Scholars in the field of peace and conflict studies have long worried that their discipline is divided – between studies of war and war making, and studies of peace and peacemaking. However, empirical research into the existence, extent, and nature of such a division is scarce. We remedy this by addressing two questions: 1) how is work in the field of peace and conflict studies distributed between its two nominal pillars: “peace” and (violent) “conflict”? and 2) to what extent is there communication and exchange between the two sets of studies? Making use of a unique combination of methods, we find that studies of violence hold a dominant position in the field, although there is also a sizable body of work that explores topics of peace, understood as conflict prevention and/or response. That said, we find limited evidence of intellectual exchange between studies of war/making and peace/making. We also find evidence of gendered, regional, and methodological divides. We argue that such schisms may be preventing scholars of peace and conflict from collectively realizing the founding ontological goal of their discipline, which was to understand the causes of war in order to contribute to an understanding of how conflict can be managed peacefully.

中文翻译：

---

分科？绘制和平与冲突研究

长期以来，和平与冲突研究领域的学者一直担心自己的学科存在分歧–在战争与战争研究以及和平与建立和平研究之间。但是，对这种划分的存在，程度和性质的实证研究很少。我们通过解决两个问题来对此进行补救：1）和平与冲突研究领域的工作如何在“和平”和（暴力）“冲突”这两个名义支柱之间分配？2）两组研究之间的交流和交流程度如何？利用独特的方法组合，我们发现暴力研究在该领域占据主导地位，尽管也有大量工作探讨和平主题，这被理解为预防和/或应对冲突。那就是 我们发现关于战争/制造与和平/制造之间的智力交流的证据有限。我们还发现性别，地区和方法上的鸿沟的证据。我们认为，这种分裂可能会阻止和平与冲突学者共同实现其学科的奠基性本体论目标，即了解战争起因，以便有助于人们理解如何和平解决冲突。