Peter Krause
Boston College, Political Science, Faculty Member
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Security Studies Program, Department Memberadd
- Political Science, International Relations, Comparative Politics, Middle East Studies, International Security, Political Violence and Terrorism, and 32 moreInsurgency/Counterinsurgency(COIN), Israel/Palestine, Palestine, International Relations of the Middle East, Palestinian national movement, Social Movements, Middle East Politics, Ethnicity and National Identity, Syria, Lebanon, Nationalism, National Identity, Terrorism, Algeria, Northern Ireland and the Troubles, Ireland, Political Violence, Nonviolence, Organizational Effectiveness, Territory, Ethnic Conflict and Civil War, al-Qaeda, National and Social Movements, Terrorism and Counterterrorism, Peace and Conflict Studies, Organizational Behavior, Coercion, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Violence, Effectiveness, International Studies, and Islamic Stateedit
- I am an Associate Professor of political science at Boston College and a Research Affiliate with the MIT Security Stu... moreI am an Associate Professor of political science at Boston College and a Research Affiliate with the MIT Security Studies Program. I am the author of "Rebel Power: Why National Movements Compete, Fight, and Win" (Cornell University Press, 2017), co-editor with Kelly Greenhill of "Coercion: The Power to Hurt in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2018), and co-editor with Ora Szekely of "Stories from the Field: An Unorthodox Guide to Fieldwork" (New York: Columbia University Press, 2020). My research focuses on Middle East politics, terrorism and political violence, and nationalism and revolution. My current book project analyzes which rebel groups take power 'the day after' regime change.
I was formerly a Research Fellow at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies of Brandeis University, as well as a Research Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of the Harvard Kennedy School. I have a Ph.D. in political science from MIT and a B.A. in political science and history from Williams College.edit
On January 3, 2023, Itamar Ben Gvir strolled up the Mughrabi Bridge, through the gate, and into the most contested sacred site in the world, the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem. Observers are correct to point out the... more
On January 3, 2023, Itamar Ben Gvir strolled up the Mughrabi Bridge, through the gate, and into the most contested sacred site in the world, the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem. Observers are correct to point out the inflammatory potential of the Israeli National Security Minister's actions, especially given the recent clashes in and around Al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as the ongoing, unprecedented civil unrest in Israel over the government’s attempted judicial reform. But most are unaware both of the small but significant changes on the ground that predate Ben Gvir’s ascension—and of the major differences of opinion regarding Jerusalem’s holy sites within the governing coalition of which he is a part. To begin with, the “status quo” that the UN, the U.S., and Arab states want the Israelis and Palestinians to maintain is neither unitary nor invariable: It has informal and formal dimensions that have been continually challenged and occasionally altered in recent decades. And because of the “status quo” bias that surrounds the site, dynamic attempts to rapidly and formally change access protocols, prayer restrictions, or the site’s physical infrastructure have often been reversed. It is the incrementalism of small, informal actions by activist individuals and organizations that has slowly altered the informal status quo, without governments formally acknowledging any changes.
This Brief will explain why the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif is such a sacred and important site; the recent history of both incrementalist and dynamic challenges to the status quo that has heretofore defined the site; how the factions in Israel’s current governing coalition perceive the situation; and what new developments involving the site mean for the stability of Israel’s government and its relations with the Palestinians, with Arab states, and with the U.S.
This Brief will explain why the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif is such a sacred and important site; the recent history of both incrementalist and dynamic challenges to the status quo that has heretofore defined the site; how the factions in Israel’s current governing coalition perceive the situation; and what new developments involving the site mean for the stability of Israel’s government and its relations with the Palestinians, with Arab states, and with the U.S.
Research Interests:
This reflection article presents insights on conducting fieldwork during and after COVID-19 from a diverse collection of political scientists-from department heads to graduate students based at public and private universities in the... more
This reflection article presents insights on conducting fieldwork during and after COVID-19 from a diverse collection of political scientists-from department heads to graduate students based at public and private universities in the United States and abroad. Many of them contributed to a newly published volume, Stories from the Field: A Guide to Navigating Fieldwork in Political Science (Krause and Szekely 2020). As in the book, these contributors draw on their years of experience in the field to identify the unique ethical and logistical challenges posed by COVID-19 and offer suggestions for how to adjust and continue research in the face of the pandemic's disruptions. Key themes include how contingency planning must now be a central part of our research designs; how cyberspace has increasingly become "the field" for the time being; and how scholars can build lasting, mutually beneficial partnerships with "field citizens," now and in the future.
