Article Information
Publication date (electronic): 31 December 2015
DOI: 10.emerg/10.17357.5917f72459afa63052d83cfdf0367ecd
Are theories of conflict improving?:
Using propositional analysis to determine the structure of conflict theories over the course of a century
Foundation for the Advancement of Social Theory
Bio:
Steven E. Wallis earned his Ph.D. in 2006 at Fielding Graduate University, focusing on the rigorous analysis and integration of conceptual systems. He has a decade of experience as a facilitator and organizational development consultant in Northern California and a broad range of interdisciplinary interests. At Capella University, Steve mentors doctoral candidates. As Director for the Foundation for the Advancement of Social Theory (FAST) he supports emerging scholars who are working to identify rigorous paths for the validation of theory through critical metatheory and metapolicy analysis. His academic publications cover a range of fields including ethics, management, organizational change, and policy. His recent book “Avoiding Policy Failure” shows how a systems view of policy models can be used to estimate the effectiveness of policies before implementation as well as improving policies for reducing cost and improving results. Finally, Dr. Wallis serves as a Fulbright Specialist to help improve the capacity of academic institutions with a focus on theory, strategy, and policy.
Abstract
We live in a world where war rages between nations, where revolution erupts within nations, where global terrorism is the norm, where new forms of conflict are emerging on the internet, and where class struggle is exacerbated by rising levels of income inequality. The very existence of these ongoing problems suggests that we do not have the highly effective theories needed to deal with them. In seeking to improve our theories, previous scholars have claimed that theories with a higher level of structure would be more effective. However, they did not provide a useful measure of that structure. In the present paper, Propositional Analysis (PA) is presented as an emerging methodology for determining the structure of theories with some level of objectivity. Using PA, this article investigates the change in structure of theories of conflict over a century-long span of time. The outcomes of these analyses suggest the need for new standards for creating theory, integrating theories, and choosing theory for research and/or practice. This study shows that our theories are not evolving toward a higher level of structure. Instead, the level is nearly stable. These results suggest a new understanding as to why the field of conflict theory has not increased in relevance and usefulness. And, as a result, suggests new directions for accelerating the improvement of theories of conflict. While this is a small study, it is expected that these results and insights may be generalized to the broader field of sociology.
Read Full Article
Access requires a current subscription