Author

The Quantitative Turn in Transitional Justice Research

Introduction

The quantitative turn in transitional justice research. Explore the quantitative turn in transitional justice research, highlighting methodological issues, inconsistent findings, and the need for greater care in supporting policy recommendations.

Abstract

In recent years, scholars have increasingly turned to quantitative research methods to understand the impact of transitional justice (TJ) on societies emerging from periods of violence and repression. This research often seeks to influence policy diffusion by making bold claims based upon large datasets of TJ events that span space and time. However, the policy advice from the first wave of quantitative research is inconsistent if not contradictory. In this article, we outline a range of methodological issues that help to explain the different conclusions reached by these studies, including sampling strategies, model construction, and the measurement of key variables. Furthermore, these studies have often failed to provide compelling theoretical or empirical bases for a causal relationship between TJ mechanisms and dependent variables such as democracy and human rights. We suggest several ways in which quantitative scholars could produce findings with broader credibility. Although we support the use of quantitative methods to understand the impact of TJ mechanisms, greater methodological care is needed in supporting policy recommendations.

Review

The article, "The Quantitative Turn in Transitional Justice Research," offers a timely and critical examination of the increasing use of quantitative methods within the transitional justice (TJ) field. The authors adeptly highlight the growing trend of scholars employing large datasets to make bold claims about TJ's impact, often with the explicit aim of influencing policy diffusion. However, the core contribution of this piece lies in its astute observation that the policy advice emanating from this "first wave" of quantitative research has been inconsistent, if not outright contradictory. This sets the stage for a crucial discussion about the methodological underpinnings of such studies. The strength of this review lies in its precise identification of the methodological shortcomings that likely contribute to these divergent findings. The authors meticulously outline issues pertaining to sampling strategies, model construction, and the measurement of key variables—all critical components for robust quantitative analysis. Even more significantly, the article critiques the frequent failure of these studies to provide compelling theoretical or empirical bases for establishing a causal link between TJ mechanisms and desired outcomes like democracy and human rights. This absence of strong causal inference, despite the ambition to generate policy-relevant findings, represents a significant vulnerability that the authors rightly bring to the fore. Overall, this article serves as an essential and constructive intervention for the field of transitional justice. While explicitly supporting the continued application of quantitative methods, the authors issue a clear call for greater methodological care and theoretical rigor, particularly when research seeks to inform policy recommendations. The suggested ways in which quantitative scholars could produce findings with broader credibility are valuable, and this paper will undoubtedly prompt important self-reflection among researchers. Its critical yet supportive stance makes it a vital contribution for anyone engaged in, or consuming, quantitative research on transitional justice, setting a higher bar for future scholarship aiming to credibly understand and influence post-conflict societies.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.