Research Interests:
The majority of states in the world today were created via secession, but a majority of secessionist movements have failed to gain independence. Counter-secession is not only more successful than secession; it is also more common. There... more
The majority of states in the world today were created via secession, but a majority of secessionist movements have failed to gain independence. Counter-secession is not only more successful than secession; it is also more common. There are over 300 nations today that lack sovereign states, as well as untold thousands more groups whose identities never became nationalist or who were never able to create robust movements in the first place. Nonetheless, counter- secession is comparatively understudied, and a small but growing number of excellent analyses often focus on a single state strategy. Independence is rarely won quickly or cheaply, as existing states fight to maintain their borders across four phases of secession: identity formation, group mobilization, (un)armed struggle and international recognition. This article presents the repertoire of states' counter- secession strategies throughout the secessionist struggle, including cultural assimilation, administrative organization, civilian displacement, banning secessionist political activity, fragmenting the secessionist movement, economic coercion, violent repression and blocking international recognition. This collective analysis of the causal logic and illustrative historical examples of state counter-secession strategies lays the foundation for a more comprehensive research program on counter-secession across time and space.
Research Interests:
Although only 23 people on average have been killed per year by terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001, American citizens and politicians consistently rank terrorism as a top security threat, leading to costly wars abroad and... more
Although only 23 people on average have been killed per year by terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001, American citizens and politicians consistently rank terrorism as a top security threat, leading to costly wars abroad and the repression of civil liberties at home. To what extent can education about terrorism alter perceptions of the threat? Much existing scholarship-and consistent polling over the past two decades-suggests that it cannot, but we disagree. Evidence gathered from an extensive series of experimental and observational surveys involving students in 31 terrorism and non-terrorism related courses at 12 universities-including massive open online courses (MOOC) and online surveys-reveals that the more individuals learn about terrorism, the smaller they perceive the threat to be to themselves and to the U.S. In the fight against terrorism and the fear it inspires, knowing really is half the battle.
Research Interests: Sociology, Psychology, International Relations, Education, Media Studies, and 12 morePeace and Conflict Studies, Terrorism, International Terrorism, Political Science, Security Studies, Political Violence and Terrorism, Political Violence, Cognitive Bias, Counter terrorism, Counter Radicalization, Threats, and Threat Perception
Why and how do conflict and violence spread across international borders? This article introduces a new theoretical framework for blowback operations, where a civil war combatant launches terrorist attacks in the home country of a foreign... more
Why and how do conflict and violence spread across international borders? This article introduces a new theoretical framework for blowback operations, where a civil war combatant launches terrorist attacks in the home country of a foreign actor to compel this actor to end a military intervention. Using this framework, we explain how military intervention by Hezbollah in Syria sparked a bombing campaign by Sunni jihadi groups inside Lebanon. Novel quantitative and qualitative evidence reveals how perpetrators deployed violence strategically to maximize their coercive leverage. Rather than indiscriminately attacking Lebanese Shia civilians-as their hardline sectarian discourse would suggest-Jihadi groups, including local Al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates, primarily targeted Hezbollah political strongholds to force it to withdraw from Syria. Hezbollah, seeking domestic stability due to its strong position in the Lebanese political system, generally responded with restraint and thereby avoided escalating the episode into civil war. The growing reach and prominence of armed non-state actors, especially across the Middle East, increasingly make their cross-border operations an important feature of sub-state conflict.
