Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is one of the world's most respected and long-standing independent think tanks dedicated to research on peace, conflict, arms control, disarmament, and global security. Since its founding in 1966, SIPRI has produced internationally regarded databases, annual yearbooks, policy reports, and analyses employed by policymakers, scholars, and civil society alike (SIPRI, n.d.-a). Over decades, SIPRI has both shaped and documented global militarization, arms transfer trends, conflict dynamics, and peacebuilding processes — including in regions with substantial Muslim populations such as the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

1. Identification & Metadata

Official name and acronym; founding, founders, legal status; headquarters; staff and budget estimates

• The institute's formal name is Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, commonly abbreviated SIPRI (SIPRI, n.d.-a).
• SIPRI was established in 1966 (SIPRI, n.d.-a; SIPRI, n.d.-b).
• The idea originated with Swedish Prime Minister Tage Erlander; a Swedish Royal Commission chaired by Alva Myrdal proposed founding the institute (SIPRI, 2021).
• The legal status is that of an independent foundation created by a decision of the Swedish Parliament (SIPRI, 2021).
• Headquarters: Signalistgatan 9, SE-169 72 Solna (Stockholm), Sweden (OnThinkTanks, 2025).
• As for size: SIPRI's organizational description refers to "the Governing Board and the Director, a Deputy Director, the Research Staff Collegium, and Support Staff, together numbering around 100 people" (SIPRI, n.d.-a).
• Though publicly accessible comprehensive budgets are limited, some sources have used SIPRI's published data to estimate a funding scale (e.g., for reporting purposes, but no recent publicly verified annual budget was located).

Governance

• As of 2025, the Chair of the Governing Board is Stefan Löfven (former Prime Minister of Sweden), and the Director is Dan Smith (Wikipedia, 2025; SIPRI, 2022).
• Other board members include internationally diverse figures such as Mohamed Ibn Chambas (Ghana), Chan Heng Chee (Singapore), Noha El‑Mikawy (Egypt), and Jean-Marie Guéhenno (France) (SIPRI, 2022).
• Over time, several researchers affiliated with SIPRI have moved into government, diplomacy, or international organization positions; because SIPRI is international and long-standing, a full list is not maintained in one centralized public record (SIPRI, n.d.-a).

2. Mission, Vision & Organisational Structure

Mission and Vision

• SIPRI's vision is "a world in which sources of insecurity are identified and understood, conflicts are prevented or resolved, and peace is sustained" (SIPRI, n.d.-a).
• Its mission includes undertaking research on security, conflict and peace; providing policy analysis and recommendations; facilitating dialogue and capacity building; promoting transparency and accountability; and delivering authoritative information to global audiences (SIPRI, n.d.-a).

Organizational structure

• SIPRI's organizational chart comprises: a Governing Board; a Director; a Deputy Director; a Research Staff Collegium; and Support Staff (SIPRI, n.d.-a).
• The Governing Board makes decisions about research agenda, institutional activities, organization and financial administration; the Director oversees programmes; and the Research Staff Collegium advises the Director on research matters (SIPRI, 2006).
• Additionally, SIPRI hosts guest researchers and interns and collaborates with external researchers and institutions on a global basis (SIPRI, n.d.-a).

Funding model

• A substantial part of SIPRI's funding comes from an annual grant from the Swedish Government, approved by the Swedish Parliament (SIPRI, n.d.-a).
• In addition, SIPRI raises funds from other organizations (public, philanthropic, private donors) to support specific research programmes or outputs (SIPRI, n.d.-a).
• This dual funding model (core grant + additional donors) is frequently cited in SIPRI's official documentation (SIPRI, 2006).

3. Thematic & Methodological Profile

Primary research areas and recurring topics

• SIPRI's research programmes are organized under three major themes: Armament and Disarmament; Conflict, Peace and Security; and Peace and Development (Wikipedia, 2025).
• Within these, the institute studies arms and military expenditure, dual-use and arms trade control, emerging military and security technologies, non-proliferation, conflict management, peace operations, regional security, governance, and issues such as climate change's impact on peace — among others (Wikipedia, 2025).
• Regions of focus include global coverage, and for Muslim-majority regions, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) programme specifically examines political, social, economic, and environmental drivers of conflict, as well as pathways to peacebuilding and stability (SIPRI, n.d.-a).

