방법 비교

	Correlates of War Analysis	Dyadic Conflict Analysis
분야	International Relations	International Relations
계열	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
기원 연도	1972	1992
창시자	J. David Singer & Melvin Small (Correlates of War project)	Stuart A. Bremer (and the Correlates of War dyadic tradition)
유형	Systematic coding and quantitative analysis of war and national capabilities	Observational research design for interstate conflict
원전	Singer, J. D., Bremer, S., & Stuckey, J. (1972). Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820–1965. In B. Russett (Ed.), Peace, War, and Numbers (pp. 19–48). Beverly Hills: Sage.	Bremer, S. A. (1992). Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816–1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 309–341.
별칭	COW Analysis, Correlates of War Project Data, National Material Capabilities Analysis, Composite Index of National Capability Analysis	Dyad-Year Analysis, Dyadic Design in Conflict Studies, Dangerous Dyads Analysis, Pairwise Interstate Conflict Analysis
관련	3	3
요약	Correlates of War (COW) analysis is the systematic, data-driven study of interstate and intrastate war pioneered by J. David Singer and Melvin Small. The COW project assembled standardized, transparently coded datasets on the membership of the state system, the wars it has fought, and the material capabilities, alliances, and disputes of its members since 1816. Singer, Bremer, and Stuckey's (1972) study of capability distribution and major-power war exemplifies the approach: combine these building blocks into state-year and dyad-year datasets and analyze, statistically, what conditions correlate with the onset of war.	Dyadic conflict analysis is the dominant research design in quantitative conflict studies: it treats the pair of states (the dyad), observed year by year, as the unit of analysis and models the probability that a pair experiences militarized conflict as a function of their joint and individual attributes. Stuart Bremer's 'Dangerous Dyads' (1992) is the canonical statement, identifying which conditions — contiguity, the absence of alliance, power parity, the absence of joint democracy, and others — make a pair of states war-prone. The design aligns conflict data with the relational theories that dominate the field.