Research Interests: Comparative Politics, International Relations, Terrorism, Political Science, Security Studies, and 12 morePolitical Violence and Terrorism, Civil War, Lebanon, Insurgency/Counterinsurgency(COIN), Syria, Ethnic Conflict and Civil War, Sectarianism, Insurgency, Jihad, Hezbollah, Syrian Civil War, and Blowback
The U.S. has a number of core interests in the Middle East, including preventing the rise of a regional hegemon, nuclear proliferation, and significant terrorist attacks on the homeland, as well as ensuring access to oil and the security... more
The U.S. has a number of core interests in the Middle East, including preventing the rise of a regional hegemon, nuclear proliferation, and significant terrorist attacks on the homeland, as well as ensuring access to oil and the security of regional allies. These interests provide a backdrop for the most prominent regional threat to emerge in recent years: ISIS. The good news is that ISIS poses little threat to the most crucial U.S. regional interests, such as preventing the rise of a regional hegemon and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The bad news is that ISIL still presents a significant threat to a number of other U.S. interests, such as the stability of regional allies and the prevention of terrorist attacks. Furthermore, the group’s unique structure makes it more difficult for the U.S. and its allies to defeat it, as ISIS is not simply a terrorist group. Rather, it is at once a state that has controlled and governed territory the size of Indiana, a transnational insurgency that seeks to spread chaos and overthrow numerous regimes across the region, and a revolutionary movement that works to reshape societies and spread an extreme ideology and apocalyptic vision. This chapter analyzes the threat ISIS poses to U.S. interests, as well as how to understand and defeat the group's three faces of state, insurgency, and revolutionary movement.
Research Interests: Terrorism, Violence, Middle East Studies, International Security, Political Science, and 10 morePolitical Violence and Terrorism, Insurgency/Counterinsurgency(COIN), Middle East Politics, Counter terrorism, U.S. Foreign Policy, Insurgency, Isis Cult, Islamic State, Insurgency and counterinsurgency, and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Given that minority ethno-political organizations are generally weaker than states yet some seek to change state policies or remove the ruling regime from power, why would negotiation occur? States prefer to ignore or repress such... more
Given that minority ethno-political organizations are generally weaker than states yet some seek to change state policies or remove the ruling regime from power, why would negotiation occur? States prefer to ignore or repress such organizations, which generally have little to offer in return amidst negotiations that can legitimize them while delegitimizing the state. When a challenging organization establishes governing structures and controls movement in part of a state's territory, however, it can easily inflict significant economic and political costs on the state while also possessing a valuable asset to exchange for concessions. An organization with territorial control cannot be ignored, while the state will have a strong incentive to negotiate before the state loses more face, the group gains more legitimacy, neighboring states are more likely to invade, and the international community is more likely to formally recognize any facts on the ground as a new status quo. Our analysis of 118 organizations in the Middle East and North Africa from 1980-2004 reveals that territorial control is the most important determinant of intrastate negotiation. In regards to existing scholarship, this suggests that a certain type of successful violence works—not all violence and not only nonviolence—while certain types of strong organizations—those that control territory—are more likely to reach negotiations with the state than weak ones.
Research Interests: Economics, International Relations, Terrorism, International Terrorism, International Studies, and 16 moreInternational Security, International Negotiation, Political Violence and Terrorism, Nationalism, Insurgency/Counterinsurgency(COIN), Diplomacy, Negotiation, National Identity, Counter terrorism, War on Terror, Insurgency, United States Foreign Policy, Territory, Politcal Science, Diplomacy and international relations, and Insurgency and counterinsurgency
When does terrorism work? The debate over terrorism’s effectiveness has narrowly focused on changes in state policy, but that is rarely the attacker’s main objective or the tactic’s most significant impact. This article presents a robust,... more
When does terrorism work? The debate over terrorism’s effectiveness has narrowly focused on changes in state policy, but that is rarely the attacker’s main objective or the tactic’s most significant impact. This article presents a robust, multi-level framework for analyzing the effectiveness of terrorism that includes all three types of effectiveness explicit in its definition: the use of violence and creation of fear (tactical) by an organization seeking to survive and strengthen itself (organizational) for political ends (strategic). The analysis here presents key conditions under which terrorism can kill or spread ideas, polarize societies, strengthen or destroy organizations, and inspire fear in individuals, as well as when success in one area complements or contradicts success in another.