Typical research methods

• SIPRI's research is based primarily on open sources — publicly disclosed government data, national defence reports, media reports, trade registries, press releases — rather than classified or confidential material (SIPRI, n.d.-a).
• The institute maintains structured databases (e.g., Arms Transfers Database; Military Expenditure Database; Multilateral Peace Operations Database), allowing quantitative and longitudinal analysis (Wikipedia, 2025).
• Accordingly, SIPRI's publications frequently employ statistical analyses, trend analyses, comparisons across regions and over time, and policy analysis. For example, its Trends in International Arms Transfers reports present global and regional arms flows using numerical data aggregated from open sources (SIPRI, 2025).
• For conflict and peace studies (especially in MENA), SIPRI uses case studies, conflict event data, open-source geopolitics, and media sources to triangulate findings; explicit mention of qualitative interviews or fieldwork is rare in its publicly available methodology descriptions (SIPRI, n.d.-a).

Peer review / editorial processes and publication outlets

• SIPRI publishes a variety of outputs: annual SIPRI Yearbook, fact sheets, backgrounders, working papers, policy briefs, occasional monographs — disseminated via its own site and external academic publishers (e.g., Oxford University Press) (Wikipedia, 2025; SIPRI, 2006).
• While not all outputs are peer-reviewed in the traditional sense of academic journals, its internal editorial and review processes aim to ensure quality, and its long-standing reputation grants many of its outputs high authority in academic and policy communities (SIPRI, 2006).
• Its databases and many reports are publicly accessible, providing transparency and enabling external researchers to reuse data under SIPRI's terms of use (Wikipedia, 2025).

4. Publication & Output Review (on Islamic / Muslim contexts / MENA) — Selected Representative Outputs

Because SIPRI does not typically produce "Islamic-studies" publications per se, the following selected works focus on security, arms, and conflict in Muslim-majority regions (particularly MENA), which reflect how SIPRI's thematic scope engages with Muslim affairs indirectly via security, conflict, and arms transfer lenses.

Recent trends in international arms transfers in the Middle East and North Africa — Zain Hussain & Dr. Alaa Tartir (10 April 2025)

• • Summary: Analyzes arms-transfer data for 2020–24, focusing on MENA: shows MENA accounted for over 27% of global major arms imports in this period; identifies top importers and evolving patterns (SIPRI, 2025).
  • Methodology: Quantitative analysis using SIPRI's own Arms Transfers Database; descriptive statistics; regional aggregation.
  • Main Claims: MENA remains a major destination for global arms exports; changing supplier distribution; regional security dynamics (e.g., Gulf arms race, regional conflicts) drive arms flows.
  • Peer-reviewed?: No — it is a SIPRI "backgrounder" commentary, not a peer-reviewed journal article.
  • Data access: Yes — report is publicly available; underlying data are from SIPRI's open Arms Transfers Database (SIPRI, 2025).

Arms transfer and SALW controls in the Middle East and North Africa: Challenges and state play (1 Nov 2022)

• • Summary: Addresses small arms and light weapons (SALW) proliferation in MENA; analyzes weaknesses in arms-control regimes, risk of diversion, and impact on human security (SIPRI, 2022).
  • Methodology: Open-source data review: national reports, NGO reports, media accounts, and SIPRI trade data; legal/policy analysis.
  • Main Claims: Arms influx to MENA remains substantial; SALW control frameworks are often weak; uncontrolled arms contribute to instability, human insecurity, and conflict escalation.
  • Peer-reviewed?: No — SIPRI policy report / backgrounder.
  • Data access: Yes — publicly accessible online.

Armed conflict and peace processes in the Middle East and North Africa — Chapter in SIPRI Yearbook (e.g., 2022 edition)

• • Summary: Surveys ongoing conflicts in MENA, peace processes, emerging threats (missiles, UAVs), humanitarian and humanitarian-security aspects, and prospects for peace and disarmament (SIPRI, 2022).
  • Methodology: Mixed-method: open-source conflict data, case-study approach, analysis of UN or NGO reports, media, regional expert commentary.
  • Main Claims: Armed conflicts in MENA remain persistent; weapons proliferation, regional rivalries, and external interventions exacerbate instability; calls for arms control, transparency, and multilateral peace efforts.
  • Peer-reviewed?: Yearbook chapters are internally reviewed; while not traditional peer-reviewed, they are considered authoritative in policy and academic circles (SIPRI, 2006).
  • Data access: Yes — Yearbook published (e.g., via Oxford University Press), with summaries and data often available online.

Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2024 (SIPRI, March 2025)

• • Summary: Global arms-transfer report with regional breakdowns, including MENA; analyzes major conventional weapons' deliveries, supplier-importer patterns, weapon categories, and year-on-year changes (SIPRI, 2025).
  • Methodology: Quantitative analysis using SIPRI's Arms Transfers Database; data visualization; trend analysis; comparative assessment.
  • Main Claims: Documents continuing militarization in many regions, including Muslim-majority states; changes in global supply chains and weapon types; arms trade remains a central factor in international security dynamics.
  • Peer-reviewed?: Official SIPRI report; not a peer-reviewed journal article.
  • Data access: Yes — publicly downloadable; underlying data are accessible.

Towards a Regional Security Regime for the Middle East — SIPRI Middle East Expert Group (report, 2009)

• • Summary: Policy-oriented report discussing prospects for a regional security regime in the Middle East: arms control, confidence-building measures, regional governance, and possible institutional frameworks (SIPRI, 2009).
  • Methodology: Expert group deliberation; open-source data review; normative and policy analysis.
  • Main Claims: Proposes feasibility of a Middle East regional security regime despite deep political divisions; outlines institutional, political and confidence-building steps needed; argues for transparency and cooperative security.
  • Peer-reviewed?: SIPRI policy report ("expert group output"), not academic journal article.
  • Data access: Yes — PDF available on institutional repositories.

Comment on peer review / transparency: Though not all outputs are published in peer-reviewed academic journals, SIPRI's editorial process, longstanding reputation, and open-source data model ensure that its outputs are widely accepted by academics, policymakers, and media as authoritative (SIPRI, 2006).

5. Policy Impact & Government Use

SIPRI's influence extends beyond academia into policymaking, governmental decision-making, and international diplomacy. Several documented cases illustrate this impact:

• In 2022, the Swedish Government renewed its core grant to SIPRI via the Swedish Parliament, acknowledging SIPRI's role in "policy-related research, analysis, data, dialogue and partnerships to promote peace, security, and development" (SIPRI, n.d.-a).
• SIPRI's arms-transfer and military expenditure databases are widely referenced by governments, parliaments, and international organizations when assessing compliance with arms control treaties, arms embargoes, and defense-budget transparency. Indeed, SIPRI's data are often the baseline statistics in national and multilateral reports (SIPRI, n.d.-a; Wikipedia, 2025).
• The institute regularly hosts government delegations, parliamentarians, diplomats, and researchers; it also cooperates with intergovernmental entities like the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU), contributing to policy dialogues, briefings, and capacity-building efforts (SIPRI, n.d.-a).
• SIPRI's backgrounders and commentaries are often translated into multiple languages — for instance, Arabic — indicating an intent to reach stakeholders in Muslim-majority regions, thereby influencing public debate, civil society, and possibly policy environments in those regions (SIPRI, n.d.-a).

Because SIPRI does not publish a systematic "impact log," tracing direct causality (e.g., "SIPRI report → new law") is difficult; yet the patterns of funding, data usage, cooperation, and dissemination provide a plausible indication of significant policy impact over time.

6. Stakeholder Engagement & Fieldwork Ethics

SIPRI publicly emphasizes global cooperation, open-source research, and transparency (SIPRI, n.d.-a). However, with respect to engagement with Muslim communities, religious scholars, or local civil society groups in MENA, publicly documented evidence is limited.

The MENA programme is described as including "local peacebuilding and everyday dynamics," which suggests an interest in community-level dynamics and possibly local actors (SIPRI, n.d.-a).

Yet, SIPRI's publicly available methodology descriptions emphasize secondary data analysis over field-based qualitative research. I did not find publicly accessible detailed methodological annexes or ethics statements (e.g., informed consent protocols, IRB-style reviews, data protection procedures) for studies involving human subjects or local communities.

Because SIPRI mainly draws on open-source national and regional data, trade registries, conflict event databases, and media reports, rather than interviews or ethnographic fieldwork, the typical ethical concerns associated with direct human-subjects research (consent, anonymity, researcher safety) are largely avoided.

