Search results

An analysis of migration in modern European history points out problematic aspects of research on where people lived "then" & where they live "now." It is maintained that "local" migration occurs within a geographically contiguous labor, land, or marriage market; "circular" migration involves movement to a destination for a distinct purpose & return to the place of origin after a specific interval; "chain" migration involves the movement of sets of related people from one place to another through social arrangements; & "career" migration involves moves in response to career opportunities within large structures. It is suggested that in the age of industrialization the general character of European migration shifted from local & circular migration toward longer-distance, more definite chain & career migration. Migrants have traditionally moved short distances in response to changing employment opportunities or demographic imbalances; however, there has been an increase in both average distances moved & the definitiveness of breaks with the place of origin. The need to rethink the relationship between industrialization & mobility is emphasized. J. Lindroth

In der geschichtswissenschaftlichen Analyse begann die erste Welle der Formalisierung in den 1950er Jahren und fing in den 1970er Jahren an, ihre Kraft zu verlieren. Dieser ersten Welle ist der Artikel gewidmet. Unter Formalisierung versteht der Autor die Vielfalt der Verfahren zur Beschreibung von Ereignissen, Strukturen und Prozesse mit Hilfe von expliziten Modellen dieser Ereignisse, Strukturen und Prozesse. Sie ist nicht unbedingt mit Quantifizierung oder Verwendung von Computern verbunden und beinhaltet vier Elemente: Konzeptualisierung, Messung, Modellerstellung und Bewertung. Diese Verfahren werden zusammen mit den Voraussetzungen ihrer Anwendung und den Bedingungen eines Wandels in der Disziplin in Richtung einer Weiterentwicklung solcher Forschungsaktivitäten erläutert. (ICG)

Common explanations of terrorism, here illustrated by the work of Jessica Stern and of US State Department analysts, have two significant weaknesses. First, they homogenize terror, assuming that one type of person, group, or action accounts for most instances of its use. Second, they focus on dispositions and motives, decision logics, emotions, or cultural templates of terror-producing actors prior to their action. Adequate explanations of terror must repair these defects by a) looking systematically at variation among producers of terror and b) shifting the focus to relations among actors. Terror is a strategy employed by a wide variety of persons and groups, involving a substantial range of actions.

Extends & applies the Dynamics of Contention (DOC) program of theory & research in contentious politics to argue that violent interactions provide opportunities for identification of strong mechanisms & processes that explain variable aggregate relations between repression & mobilization. Key elements of the DOC program are described, noting that it advances explanations for various types of phenomena. The focus is on collective violence that inflicts physical damage on persons/objects, involves two or more perpetrators, & results from coordination among persons who perform the violence. The taxonomy of violent episodes is explored, along with challenges presented by collective violence to the DOC program; DOC responses to them; the impact of broken negotiations; & implications for the analysis of relations between mobilization & repression. It is concluded that a mechanisms-processes view of explanation has the potential to overcome otherwise seemingly unmanageable problems. Although mechanisms conform to covering laws, it is necessary to recognize their regularities & the scales at which they operate. 3 Figures, 17 References. J. Lindroth

Extends & applies the Dynamics of Contention (DOC) program of theory & research in contentious politics to argue that violent interactions provide opportunities for identification of strong mechanisms & processes that explain variable aggregate relations between repression & mobilization. Key elements of the DOC program are described, noting that it advances explanations for various types of phenomena. The focus is on collective violence that inflicts physical damage on persons/objects, involves two or more perpetrators, & results from coordination among persons who perform the violence. The taxonomy of violent episodes is explored, along with challenges presented by collective violence to the DOC program; DOC responses to them; the impact of broken negotiations; & implications for the analysis of relations between mobilization & repression. It is concluded that a mechanisms-processes view of explanation has the potential to overcome otherwise seemingly unmanageable problems. Although mechanisms conform to covering laws, it is necessary to recognize their regularities & the scales at which they operate. 3 Figures, 17 References. J. Lindroth

Distinctions between quantitative and qualitative social science misrepresent the actual choices confronting analysts of observations concerning social processes. Analysts regularly (if not always self-consciously) choose between adopting and avoiding formal representations of social processes. Despite widespread prejudices to the contrary, formalisms are available and helpful for all sorts of social scientific evidence, including those commonly labeled as qualitative. Available formalisms vary in two important regards: (1) from direct to analogical representation of the evidence at hand; and (2) from numerical to topological correspondence between formalism and evidence. Adoption of formalisms facilitates the identification of erroneous arguments, hence the correction of analytic errors and the production of more adequate explanations.