Research Interests:
When and why do national movements succeed? What explains variation in the use and effectiveness of political violence employed by nationalist groups? Groups pursue common strategic goals against external enemies, such as the founding of... more
When and why do national movements succeed? What explains variation in the use and effectiveness of political violence employed by nationalist groups? Groups pursue common strategic goals against external enemies, such as the founding of a new state, while engaging in zero-sum competition for organizational dominance with internal rivals in their national movement. The distribution of power within a national movement provides its structure, which serves as the key variable for both the internal and external struggle. The hierarchical position of groups within the movement drives their actions, while the number of significant groups in the movement drives its effectiveness. Contrary to existing scholarship that treats nonstate coercers as unitary or suggests that united or fragmented movements perform best, hegemonic movements with one significant group are most likely to succeed. Hegemonic movement structure incentivizes the pursuit of shared strategic goals; reduces counterproductive violent mechanisms and foreign meddling; and improves the movement's coherence in strategy, clarity in signaling, and credibility in threats and assurances to yield strategic success. Analysis of seventeen campaigns involving sixteen groups within the Palestinian and Algerian national movements reveals that the power distribution theory explains greater variation in the effectiveness of national movements than previous scholarship.
Research Interests:
¿Cuándo es eficaz el terrorismo? El debate sobre la eficacia del terrorismo se ha centrado casi exclusivamente en los cambios que este fenómeno produce en la política es- tatal; no obstante, ello rara vez es el principal objetivo o el... more
¿Cuándo es eficaz el terrorismo? El debate sobre la eficacia del terrorismo se ha centrado casi exclusivamente en los cambios que este fenómeno produce en la política es- tatal; no obstante, ello rara vez es el principal objetivo o el impacto más significativo de esta táctica. Este artículo presenta un marco analí- tico multinivel para examinar la eficacia del terrorismo, el cual incluye los tres tipos de efec- tividad que forman parte explícita de su defini- ción: el uso de la violencia y la generación de miedo (táctica) por parte de una organización que trata de sobrevivir y fortalecerse (organi- zativa) para conseguir fines políticos (estraté- gica). El análisis muestra las condiciones clave en las que el terrorismo puede eliminar o di- fundir ideas, polarizar sociedades, fortalecer o destruir organizaciones e infundir miedo, así como aquellas situaciones en las que los logros alcanzados en un área complementan o contradicen los éxitos en otra.
Research Interests:
This op-ed details the powerful lessons of Welles Crowther for the struggle against terrorism and my own personal journey as a researcher.
Research Interests:
A podcast I conducted with Sean Lynn-Jones of International Security and MIT Press about my article and the broader effectiveness of national movements.
Research Interests:
¿Cuándo es eficaz el terrorismo? El debate sobre la eficacia del terrorismo se ha centrado casi exclusivamente en los cambios que este fenómeno produce en la política es-tatal; no obstante, ello rara vez es el principal objetivo o el... more
¿Cuándo es eficaz el terrorismo? El debate sobre la eficacia del terrorismo se ha centrado casi exclusivamente en los cambios que este fenómeno produce en la política es-tatal; no obstante, ello rara vez es el principal objetivo o el impacto más significativo de esta táctica. Este artículo presenta un marco analí-tico multinivel para examinar la eficacia del terrorismo, el cual incluye los tres tipos de efec-tividad que forman parte explícita de su defini-ción: el uso de la violencia y la generación de miedo (táctica) por parte de una organización que trata de sobrevivir y fortalecerse (organi-zativa) para conseguir fines políticos (estraté-gica). El análisis muestra las condiciones clave en las que el terrorismo puede eliminar o di-fundir ideas, polarizar sociedades, fortalecer o destruir organizaciones e infundir miedo, así como aquellas situaciones en las que los logros alcanzados en un área complementan o contradicen los éxitos en otra.
