Search

The complex nature of civil conflict makes it inherently difficult to study, which is exacerbated by the challenges of conducting field research in volatile conflict zones. How do these challenges affect the data gathered and inferences drawn about armed groups? This article examines the epistemological, practical, and ethical issues of researching armed organisations across varying power relations, space, and time. We highlight the divergent perspectives that emerge within armed group hierarchies, the varying realities across conflict geographies, and shifts in armed group trajectories and narratives that arise over time. Based on research in Africa and Latin America, we identify the pitfalls of capturing isolated 'snapshots' related to with whom, where, and when research was conducted, and we advocate for a 'panoramic' approach to the study of armed groups, recognising both limits to available data and the evolving nature of armed groups and their behaviour. Ultimately, we offer a conceptual roadmap for understanding the main axes along which variation in armed group organisation and behaviour unfolds, provide recommendations on how to navigate them, and call for caution in the generalisation of research findings and policy prescriptions, given the limitations and liminal nature of knowledge about armed groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

State violence against protests often backfires, spurring greater mobilization and demands for police reform. Yet major reforms rarely materialize. How can activists frame contentious events to build support for their policy goals? We examine whether historical frames that draw parallels between past and present episodes of state violence make people more likely to support police reforms. We test our theory with a survey experiment in Chile 15 months after security forces cracked down on protesters in 2019, randomizing whether text and visual primes about recent repression were juxtaposed against primes about repression under Chile's 1973–90 military dictatorship. We found that left-leaning and older respondents who experienced the dictatorship firsthand were more responsive to historical frames than right-leaning and younger respondents. Results suggest that historical framing can boost support for police reform but must be carefully targeted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In civil wars, unpopular and violent rebel organizations sometimes gain support from politically motivated constituencies who should, by outside appearances, logically oppose such groups. I explain this through a logic in which self-interested, insincere rebel leaders pander to aggrieved civilian populations to mobilize them, presenting the rebel organization as empathizing with and offering solutions to popular grievances. Leaders exploit an information asymmetry about their true preferences to gain allegiance using cheap sociopolitical appeals, rather than more costly material incentives or coercion. I inductively develop the theory through a case study of Renamo in Mozambique and then probe the generalizability of the logic through case studies of the Nicaraguan Fuerza Democrática Nicaragüense and the National Patriotic Front of Liberia, drawing on interviews and archival materials. This article explicates a previously undertheorized phenomenon in the study of rebel mobilization and demonstrates how apparent popular, voluntary support for rebels can be more tenuous than it appears. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After Nicaragua's fraudulent 2016 elections, President Daniel Ortega and Vice-President and First Lady Rosario Murillo appeared firmly in control, buoyed by economic growth and elite alliances. When protests unexpectedly erupted in 2018, Ortega and Murillo chose deepening repression, using police, paramilitaries, and the judiciary to crush dissent and extinguish political freedoms. Nicaragua's 2021 elections took place with all opposition contenders jailed, alongside dozens of other political prisoners. Domestic and international actors had for years failed to unify and take action as Ortega's authoritarian ambitions became clear. The Nicaraguan case underscores the need for early, coordinated efforts to defend democracy from would-be authoritarians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers studying conflict, violence, and human rights in dangerous settings across the globe face a complex set of ethical, personal, and professional dilemmas. Especially in more positivist fields and professions, there is pressure to conduct and present research as 'objective'. Yet the reality of field research in violent and conflict-affected settings is much messier than ideals in methodology textbooks or the polished presentation of field data in much published work. I argue that rather than the imposition of blanket positivist standards of replicability and research transparency, research in violent settings needs to draw lessons from interpretivist ideas and methodologies about the researcher's role in the process of data gathering, analysis, and presentation. I focus on three key issues: reflexivity, temporality, and the geography of research between 'field' and 'home,' drawing on personal experiences conducting research on conflict, violence, and postconflict society in Liberia, Nicaragua, South Africa, and Uganda. I show how these three issues practically, theoretically, and ethically conflict with replicability and transparency demands. Through a practice of reflexive openness, however, positivist-leaning researchers can more honestly and ethically reconcile realities of research with professional expectations in the field and after returning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ARRAY(0x55f4e9871c80) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the reelection of Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega in the November 2016 elections for a third consecutive term, the rise of a new authoritarian dynasty and challenges of restoring democracy in the country.

The study of political and social violence and conflict has expanded in recent decades, concurrent with a rise in the use of mixed methods research (MMR) throughout the social sciences. This article examines how methods are best integrated in studies of violence and conflict, critically reviewing examples from previous prominent works and suggesting directions for future research. I explore the benefits of MMR for understanding structures, agency, and processes related to violence and conflict, and the opportunity MMR offers to influence a broader academic and policy audience. MMR can improve the accordance of theories and empirical studies with the complexities of social reality and enhance understanding of the causes, consequences, and potential remedies of violence and conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]