Congratulations to Conflict Research Society member Professor Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, who is included on the list of “Most Influential Scientific Minds” for 2014. He is the only UK-based political scientist to be listed by this prestigious report compiled by Thomas Reuters. Kristian who is an expert is peace and conflict research is one of the most cited academics in the world, with total of 2,049 citations recorded as of 12 July 2014, and 6 articles have each been cited more than 100 times.
He is one of only 3,200 academics recognised as “influencing the future direction of their fields, and of the world….they are people who are on the cutting edge of their fields. They are performing and publishing work that their peers recognise as vital to the advancement of their science”.
The CRS is calling for applications for the Cedric Smith Prize in 2015. The prize is awarded for the best piece of peace and conflict research by a UK based student (either currently at the pre-degree stage or having passed their PhD no earlier than 1st September 2013).
To apply, candidates are invited to submit a research paper or single (stand-alone) dissertation chapter, along with a 200-word abstract.
The award will be presented at the 2015 CRS conference at the University of Kent.
If you or your students are interested in submitting please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
For more information on the Cedric Smith Prize follow this link here.
The Network of European Peace Scientists (NEPS) announces the 15th Jan Tinbergen European Peace Science Conference. This year the conference is being held at the University of Warwick, 22nd-24th of June 2015.
Any presentations that address issues relating to peace and security are welcome. All abstracts (150-250 words) with a tentative title must be submitted by 8th February 2015.
For more details, find the call of papers link here.
In a recent article published in The Conversation, CRS Council members Dr Kristin Bakke and Dr Govinda Clayton discuss the “Degrade and Destroy” tactics being used by the US-led coalition against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
They question the viability of the current military strategy and deliberate the possibly of a political solution.
Find the article and join the discussion here.
Peter Emerson (CRS Council Member) recently authored a report for the Scotish Electoral Commision. Below is a summary of his findings.
It was a two-option, yes-or-no vote. Therefore it was all win-or-lose. And therefore the campaign became bitter.
Majority voting, be it simple or weighted, is adversarial. It is, in fact, the oldest and most inaccurate measure of collective opinion ever invented. It measures the very opposite of consensus: so many ‘for’ and so many ‘against’, it measures the degree of dissent. Furthermore, it allows those who set the question to thus dominate the debate. David Cameron thought independence would lose; so he dismissed the idea of a three-option referendum, and dictated the question: “Independence, yes-or-no?” So it was independence or status quo. Then the polls started to show growing support for independence. Cameron panicked; the status quo morphed into devo-max; and, as a consequence, the outcome of the referendum was devo-max. But nobody voted for it (except for a few spoilt votes); it wasn’t even on the ballot paper.
In a word, majority voting prompts or exacerbates conflicts, whereas – as shown in a 6-option survey undertaken by the de Borda Institute – multi-option preference voting can be the very catalyst of consensus. It’s all here.