The trade-off, however, is that SIPRI's MENA-related work may reflect macro-level security, arms, and conflict trends while lacking bottom-up or grassroots perspectives (e.g., religious identity, community-level grievances, social cohesion, intra-Muslim dynamics).

I found no documented controversies regarding ethical violations, community backlash, or inappropriate fieldwork practices in SIPRI's publicly accessible records. However, given the lack of human-subject research disclosed, this may reflect the institutional model rather than necessarily stakeholder engagement.

7. Funding & Conflict of Interest Analysis

Known major funders and funding patterns

As noted, SIPRI receives a core grant from the Swedish Government annually (SIPRI, n.d.-a).

The institute also raises funds from other public and philanthropic donors, under oversight by Swedish charitable institutions ("90-account" status) (SIPRI, 2006; SIPRI, n.d.-a).

The fact that SIPRI is legally an independent foundation suggests structural separation from direct government control (SIPRI History, n.d.).

Potential conflicts of interest

Given SIPRI's thematic focus on arms, military expenditure, disarmament, and conflict — and given that many of its clients/users are governments or international institutions — there is an inherent risk that certain donors or funders (especially states, defense-industry–adjacent entities, or security-interested stakeholders) could influence research priorities or framing.

The lack of a fully public, up-to-date "donor registry" listing all private, corporate, or philanthropic donors limits the ability of external scholars or readers to evaluate potential biases.

Transparency score (qualitative judgment)

Strengths: SIPRI's open-source data, public funding from its home government, official documentation of structure and statutes, regular annual reviews.

Weaknesses: Lack of complete public disclosure of all donors; limited detailed breakdown of funding sources by project for private/ non-public donors; no clear public policy about how donor interests are managed or disclosed.

On a rough scale (0 = opaque, 10 = fully transparent), SIPRI might be assessed at ≈ 7/10: relatively transparent institutionally and data-wise, but limited in full donor-disclosure and conflict-of-interest reporting for all funding sources.

8. Editorial Independence & Governance Scrutiny

Board independence and appointment processes

SIPRI's Governing Board is composed of internationally diverse figures from different countries and backgrounds, including former government and UN officials, diplomats, and independent experts (SIPRI, 2022).

The appointment process: the Chair of the Board is formally appointed by the Swedish Government, based on nomination from SIPRI's internal bodies (Governing Board, Research Staff Collegium, staff unions), for up to two consecutive five-year terms (SIPRI, 2022).

SIPRI's statutes explicitly note that the Board and the Scientific Council are not responsible for the views expressed in SIPRI publications — which helps safeguard research independence (SIPRI Yearbook 1968–69).

External review and publication independence

SIPRI's outputs undergo internal review and editorial oversight. While the majority of its reports are not published in peer-reviewed academic journals, the institute maintains a long history of quality and rigor; its Yearbook, data, and analyses are widely cited in academic and policy literature (SIPRI, 2006).

There is no publicly available record of retractions or formal external censorship. Instead, SIPRI emphasizes transparency, open data, and adherence to its Statutes and Whistleblower Policy to ensure integrity (SIPRI, n.d.-a).

Given its mixed funding model (public core funding + external donors) and an internationally composed Governing Board, structural bias is somewhat mitigated — though as noted earlier, the absence of full donor transparency remains a limitation for external accountability.

9. Academic Critique

Below is a critical, evidence-based evaluation of SIPRI's strengths and limitations — especially pertinent for scholars and policymakers interested in Muslim-majority contexts (MENA) and Islamic affairs.

Epistemic Rigor

Strengths: SIPRI's methodological choice of open-source data, coupled with consistent and systematic data collection (e.g., arms transfers, military expenditure, conflict events) provides a transparent and replicable basis for quantitative research. Its long-term datasets enable longitudinal, comparative studies with a degree of reliability. Reports such as Trends in International Arms Transfers demonstrate methodological consistency and offer current data on critical global security issues (SIPRI, 2025).

Limitations: Because SIPRI draws exclusively on publicly available sources, its data necessarily reflect only what is disclosed — often by governments, official registries, or media. In contexts where arms transfers, weapons trade, or conflict dynamics are covert (e.g., black-market arms, non-state actors, clandestine supply chains), SIPRI's data may under-report or miss these dynamics altogether, limiting accuracy especially in authoritarian or fragile states.

