Mapping security- development: A question of methodology?

  • Stern M
  • O
  • Ojendal J
  • 1


    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • N/A


    Citations of this article.


The critical and considered response by Simon Reid-Henry (2011) reinforces our sense that the widespread attention being given to the 'security-development nexus' in the realm of policy warrants careful and critical scrutiny. Perhaps most significantly, Reid-Henry's review article draws attention to the need to engage in the difficult - and often overlooked - questions of methodology: how can we creatively study the different ways in which the 'nexus' is being practised, negotiated and resisted in distinct sites - and to what effect? His comments therefore add much to our collective (yet necessarily disparate) efforts to develop an array of creative methodologies for the study of the 'nexus'. Continuing the spirit of constructive critique, we engage with some of his main lines of argument. It is vital, we believe, to remember that there are many ways of exploring the politics of security-development, each requiring different road maps. Furthermore, as Veronique Pin-Fat reminds us, even the astute and committed pursuance of any given map may blind us to 'finding' what we are looking for.

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

There are no full text links


  • M Stern

  • O

  • J Ojendal

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free