Theorizing Risk and Research: Methodological Constraints and Their Consequences
release_un2w3uxmenagpb5fnygtfoh5mm
by
Geoffrey Swenson,
Kate Roll
Abstract
<jats:title>ABSTRACT</jats:title>
Conflict, postconflict settings, and other risky research sites are important with wide-ranging policy implications. Microlevel, field-based research lends critical insights to how conflicts work and the mechanisms behind macrolevel correlations that underpin quantitative political science. This article identifies how the risks associated with conflict and postconflict contexts influence researchers' choices by theorizing the existence of distinct adaptive strategies. Specifically, researchers facing elevated risk generally manage it through three main strategies: outsourcing risk, avoiding risk, and internalizing risk. We argue that these strategies systematically shape and circumscribe outputs. We conclude by discussing how the relationship between risky fieldwork and what we know about conflict is poorly acknowledged. Thinking about how we manage risk should play a larger role in both our preparation for and interpretation of research, particularly in conflict and postconflict contexts.
In application/xml+jats
format
Archived Files and Locations
application/pdf
547.1 kB
file_j2f7gfp6dzehver3ulcmrcsf54
|
www.cambridge.org (web) web.archive.org (webarchive) |
access all versions, variants, and formats of this works (eg, pre-prints)
Crossref Metadata (via API)
Worldcat
SHERPA/RoMEO (journal policies)
wikidata.org
CORE.ac.uk
Semantic Scholar
Google Scholar