Research Interests:
When and why do insurgencies and national movements succeed or fail? Why, for instance, have the Algerians and Zionists achieved a state but the Palestinians and Kurds have not? Why did the Eritrean insurgency fail for three decades, only... more
When and why do insurgencies and national movements succeed or fail? Why, for instance, have the Algerians and Zionists achieved a state but the Palestinians and Kurds have not? Why did the Eritrean insurgency fail for three decades, only to become Africa’s first successful post-colonial national movement in 1993? The balance of power within an insurgent movement drives its outcome, and groups’ positions within that balance of power drive their behavior. Although all groups prioritize their organizational strength and survival, hegemonic groups that dominate their movements are more likely to pursue the shared strategic objective of statehood, because victory moves them from the head of a movement to the head of a new state. The hegemonic group’s dominance also decreases the likelihood of counterproductive infighting, outbidding, chain- ganging, and spoiling among competing groups in the movement, while also allowing the movement to deliver a single clear, credible message about its objective, threats, and guarantees. This chapter will test Movement Structure Theory and its competitors using a longitudinal analysis of the multiple campaigns within the Eritrean national movement from 1960-1993. The same actors, same foreign supporters, same demands, and same strategies failed in the 1960s and 1970s yet succeeded in the 1980s and 1990s, because the movement balance of power shifted from fragmented and united to hegemonic.
Research Interests:
The most striking aspect of the current scholarly debate over the political effectiveness of non-state violence is that, upon careful examination, there is not much of a debate to be found. Despite seemingly irreconcilable positions... more
The most striking aspect of the current scholarly debate over the political effectiveness of non-state violence is that, upon careful examination, there is not much of a debate to be found. Despite seemingly irreconcilable positions claiming that terrorism and insurgency “work” or “do not work,” varying case selection and thresholds for success lie at the root of these debates, not disagreements over the empirical record. Although this previously unrecognized empirical consensus helps to resolve existing disputes, it relies on single-level strategic frameworks that fail to capture the effectiveness of violence from the perspective of those who employ it. This article presents an alternative concept of political effectiveness based on a two-level framework that accounts for the fact that insurgencies are not unitary actors, but are instead marked by armed groups that pursue strategic objectives that benefit their larger social movements (such as the overthrow of a regime or the withdrawal of enemy troops), while they simultaneously pursue organizational objectives that benefit the groups themselves (such as increasing membership or funding). Empirical analysis of eight paradigmatic campaigns common to studies of insurgency and terrorism across time and space reveals that the two-level framework better captures the political effectiveness of non-state violence than existing single-level models and primes the subfield for powerful new theories that explain greater variation in the use and effectiveness of non-state violence.
Research Interests: Sociology, Social Movements, Strategy (Military Science), International Relations, Terrorism, and 9 morePolitical Violence and Terrorism, Israel/Palestine, Insurgency/Counterinsurgency(COIN), Algerian war, Organizational Effectiveness, Northern Ireland and the Troubles, Politcal Science, Two-Level Games, and Armed Groups
My response in H-Diplo to Max Abrahms' review of my article "The Political Effectiveness of Non-State Violence."
Research Interests:
The systematic savagery leveled by the Assad regime in Syria against its own citizens has sparked moral outrage and fueled calls for international intervention to stop the slaughter. For an increasing number of analysts this means... more
The systematic savagery leveled by the Assad regime in Syria against its own citizens has sparked moral outrage and fueled calls for international intervention to stop the slaughter. For an increasing number of analysts this means indirect intervention by providing military and non-military assistance to opposition forces. In this Brief, Eva Bellin and Peter Krause argue that a distillation of the historical experience with insurgencies and civil wars, as well as a sober reckoning of conditions on the ground in Syria, make clear that this type of intervention would likely exacerbate the harm that it seeks to eliminate by prolonging the current bloody stalemate. Instead, the authors consider two alternative forms of intervention: choking the regime’s capacity for battle and restructuring the incentives to encourage regime elites to step down.
Research Interests:
In recent years, news of Palestinian internal politics has been dominated by the Fatah-Hamas unity deal and the possibilities for its success or failure. In this Brief, I assesses both the unity deal and the potential for cooperation and... more
In recent years, news of Palestinian internal politics has been dominated by the Fatah-Hamas unity deal and the possibilities for its success or failure. In this Brief, I assesses both the unity deal and the potential for cooperation and conflict between multiple groups and strategies in the Palestinian national movement. I argue that although no one group is likely to dominate the movement in the short term, multiple strategies amidst division are not necessarily destined for failure.
