Comparar métodos
Examine os métodos selecionados lado a lado; as linhas que diferem ficam destacadas.
| Conflict Diffusion Analysis× | Dyadic Conflict Analysis× | |
|---|---|---|
| Área | International Relations | International Relations |
| Família≠ | Regression model | Process / pipeline |
| Ano de origem≠ | 2008 | 1992 |
| Autor original≠ | Conflict-diffusion literature (e.g., Most & Starr; Halvard Buhaug & Kristian Skrede Gleditsch) | Stuart A. Bremer (and the Correlates of War dyadic tradition) |
| Tipo≠ | Spatial-temporal analysis of conflict contagion | Observational research design for interstate conflict |
| Fonte seminal≠ | Buhaug, H., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2008). Contagion or confusion? Why conflicts cluster in space. International Studies Quarterly, 52(2), 215–233. DOI ↗ | Bremer, S. A. (1992). Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816–1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 309–341. DOI ↗ |
| Outros nomes | Conflict Contagion Analysis, Conflict Spillover Analysis, Spatial Diffusion of War, Conflict Spread Modeling | Dyad-Year Analysis, Dyadic Design in Conflict Studies, Dangerous Dyads Analysis, Pairwise Interstate Conflict Analysis |
| Relacionados | 3 | 3 |
| Resumo≠ | Conflict diffusion analysis studies how conflict spreads from one place to another — across borders, between neighboring regions, over time. It addresses a sharp inferential challenge posed by Buhaug and Gleditsch (2008): conflicts cluster in space, but clustering can reflect either genuine contagion (a war next door actually raises your risk) or merely the fact that neighbors share war-prone conditions. Using spatial-temporal lags of neighboring conflict alongside covariates, and theorizing concrete transmission mechanisms such as refugee flows and transnational ethnic ties, the method tries to separate true diffusion from spurious co-location. | 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. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de dados ↗ |
|
|