What strategies can be employed to conceptualize peace? In recent years, scholars have introduced an impressive array of “peace with adjectives” in order to make sense of some of the normative and empirical underpinnings of peace. Negative, positive, everyday, virtual, illiberal, partial, insecure, relational, emancipatory, agonistic, and feminist are some of the qualifiers that have been associated with the concept. While the growing attention to conceptualization is a welcomed development, we argue that the proliferation of new terms has led to increased fragmentation in the field of peace studies. Conceptual fragmentation impedes cumulative knowledge production and generates missed opportunities for fruitful discussions across theoretical and conceptual divides. In this article, we aim to provide more clarity to our field by mapping existing peace conceptualizations and identifying the strategies employed by scholars to construct innovative new terms. In our review, we identify 61 concepts and suggest that these conceptual innovations in peace research belong to one of three analytical strategies: developing diminished subtypes, conceptual narrowing, and conceptual expansion. Building on this categorization, we make recommendations for how peace researchers can enhance clarity and deepen constructive discussions between different conceptual approaches.

中文翻译：

---

与形容词和平相处：概念碎片化还是概念创新？

可以采用什么策略来概念化和平？近年来，学者们引入了一系列令人印象深刻的“和平形容词”，以便理解和平的一些规范和经验基础。消极的、积极的、日常的、虚拟的、非自由的、部分的、不安全的、关系性的、解放性的、竞争性的和女权主义是与这个概念相关的一些限定词。虽然对概念化的日益关注是一个值得欢迎的发展，但我们认为新术语的扩散导致和平研究领域的碎片化加剧。概念碎片化阻碍了累积的知识生产，并导致错失跨理论和概念分歧进行富有成效的讨论的机会。在本文中，我们的目标是通过绘制现有的和平概念并确定学者们构建创新新术语所采用的策略，使我们的领域更加清晰。在我们的综述中，我们确定了 61 个概念，并建议和平研究中的这些概念创新属于三种分析策略之一：开发减少的亚型、概念缩小和概念扩展。在此分类的基础上，我们就和平研究人员如何提高清晰度并加深不同概念方法之间的建设性讨论提出建议。