Research Interests:
The inability of the United States to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and many of his top deputies at Tora Bora is widely recognized as one of the most significant missed opportunities of America’s struggle with al Qaeda. However, the... more
The inability of the United States to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and many of his top deputies at Tora Bora is widely recognized as one of the most significant missed opportunities of America’s struggle with al Qaeda. However, the debate over U.S. actions at Tora Bora during Operation Enduring Freedom lacks in-depth analysis, especially concerning the commonly offered solution of more U.S. troops on the ground. This paper dissects the original operation against al Qaeda forces entrenched in the mountain complex in eastern Afghanistan in late 2001 and its impact on the debate over the Afghan model of warfare. An alternative plan involving U.S. conventional forces is presented that takes into account the considerable constraints of the scenario and analyzes the key make-or-break points of the operation. Although the challenges are far greater than most critics have allowed, the revised plan would likely have offered the best chance to capture or kill Bin Laden and a significant portion of the
al Qaeda leadership.
al Qaeda leadership.
Research Interests:
Troop levels in stability operations have been one of the most hotly contested issues in American foreign policy. The Bush administration has faced significant criticism for ignoring the conventional wisdom regarding the number of... more
Troop levels in stability operations have been one of the most hotly contested issues in American foreign policy. The Bush administration has faced significant criticism for ignoring the conventional wisdom regarding the number of soldiers required to secure Iraq, and subsequent attempts to change course in this area were seen by some as too little, too
late.
Specifically, the Pentagon’s deployment of only 120,000 American troops for the invasion and the decision by Paul Bremer, U.S. Administrator in Iraq, to disband the Iraqi army and police kept the ratio of security forces to Iraqi civilians well below the 20 per 1,000 seen as the basic ante required to play the high stakes stabilization game. Many supporters of higher troop levels blame these missteps for the emergence of the robust insurgency and the coalition’s failure to defeat it. But where exactly does the 20 per 1,000 figure come from, how strong is the evidence supporting it, and what steps are being taken to assess and improve the conventional wisdom in this area? While the answer to the first part of the question is relatively accessible, the latter are more difficult. They address a daunting problem, but unveil a disconnect between the objectives and methods of policy and social science.
late.
Specifically, the Pentagon’s deployment of only 120,000 American troops for the invasion and the decision by Paul Bremer, U.S. Administrator in Iraq, to disband the Iraqi army and police kept the ratio of security forces to Iraqi civilians well below the 20 per 1,000 seen as the basic ante required to play the high stakes stabilization game. Many supporters of higher troop levels blame these missteps for the emergence of the robust insurgency and the coalition’s failure to defeat it. But where exactly does the 20 per 1,000 figure come from, how strong is the evidence supporting it, and what steps are being taken to assess and improve the conventional wisdom in this area? While the answer to the first part of the question is relatively accessible, the latter are more difficult. They address a daunting problem, but unveil a disconnect between the objectives and methods of policy and social science.
Research Interests:
What do you do if you get stuck in an elevator in Mogadishu? How worried should you be about being followed after an interview with a ring of human traffickers in Lebanon? What happens to your research if you get placed on a government... more
What do you do if you get stuck in an elevator in Mogadishu? How worried should you be about being followed after an interview with a ring of human traffickers in Lebanon? What happens to your research if you get placed on a government watchlist? And what if you find yourself feeling like you just aren't cut out for fieldwork? Stories from the Field is a relatable, thoughtful, and unorthodox guide to field research in political science. It features personal stories from working political scientists: some funny, some dramatic, all fascinating and informative. Political scientists from a diverse range of biographical and academic backgrounds describe research in North and South America, Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, ranging from archival work to interviews with combatants. In sharing their stories, the book's forty-four contributors provide accessible illustrations of key concepts, including specific research methods like conducting surveys and interviews, practical questions of health and safety, and general principles such as the importance of flexibility, creativity, and interpersonal connections. The contributors reflect not only on their own experiences but also on larger questions about research ethics, responsibility, and the effects of their personal and professional identities on their fieldwork. Stories from the Field is an essential resource for graduate and advanced undergraduate students learning about field research methods, as well as established scholars contemplating new journeys into the field.
