A Tale of Two Audacities: A Response to Verweijen and van Meeteren

Abstract

In this essay, we respond to the critique [see Verweijen J. and van Meeteren M. (2014) Social network analysis and the de facto/de jure conundrum: the case of security alliances and the territorialization of state authority in the post-Cold War Great Lakes region, Territory, Politics, Governance 3(1), xx–xx] of a previous paper of ours published in this journal [Radil S. M. and Flint C. (2013) Exiles and arms: the territorial practices of state making and war diffusion in post-Cold War Africa, Territory, Politics, Governance 1(2), 183–202] that used social network analysis to examine regional patterns of conflict and cooperation in the Great Lakes region of Africa. In our response we address Verweijen and van Meeteren's specific critiques of our research methods and data and suggest that such critiques arise not from a concern about rigorous research methods but from different viewpoints within larger epistemological debates in social science. We discuss the contradictions embedded in their critiques, focusing on the implications of the current dominance of postmodern epistemology within the research communities relevant to our original paper.

Keywords:

• social network analysis
• epistemology
• postmodernism
• research methods

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Judith Verweijen and Michiel van Meeteren for their comments about our paper. We also thank the editors of Territory, Politics, Governance for the opportunity to respond.