Also, for social, cultural, religious, or identity-based dimensions of conflict — e.g., sectarian tensions, intra-Muslim relations, religiously motivated violence — SIPRI's open-source and macro-data emphasis is insufficient. Its methodological toolkit lacks systematic qualitative social research (e.g., interviews, ethnography, participatory methods), which limits depth of insight into local-level, community-driven, or religiously mediated phenomena.

Normative Framing

SIPRI's institutional framing centers on "security, peace, disarmament, transparency" — implicitly assuming that militarization and lack of transparency are the key drivers of insecurity, and that arms control, data transparency, and state-level policy are the main paths to peace. This is a defensible but somewhat "state-centric and arms-control centric" worldview.

In MENA-related analyses, SIPRI typically frames conflict as a function of arms flows, state rivalry, and external interventions — focusing on geopolitical and strategic variables (supply chains, import/export, military expenditure), while giving comparatively less attention to socio-cultural, religious, identity, and grassroots factors (poverty, civil society, sectarian identity, human-rights abuses, social justice). This reflects an institutional bias toward macro-security analysis rather than bottom-up peacebuilding or normative justice frameworks.

Bias & Positionality

Given that SIPRI is based in Sweden, receives government funding, and is governed by a board appointed in part by the Swedish Government, its institutional position is rooted in a European liberal-democratic, secular, policy-oriented tradition. This may influence topic selection, framing, and methodological choices — privileging issues of arms trade, disarmament, and state-level security over community-level, culturally rooted, or religiously mediated conflict dimensions.

The composition of the Governing Board (diverse, international) and separation between Board and research outputs helps mitigate direct national or governmental bias — but structural positionality remains: SIPRI's vantage remains that of an international, Western-based security institution, not a local, grassroots, or religiously embedded actor.

Policy Relevance vs. Academic Rigor

SIPRI often trades deep qualitative insight for broad coverage and timely policy relevance. Its strength lies in producing up-to-date, globally comparable data sets and analyses; this makes it highly policy-relevant, useful for governments, media, NGOs, and international organizations.

However, this policy relevance often comes at the cost of academic depth when it comes to local dynamics, cultural context, identity, and normative issues. For academic researchers seeking to understand the social, religious, and human dimensions of conflict — especially in Muslim-majority areas — SIPRI's outputs must be complemented by qualitative, field-based, or community-level research.

Ethical Considerations

Because SIPRI does not generally conduct primary fieldwork involving human subjects, many typical ethical issues (informed consent, confidentiality, participant safety) are avoided. Its reliance on open sources and public data reduces risk of causing harm to individuals or communities through research exposure.

The downside is that lived experiences of conflict, religious motivations, social grievances, and grassroots perspectives tend to be invisible in SIPRI's data, which favors state-level and macro-level phenomena. This may inadvertently silence marginalized voices or structural injustices, or oversimplify complex social realities.

Contribution to Knowledge & Gaps

Contributions: SIPRI's long-standing, systematic, and publicly accessible databases on arms transfers, military expenditure, conflict events, and peace operations constitute a globally unique resource. Scholars, policymakers, and journalists rely on these data to analyze trends, craft policy, and monitor compliance with treaties. Its regional analyses (e.g., MENA conflict reports) provide essential macro-level situational awareness for peace and security in Muslim-majority contexts.

Gaps: There is a significant under-representation of qualitative, bottom-up, identity-sensitive, social and religious analyses. For Muslim-majority societies, conflict and peace are often rooted in complex interplays of religion, identity, history, social grievances, governance deficits, and non-state actors — dimensions that SIPRI's data-driven and state-centric model is ill-equipped to fully capture.

10. Controversies, Criticisms & Responses

A review of publicly available sources reveals no major public controversy leveled against SIPRI in terms of research ethics, data manipulation, or institutional scandal. On the contrary, SIPRI is widely regarded as a credible, impartial, and authoritative source of data and analysis (OnThinkTanks, 2025). Its commitment to open data, transparent governance, and a whistleblower policy supports institutional integrity (SIPRI, n.d.-a).

