, M. and Lane, M. (2015) ‘The MID4 data set: Procedures, coding rules, and description’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 32(2): 222–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfetsch, F.R. (1991) ‘Internationale und nationale Konflikte nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 32(2): 258–285.

  • Pfetsch, F.R. and Rohloff C. (2000) ‘KOSIMO: A databank on political conflict’, Journal of Peace Research 37(3): 379–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salehyan, I. (2015) ‘Best practices in the collection of conflict data’, Journal of Peace Research 52(1): 105–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salehyan, I., Hendrix, C.S., Hamner, J., Case, C., Linebarger, C., Stull, E. and Williams, J. (2012) ‘Social conflict in Africa: A new database’, International Interactions 38(4): 503511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkees, M.R. and Wayman, F. (2010) Resort to War: 1816–2007, Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. (1970) ‘Concept misformation in comparative politics’, American Political Science Review 64(4): 1033–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T.C. (1960) The Strategy of Conflict, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwank, N. (2012) Konflikte, Krisen, Kriege. Eskalationsrisiken politischer Konflikte seit 1945, Baden-Baden, DE: Nomos.

  • Schwank, N., Trinn, C. and Wencker, T. (2013) ‘Der Heidelberger Ansatz der Konfliktdatenerfassung’, Zeitschrift für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung 2(1): 32–63.

  • Snyder, D. and Kelly, W.R. (1977) ‘Conflict intensity, media sensitivity and the validity of newspaper data’, American Sociological Review 42(1): 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spagat, M., Mack, A., Cooper, T. and Kreutz, J. (2009) ‘Estimating war deaths: An arena of contestation’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 53(6): 934–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundberg, R., Eck, K. and Kreutz, J. (2012) ‘Introducing the UCDP non-state conflict dataset’, Journal of Peace Research 49(2): 351–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tollefsen, A.F., Strand, H. and Buhaug, H. (2012) ‘PRIO-GRID: A unified spatial data structure’, Journal of Peace Research 49(2): 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trinn, C. (2015) Entropie und Kritikalität. Systemtheorie und Empirie der Intensität innerstaatlicher Gewaltkonflikte, Wiesbaden, DE: VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

  • Trinn, C. and Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research. (2016) Disaggregated Conflict Dataset (DISCON) 1.0, http://dx.doi.org/10.11588/data/10070, accessed 25 July 2016.

  • Vasquez, J.A. (2009) The War Puzzle Revisited, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weidmann, N.B. (2016) ‘A closer look at reporting bias in conflict event data’, American Journal of Political Science 60(1): 206–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wencker, T., Trinn, C. and Croissant, A. (2015) ‘Data Bases and Statistical Systems: Security and Conflict’, in J.D. Wright (ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, Amsterdam, NE: Elsevier, pp. 836–843.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors as well as Nicolas Schwank as the head of CONIAS would like to thank Lotta Mayer, Natalie Hoffmann, Jan Deuter, Stephan Giersdorf, Mark Gombert, Jens Hofmann, and Gregor Pawlowski for their substantial contributions to the revised methodology and Kristin Bleyder, Jan Deuter, Stephan Giersdorf, Natalie Hoffmann, Moritz Rudolf, Henrik Rubner, and Lars Stöwesand for their empirical input to DISCON.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Political Science, Heidelberg University, Bergheimer Str. 58, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany

    Christoph Trinn & Thomas Wencker

Authors
  1. Christoph Trinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Wencker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Trinn.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 464 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 459 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trinn, C., Wencker, T. introducing the Heidelberg approach to conflict research. Eur Polit Sci 17, 111–121 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-016-0093-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-016-0093-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation