Peace Research at ISA

Wednesday night in Montreal: An overcrowded room at the Journal of Peace Research reception hosted by Sage publication. Nils Petter Gleditsch, who stepped down as the JPR editor after some 27 years in the chair was warmly thanked by his successor, Henrik Urdal. Nils Petter received a specially bound compilation of handpicked JPR articles, as well as a plaque. Lucy Robinson from Sage reasserted the publisher’s appreciation of JPR, and, not least, of Nils Petter’s editorship. The turnout at the reception speaks volumes of JPR’s position and of the appreciation of Nils Petter’s editorship.

The prize for the JPR article of the year award was also announced. The 2010 award went to Michael D. Ward, Brian D. Greenhill and Kristin M. Bakke for their article ‘The perils of policy by p-value: Predicting civil conflicts’, published in the July issue (47/4).



Earlier in the day, the panel ‘Is there a Political Agenda in Peace Research?’ drew a smaller crowd. The panel consisted of Christian Davenport, Glenn Hughes, Michael Brzozka and Ole Wæver. Inger was the organizer and chair, and I served as the discussant. The panel highlighted considerable differences in what peace research is about, and where it should aim.

* Is the self-understanding of peace research as driven by a moral commitment satisfactory, or does that simply draw on a strawman image of the other (security studies; conflict studies; conventional IR a.o.)?
* Should the energy be devoted to a cumulative program of empirically driven research, a peace science, or does the quality lie exactly in the diversity of perspectives?
* How does political factors beyond our control – including, but not limited to, funding - define the agenda of peace research? (Would there, in an ideal world, be more research on the role as a source of violence and repression, for example?)
* If the main quality of peace research is its interdisciplinary character, committed to the academic standards of individual disciplinary traditions, is it a challenge that IR is increasingly dominant in the field? (Is peace research being ‘IR-ified’?)
* Is peace research defined by defining its boundaries in relation to other approaches, by agreeing on a commonly agreed core, or by emphasizing how the interests and perspectives developed in peace research gets adopted across other areas of study? (the metaphor of peace research as an incubator of ideas and approaches).

PRIO has tasked itself with maintaining a critical self-reflection about what peace research is about. ISA is one important venue, and this years’ roundtable is the third in a row. We shall keep the reflection up, but it may also be time that we expand by fixating the essence of the debates on paper.

And, Friday is the day of the PRIO reception. With 27 PRIOites here, we are in no lack of hosts. Meanwhile, we are glad to see that those who spend this week at PRIO shall also be enjoying tea and cakes in the attic, courtesy of Nic.