Nevertheless, there are potential areas of critique, even if not formally publicized:

Underrepresentation of local voices: The relative absence of community-level qualitative research — especially in Muslim-majority regions — may be criticized by scholars advocating for post-colonial, grassroots, or locally grounded approaches. State-centrism and security bias: By focusing on arms, militarization, state security, and weapons flows, SIPRI may reinforce a militarized concept of peace, underplaying non-military dimensions such as human rights, social justice, religious reconciliation, and civil society agency. Limited transparency of non-public donors: While core funding from the Swedish Government is disclosed, private, philanthropic, or corporate donors are not always publicly listed — which may raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest, especially in sensitive topics like arms trade or defense policy. Because SIPRI does not appear to have a formal public record of responses to such criticisms, there is no evidence of retractions, policy changes, or institutional reform prompted by critique.

11. Comparative Positioning

To situate SIPRI among peer organizations, consider two comparable think tanks:

Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) — PRIO combines quantitative conflict data with qualitative social-scientific research, including sociological, political, and grassroots dimensions of conflict (identity, governance, civilian harm). Compared to SIPRI, PRIO tends to offer deeper socio-political and normative analyses, especially relevant to human security, human rights, and local communities. While SIPRI excels in systematic arms and security data, PRIO's strength lies in socio-political theory, identity-sensitive conflict analysis, and ethnographic depth.

Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) — GCSP is more practitioner- and policy-oriented, with strong emphasis on capacity-building, training, diplomatic engagement, and mediation. Compared to SIPRI, GCSP is less data-intensive but more applied; its strength is in bridging academic research and real-world diplomacy and conflict resolution. For policymakers, SIPRI offers data and macro-analysis; GCSP offers applied diplomacy and mediation training.

Thus: in methodology, SIPRI stands out among peers for its comprehensive arms and security datasets; in influence, it remains one of the most respected global think tanks; in transparency, its open-source model is among the strongest — though limitations remain; in thematic reach, it is broad, though depth in cultural, religious, or grassroots issues is comparatively limited.

12. Recommendations (for Researchers & Policymakers)

Based on this review, here are recommendations for both researchers using SIPRI and policymakers commissioning or relying on its work:

For researchers: Use SIPRI data (e.g., arms transfers, military expenditure, conflict events) as a reliable quantitative baseline — but complement with qualitative, context-sensitive research (e.g., fieldwork, interviews, case studies) especially in regions like MENA where identity, religion, and local dynamics are critical. For SIPRI: Increase transparency by publishing a full donor list (including private, corporate, philanthropic sources) and project-level funding breakdowns. This would strengthen credibility, especially for sensitive topics (e.g., arms trade, defense policies). For SIPRI: When conducting regional research (e.g., on MENA), integrate more social-scientific, human-rights, community-based, and culturally aware approaches — possibly by partnering with local scholars, NGOs, religious or civil society actors — to capture lived realities beyond state-level metrics. For policymakers: Use SIPRI's outputs as authoritative baseline data for strategy, monitoring, and transparency — but supplement with locally grounded research before designing policy that impacts communities, especially in Muslim-majority contexts where religion, identity, and social grievances matter. For funders and donors: Encourage SIPRI to maintain its open-data and transparency model, but also support expansion of field-based social research — to deepen understanding of civil society, identity, religion, and local peacebuilding, which cannot be captured solely via macro-data or state-level analysis.

Conclusion

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute stands as a pillar of global peace and security scholarship. Its long history, methodological consistency, publicly accessible data, and reputation for impartiality make it a unique and indispensable resource for scholars, policymakers, and civil society worldwide. Through its databases, yearbooks, regional analyses, and policy-oriented backgrounders — especially its work on the Middle East and North Africa — SIPRI offers a foundation for understanding global militarization, arms transfers, conflict dynamics, and peace prospects.

Yet this strength — an emphasis on arms data, state-level security, and open-source quantitative analysis — also reveals SIPRI's limitations: a relative dearth of qualitative, bottom-up, socio-cultural, or religiously informed research; limited methodological transparency for any field-based engagements; and partial donor disclosure. For scholarship or policymaking that seeks to engage with the lived realities of Muslim-majority societies, sectarian dynamics, or identity-driven conflict, SIPRI must be complemented by other research traditions — anthropological, sociological, normative, and community-based.

In sum: SIPRI's contribution to knowledge and policy is substantial and enduring — but for a holistic understanding of conflict and peace in Muslim contexts (or any local context), its data and analyses should be integrated with more context-sensitive, locally grounded research.