ABSTRACT
Despite the growing popularity of truth commissions, our understanding of their impact on post-conflict societies is limited by several factors. First, while the literature on truth commissions does provide several clues regarding their expected effects, most of the measures that have been suggested are difficult to define and observe empirically. These complications have made it easier for observers to rely on normative judgments. Second, seldom is a causal chain between truth commission and the outcome of interest carefully traced. Rather, correlations are often equated with causation. Moreover, studies rarely continue much beyond the release of the commission’s final report. Third, with some important exceptions, the transitional justice literature continues to be dominated by individual case studies. Because of this, it is possible for researchers to define concepts and measure variables in a way that is not necessarily comparable across cases. This is part of the reason why findings are so idiosyncratic. Comparative research, whether qualitative or quantitative, can help us determine whether cause-effect relationships are generalizable. In addition, comparative research can be effective in identifying the causal mechanisms involved. This dearth of comparative studies is due in part to the fact that, until recently, truth commissions have received relatively little attention from social scientists.
