We extracted around two million vowel tokens from a sample of sixty-four speakers (b. 1886–1965; 35M/29F; 16 African Americans/48 non-African Americans) across eight states in the American South in an NSF-funded project. We have validated automatic measurements with manual inspection of alignment samples and find that 87 percent of alignments are successful and another 6 percent are partially successful. This large body of tokens (big data) complements existing sociophonetic research by providing a more thorough, detailed picture of the phonetics of American English. We find that (1) there is a much wider range of realization for vowels than is typically represented, and (2) there is no central tendency for any vowel. Using spatial methods drawn from technical geography, we find that all distributions of tokens in vowel space are nonlinear. This suggests that traditional reliance on finding average acoustic properties of a vowel may be unrepresentative of what most speakers actually do. (3) Distributional patterns for vowels are fractal. When we break up the overall dataset into subgroups (e.g., male/female), the same nonlinear distributional pattern appears but with varying locations of highest density of tokens. These findings complement existing sociophonetic research and demonstrate methods by which variation can both be represented and analyzed.

Irregular war, like war, remains an enduring feature of security studies both as they relate to internal state security and sovereignty as well as to international relations. Irregular war may not always appear to hold political purposes; many today seem driven by religious ideology, but the institution of theocratic governance has a politics of its own. Thus, like regular war, irregular war is subordinate to a political purpose. Whether they occur on the periphery of regular wars or perform roles to keep state competition from escalating into conflict, irregular wars are often intricately tied to their regular counterparts. While two broad theories of counterinsurgency both claim to have prescriptions for winning an irregular fight, one – the good governance approach – is plagued by problems of implementation at the governmental level, and the other – coercion – entails unreasonable brutality against both insurgent and population, often unbefitting a liberal counterinsurgent force.

While the academic study of International Relations immediately following the World Wars was focused on the causes of war and the conditions of peace, the diversification of IR in the mid twentieth century led to the creation of a discrete subfield of security studies. For the remainder of the twentieth century, this subfield focused exclusively on the problem of war – conventional and nuclear – between nation-states. But the end of the Cold War and the proliferation of multiple, opaque, and transnational security risks opened an intellectual space within security studies for a re-envisioning of the analytical approaches to security, as well as to a widening of the agenda. Security was no longer linked exclusively to war but also to a wider range of issues, and security was no longer exclusively conceptualized as the continued existence of the state but applied also to a multitude of actors.

This chapter looks at how energy fits into our understanding of international security as part of the widening of the security agenda. First, we define exactly what energy security means. Then we look at what theories of international security predict around energy security before moving on to a case study of the Middle East as an energy supplier. The chapter rounds out with a look at how the great powers in today’s international system are approaching the energy challenge.

Rational choice theory is a social theory of decision-making that assumes individuals, groups, organizations, and states are strategic actors and thus make rational choices based on their preferences, available information, and the expected outcomes of their actions. The theory is based on the Enlightenment idea that individuals are autonomous and should seek their own self-interest, and that we can determine how an individual should behave by understanding how they might best maximize the utility of their decisions. Game theory is an approach within the rational choice framework that models mathematically the mutual best responses of each player according to their preference orderings.

The concept of human security was first introduced formally in the 1994 UNDP Report and signaled a significant shift of focus from state security to the security of individual human beings and human communities. Unlike the abstract and theoretical debates within academia around that time about deepening and widening the definition of security, the human security approach was born from within the policy world and was policy-oriented. In the thirty years since its introduction, human security has undergone a series of reformulations, come under serious criticism, and inspired significant policy initiatives and numerous debates. Nevertheless, it remains the most formidable contender against traditional state-centered thinking around national and international security. In this chapter, we will look at the emergence and evolution of the human security approach, its core components, and its relationship with other important notions such as human development and responsibility to protect.

Peace Science research is interested in understanding the causal relationships between independent and dependent variables. Based on prior knowledge or existing theories, they develop hypotheses about the strength and direction of impact of independent variables on dependent variables, whether they be arms races and war, economic stability and civil war, or democracy and peace. Quantitative methods provide researchers with a way of confirming or disconfirming these hypotheses.

Critical Security Studies (CSS) is a diverse and multidisciplinary field that approaches traditional security studies through a critical lens and examines the ways in which security discourses and practices reify and reinforce existing power relations and contribute to the marginalization, oppression, and precarity of various groups of people. CSS scholars ask whose security we center when we talk “Security,” and whose security we neglect or sacrifice, what issues are present/absent, who is afforded agency, and who appear only as voiceless victims. They examine the ways in which security and power are intertwined so that evoking security can generate power, enable various kinds of interventions, perpetuate relations of domination and subjugation, and reproduce social hierarchies. Many CSS scholars adopt an interpretivist methodology and normative approach to scientific knowledge; they are interested in analysis not just for the sake of it but for bringing about change to the status quo.