Research Interests:
We talk to political scientists about what field research looks like on the ground. In each episode, we bring on expert guests to discuss different ethical and logistical aspects of the field research process, based on the book we... more
We talk to political scientists about what field research looks like on the ground. In each episode, we bring on expert guests to discuss different ethical and logistical aspects of the field research process, based on the book we co-edited with the same title: Stories From the Field: A Guide to Navigating Fieldwork in Political Science (Columbia University Press, 2020).
Check out our growing list of episodes...
1. Introduction: Welcome to Stories from the Field
2. Developing Local Knowledge with Christina Greer, Wendy Pearlman, and Paul Staniland
3. The Ethics of Field Research with Erica Chenoweth and Zachariah Mampilly
4. Positionality, Emotions, and Research in the Middle East with Carla Abdo-Katsipis, Nadya Hajj, and Ian Lustick
5. Creatively Collecting Information with John McCauley, Rich Nielsen, and Lindsey O'Rourke
6. Conducting Research Amidst Conflict with Zoe Marks and Will Reno
7. Field Surveys and Experiments with Matthew Cancian, Kristin Fabbe, and Kristin Michelitch
Check out our growing list of episodes...
1. Introduction: Welcome to Stories from the Field
2. Developing Local Knowledge with Christina Greer, Wendy Pearlman, and Paul Staniland
3. The Ethics of Field Research with Erica Chenoweth and Zachariah Mampilly
4. Positionality, Emotions, and Research in the Middle East with Carla Abdo-Katsipis, Nadya Hajj, and Ian Lustick
5. Creatively Collecting Information with John McCauley, Rich Nielsen, and Lindsey O'Rourke
6. Conducting Research Amidst Conflict with Zoe Marks and Will Reno
7. Field Surveys and Experiments with Matthew Cancian, Kristin Fabbe, and Kristin Michelitch
Research Interests:
Many of the world's states—from Algeria to Ireland to the United States—are the result of robust national movements that achieved independence. Many other national movements have failed in their attempts to achieve statehood, including... more
Many of the world's states—from Algeria to Ireland to the United States—are the result of robust national movements that achieved independence. Many other national movements have failed in their attempts to achieve statehood, including the Basques, the Kurds, and the Palestinians. In Rebel Power, Peter Krause offers a powerful new theory to explain this variation focusing on the internal balance of power among nationalist groups, who cooperate with each other to establish a new state while simultaneously competing to lead it. The most powerful groups push to achieve states while they are in position to rule them, whereas weaker groups unlikely to gain the spoils of office are likely to become spoilers, employing risky, escalatory violence to forestall victory while they improve their position in the movement hierarchy. Hegemonic movements with one dominant group are therefore more likely to achieve statehood than internally competitive, fragmented movements due to their greater pursuit of victory and lesser use of counterproductive violence.
Krause conducted years of fieldwork in government and nationalist group archives as well as more than 150 interviews with participants in the Palestinian, Zionist, Algerian, and Irish national movements. This research generated comparative longitudinal analyses of these four national movements involving 40 groups in 44 campaigns over a combined 140 years of struggle. Krause identifies new turning points in the history of these movements and provides fresh explanations for their use of violent and nonviolent strategies, as well as their numerous successes and failures. Rebel Power is essential reading for understanding not only the history of national movements but also the causes and consequences of contentious collective action today, from the Arab Spring to the civil wars and insurgencies in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond.
Krause conducted years of fieldwork in government and nationalist group archives as well as more than 150 interviews with participants in the Palestinian, Zionist, Algerian, and Irish national movements. This research generated comparative longitudinal analyses of these four national movements involving 40 groups in 44 campaigns over a combined 140 years of struggle. Krause identifies new turning points in the history of these movements and provides fresh explanations for their use of violent and nonviolent strategies, as well as their numerous successes and failures. Rebel Power is essential reading for understanding not only the history of national movements but also the causes and consequences of contentious collective action today, from the Arab Spring to the civil wars and insurgencies in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond.
