Description
Peace scientists such as Kenneth Boulding, Ted Gurr, Thomas Schelling, and Charles Tilly were fastidious in their use of abstract concepts free of the political baggage that politicians, policymakers, and pundits necessarily foist upon the terms in the rough and tumble world of politics. Too much contemporary peace science fails to follow their lead. This essay describes this problem and proposes a useful heuristic to help us improve.
Copyright Statement
Details
Title
- Tilting at a Windmill? The Conceptual Problem in Contemporary Peace Science
Contributors
- Moore, Will H. (Author)
- College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (Contributor)
Date Created
The date the item was original created (prior to any relationship with the ASU Digital Repositories.)
2015-09-01
Resource Type
Collections this item is in
Identifier
- Digital object identifier: 10.1177/0738894215593721
- Identifier TypeInternational standard serial numberIdentifier Value0738-8942
- Identifier TypeInternational standard serial numberIdentifier Value1549-9219
Note
- This is the author's final peer-reviewed manuscript. The final version as published is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0738894215593721, opens in a new window
Citation and reuse
Cite this item
This is a suggested citation. Consult the appropriate style guide for specific citation guidelines.
Moore, Will H. (2015). Tilting at a windmill? The conceptual problem in contemporary peace science. CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND PEACE SCIENCE, 32(4), 356-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0738894215593721