Conflict and Development (33.596.04)

Theoretical Synthesis Paper

Introduction and Rationale

During our time together this semester, we are reading a number of works that try to explain, in general terms, the causes of violent political conflict (or in some cases, violent ethnic conflict) within nations. Each author views the phenomenon from a slightly different perspective, draws on a different body of literature and experience, emphasizes different variables, uses different forms of representation and reaches somewhat different conclusions.
In writing your final case study report, you will face a practical real-world problem that has been faced by many scholars and practitioners before you, including myself. If you are writing about a case of "unsuccessful" development and conflict management, a theory that explains conflict in general should be an important part of your explanation of why development policies failed and conflict occurred. If you are writing about a case of "successful" development and conflict management, a theory that explains conflict in general should be an important part of your explanation of why development policies succeeded and pitfalls of violent conflict that have plagued so many developing nations were avoided.

But is how one to decide which general explanation is best when knowledgeable authorities, with prestigious academic credentials, who have studied the causes of violent political conflict for many years, differ? One should do more than look to authority though some scholars and practitioners opt for this route. One needs to bring independent, critical judgment to bear on the process of framing a "best" explanation that is most relevant to a particular case.

I believe the fable about the four blind men trying to describe an elephant is relevant to our problem and, indeed, to understanding many areas of social science theorizing. You will recall that each blind man presented a very different view of what an elephant was, none entirely inaccurate. One said it had a trunk, like a tall tree. Another described a mass as big as a house. Yet another reported that a thin leathery rope was part of this mysterious being. The fourth described a long hose that had soaked him with water when he tried to explore it. Understanding a domain of inquiry in which social science theories compete may not be all that much different. Each competitor presents a different, partially accurate picture of a complex reality.

Those who develop theoretical syntheses -- we are reading several examples of such syntheses and discussing them in class -- try to draw elements from several theories in order to present a more complete picture -- and explanation -- of a complex social phenomenon such as the causes of violent political conflict.

Formulating such a synthesis, representing it rigorously, and describing the results of your work clearly and accessibly is the task in this assignment.

Specific Details and Requirements

At the most basic level, your assignment will achieve the desired result if it produces a theoretical syntheses, drawn from relevant theories that answers the following question:

What general explanation of the causes of violent, intra-nation conflict is most relevant to my case study ?


The presentation of your answer to this question should include the following elements:

_ A brief review of theories that seem potentially relevant to your theoretical synthesis. The syntheses included in your readings provide examples of how to do this.
_ A specification, and justification of the theories that will contribute to your own synthesis. (For example, your synthesis might draw on Ted Gurr's concept of equilibrium, but reject Theda Skocpol's emphasis on state institutions. You might choose to include Tilly's emphasis on social mobilization, but reject some of the primordialist theories to which Horowitz gives attention. You might include Brinton's emphasis on governmental competence/incompetence but reject the emphasis I give to leadership and decision making... and so on).
_ The guts of your paper should be the presentation of at least two different representations of you own theoretical synthesis. Refer to the discussion of alternative representations in the Richardson and Millstead (Furlong) paper if you wish to refresh your memory on this subject. One representation, obviously will need to be in words, however I expect you to experiment with another mode of representation as well: for example pictographs, causal loop diagrams, algebraic equations, numerical equations or a computer program.
_ The conclusion of your paper should present the essence of your theoretical synthesis in propositional form. Use Richardson, "Understanding Violent Conflict in Sri Lanka: How Theory Can Help" as a model.

Formatting and Other Matters

The text of your paper (including footnotes) must not exceed twelve pages in length. Your title page, which should include a 200 word abstract, and the page(s) listing references (bibliography) are not included in this limit. Please compose your paper in 12 pitch type. Compose footnotes in 10 pitch type, number them consecutively and place them at the bottom of each page. To make your paper more compact, adjust your word-processor so that it does not space between your footnotes. Number your pages, not including the title page. For footnotes and references, use the formatting conventions found in Richardson, "Understanding Violent Conflict in Sri Lanka: How Theory Can Help." Figures, if used, must be inserted in the text of your paper. Again, use Richardson "Understanding Violent Conflict...." as a model.

These papers are to be individual efforts, however you should feel free to discuss your synthesis with other members of the class (or anyone else, for that matter) as you are developing it. It also makes sense to have at least one other person read over your paper in order to catch minor proofreading, editing and grammatical errors.