Typology

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “typology” as: “The study of classes with common characteristics; classification, esp. of human products, behaviour, characteristics, etc., according to type; the comparative analysis of structural or other characteristics; a classification or analysis of this kind.” In conflict studies typology is an important concept because understanding the basic contours of a conflict is the first step in developing analysis. We cannot understand the fundamentals to causes, dynamics, and outcomes without first understanding any given conflict’s typology.

One of the very first steps we take in conflict analysis is identifying the parties to the conflict. We start with the simple process of listing all the actors and groups involved in the conflict. From this list we can raise some basic analytical questions by using the journalist’s who, what, why, when, and where questions. In thinking about our parties, we need to consider several basic questions. It is important to take the time to consider these points with care, because each will help us in undertaking later steps in our analysis. There are:

-Is the party a protagonist or an antagonist to the conflict?
-What are the motives, interests, and objectives for each party?
-What are the internal dynamics within the parties?
-What abilities do the parties have for mobilizing resources?
-How do we position the parties within the relations of power?
-Does the party have any history or background with previous conflicts?
-Do the parties have a history of conflict in previous interactions?
-Are there particular features to the part that appear important for understanding the conflict?

 

The next step in typology is to identify general features of the conflict. For example, is the conflict mainly, but not exclusively, a social, political, economic, or cultural conflict? A deeper analysis will consider how each of these typologies overlap, interact, and influence each other. Likewise, we want to identify the larger context or environment of the conflict. There is a long list of potential contexts, which may include: environmental, class, war, genocide, revolution, gender, or migration. Each of these has extensive social science literature, which will help to further define the conflict. War, for example, might be understood as battle between standing armies, a counterinsurgency conflict (sometimes called “low intensity conflict” or peacekeeping operations. Next, we need to determine issues of scale. Is the conflict small in scope and intensity, medium or large? Is it new, or has the conflict been around for a long time? In every case we will want to identify the micro, interpersonal qualities of the conflict and the macro, structural levels of the conflict. In most cases, the micro level places analysis into consideration of psychological, interpersonal conflict dynamics; while the macro falls within broad considerations of society, politics, economics, and culture, and takes theory from their respective academic disciplines. Micro level analysis also aims at local level of conflict, while Macro focuses on the global. Next, conflict analysts identify the endogenous and exogenous factors of the conflict. When it is endogenous, we seek to understand the internal dynamics of the conflict, when the logic of the conflict operates from within the conflict itself, in the interplay between conflict parties. When it is exogenous, we seek to understand how factors external to the conflict influence it. Of course, a conflict most often has an interplay between internal and external factors and is seldom one or the other. There are two items to note. First, the endogenous/exogenous approach is similar to micro/macro, but they are distinct. Second, the endogenous/exogenous approach, although important for typology, is mainly an analytical question concerning conflict dynamics.

Often assumed in conflict analysis is a clear statement about what the conflict actually is. This definition is a required step in the process, and failure to develop a good definition of your conflict will result in bad analysis. It may appear “obvious” to you, but remember that even the obvious must be explained when doing social science work. You will most likely discover that the “obvious” is actually hard to explain, which is perhaps why we tend to assume its meaning. When examining any given conflict, you should be able to concisely complete the following statement: “In this case, the conflict is ….”

A checklist of steps to undertake for typology includes:

-Parties
-General Features
-Context
-Scale
-Newness
-Micro (interpersonal and/or local) and Macro (structural and/or global
Endogenous and Exogenous
Define the Conflict

 

When considering all of these typologies, you might find it useful to make a diagram or chart that represents all of these categories. Visualizing the data can help you to think holistically about the conflict.

Another useful typology exercise is to do conflict mapping. It can take many forms. One way is to do a conflict timeline, showing the key moments in the lifespan of the conflict. Start on the left end with the origins of the conflict and end on the right with its resolution. Between these points should be key moments in the conflict’s history, especially when the conflict shifts from latent to manifest, and from manifest to aggressive (if it does). These escalation points will most likely have moments of acceleration and slowdown, as well as climatic turning points. Mapping these out can help think through the dynamics of the case study as we move forward with conflict analysis. Another mapping method is to draw a flow chart that shows how the conflict came into being, how it grew, and what its resolution is or might be. The flow chart can contain similar items as the timeline, but ought to focus more on the parties then events.