‘Early
warning analysis is a messy business and, inevitably, the results will be
imperfect and understandably subject to questioning’ (Clarke 2005, 82)[1].
Matveeva (2006, 13)[2] suggests
that early warning systems can be distinguished by whether they adhere mainly
to a quantitative or a qualitative methodology. A study by Barton et al (2008,
2)[3] of
30 conflict prediction models points to a wide range of conflict early warning
methodologies, from qualitative assessment to complex regression and systems
dynamics analysis.
Early
warning methods developed around elections analyse both qualitative and
quantitative data. Decisions on which methodology to adopt might be influenced
by the availability of early warning tools and the capacity of implementing
organisation to utilise them effectively. Operational considerations include
conceptualisation of observable indicators and sources, as well as data
collection, analysis and presentation methods. This is also applicable to
electoral violence early warning efforts.
[1] Clarke, J.N. 2005, ‘Early Warning Analysis for Humanitarian
Preparedness and Conflict Prevention’. Civil Wars 7, no. 1:
71–97.
[2] Matveeva, A. 2006. ‘Early Warning and Early Response:
Conceptual and Empirical Dilemmas – The Global Partnership for the Prevention
of Armed Conflict’, Issue Paper 1. European Centre for Conflict
Prevention/International Secretariat of the Global Partnership for the Prevention
of Armed Conflict, The Hague.
[3] Barton, F., and K. von Hippel, with S. Squeira and M.
Irvine. 2008. ‘Early Warning? A Review of Conflict Prediction Models and
Systems’. PCR Project Special Briefing, Centre for Strategic and International
Studies, Washington, DC.
