<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/xsl/oai2.xslt"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
    <responseDate>2026-06-12UTC10:51:50Z</responseDate>
    <request verb="GetRecord" metadataPrefix="oai_datacite">/oai</request>
    
        <GetRecord>
                            <record>
                    <header>
    <identifier>opus4.bicc:13159</identifier>
    <datestamp>2017-07-24</datestamp>
    <setSpec>doc-type:BICC Working paper</setSpec>
    
</header>
                    <metadata>
    <oai_datacite xmlns="http://schema.datacite.org/oai/oai-1.1/" xsi:schemaLocation="http://schema.datacite.org/oai/oai-1.1/ http://schema.datacite.org/oai/oai-1.1/oai.xsd">
        <schemaVersion>2</schemaVersion>
        <datacentreSymbol>BL.ADS</datacentreSymbol>
        <payload>
            <resource xmlns="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-3 http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/metadata.xsd">
                
                <creators>
                    
                        <creator>
                            <creatorName>
                                Marc von Boemcken
                            </creatorName>
                        </creator>
                                    </creators>
                <titles>
                    <title>Defence conversion: Dead duck or still a relevant object of study?</title>
                                    </titles>
                <publisher>BICC</publisher>
                <publicationYear>2017</publicationYear>

                <resourceType resourceTypeGeneral="BICC Working paper">BICC Working paper</resourceType>
                <subjects>
                                                        </subjects>
                <language>/SystemData/Languages/English</language>
                                                <descriptions>
                    <description xml:lang="/SystemData/Languages/English" descriptionType="Abstract">In Working Paper 7\2017, the author Marc von Boemcken analyzes the evolution of Conversion Studies from the Cold War to the post-Cold War period and discusses some of the reasons for the demise of the discipline in the new millennium. Based on a consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of Conversion Studies in the past, he makes some suggestions on how conversion could inform a systematic field of academic inquiry in the 21st century.The propositions put forward to this end lean toward a comparatively conservative approach that pays close attention to the historical legacy of conversion as a concept. In sum, Conversion Studies should be a multi-disciplinary, critical and policy-relevant field of research that advocates social change based on analyses of political economies of violence, particularly in the affluent, industrialized and comparatively peaceful- societies of the Global North. At the same time, it ought to abandon its past reliance on a simple civil–military dichotomy and, instead, engage with the more complex issues raised by a focus on &#039;organized violence&#039;.&amp;nbsp;</description>
                                    </descriptions>
            </resource>
        </payload>
    </oai_datacite>
</metadata>
                </record>
                    </GetRecord>
    </OAI-PMH>
