Conflict data users have a broad range of public options that differ with respect to coverage, depth, usability, and content. This review considers a selection of publicly available datasets which purport to cover similar forms of conflict activity. We specifically compare the inclusion criteria, methodology, and sourcing of select sets. We include here: the Global Terrorism Database (GTD); the Integrated Crisis Early Warning System (ICEWS) dataset; the Phoenix event dataset; the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT); and the Uppsala Conflict Data Programme Georeferenced Event Dataset (UCDP GED). The intent of this comparison is to demonstrate how the collection mandates, coding rules, and sourcing methods can result in drastically different information on political violence and interpretations of conflict. The review contrasts these variations with the relative advantages of the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED).
© 2022 Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED). All rights reserved.
