Download View - MPG.PuRe

yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

out) and 1 (fully in). Such as scheme “is especially useful in situations where researchers have a
substantial amount of information about cases, but the nature of the evidence is not identical
across cases” (Ragin 2009: 90). It allows for capturing the diversity of social reality beyond 1-0
dichotomies, but does no contain too many values which would make proper calibration of
qualitative case studies unreliable (Ragin 2009). In the following section, information about the
qualitative anchors (full non-membership, full membership, cross-over point between
membership and non-membership) and the graded membership definitions used in the
calibration procedure are provided (Schneider/Wagemann 2012: 32, 277).
Violent escalation: A case is considered as completely non-violent (0) if no or hardly any
direct, physical violence was used and no fatalities are reported. If such violence was used
sporadically and unsystematically, but caused at least one fatality, the case is calibrated
with 0.33. The “point of maximum indifference” (Schneider/Wagemann 2012: 32) is
passed when violence was used frequently by at least one conflict party and caused several
fatalities, although the majority of conflict actions were still non-violent (0.67). If direct,
physical violence was used not only frequently, but also in a systematic manner by at least
one conflict party, the case is calibrated as fully violent (1).
External resource appropriation: A case is calibrated as being fully out of the set (0) when
no or hardly any external appropriation of the disputed renewable resource occurred. If
there was some external resource appropriation, but it only marginally influenced the
livelihood patterns and strategies of the groups in conflict, the case received a
membership score of 0.33. The degree of external resource appropriation and the
strength of its impact on local livelihoods are key factors determining the crossing of the
important 0.5 threshold. If a significant amount of the renewable resource was
appropriated by outsiders, in turn strongly influencing the livelihoods of the groups in
conflict, the case is considered as more out than in (0.67). Full membership (1) is assigned
if access of the groups to the renewable resource was severely restricted or completely
Negative othering: If no parties involved in the conflict over scarce renewable resources
perceived its opponent(s) as an existential threat or as vastly inferior, the membership
score for negative othering is set 0. If only a minority of the parties perceived its
opponent(s) in such a way, the case was calibrated as 0.33. The point of maximum
indifference is passed when the majority of the conflict parties share perceptions of
existential threat and/or strong inferiority (0.67). A case is considered as a full member of
the set of cases characterized by negative othering if all or the large majority of groups
perceived it’s Others as an existential threat or as vastly inferior.