Research Interests: History, Social Movements, Irish Studies, Comparative Politics, International Relations, and 30 moreTerrorism, Israel Studies, Political Science, Political Violence and Terrorism, Nationalism, Israel/Palestine, Palestine, Insurgency/Counterinsurgency(COIN), Algerian war, National Identity, Nationalism And State Building, Counter terrorism, Ireland, Zionism, Israel, Israel and Zionism, Irish Republicanism, Insurgency, Arab-Israeli conflict, Palestinian Studies, Algeria, Northern Ireland, French colonial Algeria, Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Northern Ireland and the Troubles, Irish Nationalism, Coercion, Irish Republican Army, National and Social Movements, and Insurgency and counterinsurgency
From the rising significance of non-state actors to the increasing influence of regional powers, the nature and conduct of international politics has arguably changed dramatically since the height of the Cold War. Yet much of the... more
From the rising significance of non-state actors to the increasing influence of regional powers, the nature and conduct of international politics has arguably changed dramatically since the height of the Cold War. Yet much of the literature on deterrence and compellence continues to draw (whether implicitly or explicitly) upon assumptions and precepts formulated in—and predicated upon—politics in a state-centric, bipolar world. This volume moves beyond these somewhat hidebound premises and examines the critical issue of coercion in the 21st century, with a particular focus on new actors, strategies and objectives in this very old bargaining game. The chapters in this volume examine intra-state, inter-state, and transnational coercion and deterrence as well as both military and non-military instruments of persuasion, thus expanding our understanding of coercion for conflict in the 21st century.
Scholars have analyzed the causes, dynamics, and effects of coercion for decades, but previous works have principally focused on a single state employing conventional military means to pressure another state to alter its behavior. In contrast, this volume captures fresh developments, both theoretical and policy relevant. This chapters in this volume focus on tools (e.g. terrorism, sanctions, drones, cyber warfare, intelligence, and forced migration), actors (e.g., insurgents, social movements, and NGOs) and mechanisms (e.g., trilateral coercion, diplomatic and economic isolation, foreign-imposed regime change, coercion of nuclear proliferators, and two-level games) that have become more prominent in recent years, but which have yet to be extensively or systematically addressed in either academic or policy literatures.
Scholars have analyzed the causes, dynamics, and effects of coercion for decades, but previous works have principally focused on a single state employing conventional military means to pressure another state to alter its behavior. In contrast, this volume captures fresh developments, both theoretical and policy relevant. This chapters in this volume focus on tools (e.g. terrorism, sanctions, drones, cyber warfare, intelligence, and forced migration), actors (e.g., insurgents, social movements, and NGOs) and mechanisms (e.g., trilateral coercion, diplomatic and economic isolation, foreign-imposed regime change, coercion of nuclear proliferators, and two-level games) that have become more prominent in recent years, but which have yet to be extensively or systematically addressed in either academic or policy literatures.
Research Interests:
President Biden has taken Trump-era policies out and put Obama-era policies (back) in in the Middle East. The problem for Biden is that he cannot return to the pre-Trump ante in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ir's either Trump-style... more
President Biden has taken Trump-era policies out and put Obama-era policies (back) in in the Middle East. The problem for Biden is that he cannot return to the pre-Trump ante in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ir's either Trump-style coerced Israeli victory or robust coercive diplomacy towards two states--which Biden claims "remains the only path forward." But toothless rhetoric in support of the latter outcome will only yield the former. Trump’s plan punctured any remaining illusions about the realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Biden wants to help move the conflict towards a different resolution, he needs to do far more than return to the prior approach.
Research Interests:
In a new blog post with Political Violence @ a Glance, I argue that the Trump Plan represents a paradigm shift from collaborative negotiation to coerced victory in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although the plan presents the Israeli... more
In a new blog post with Political Violence @ a Glance, I argue that the Trump Plan represents a paradigm shift from collaborative negotiation to coerced victory in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although the plan presents the Israeli right's vision to end the conflict, Israelis may, in Trump’s terms, finally “get tired of winning” when they see what their “clear victory” has won them: a single state with a significant Palestinian population that no longer wants to negotiate with Israel as outsiders, but become part of it, as citizens.
Research Interests:
Although only 23 people on average have been killed per year by terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001, American citizens and politicians consistently rank terrorism as a top security threat, leading to costly wars abroad and... more
Although only 23 people on average have been killed per year by terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001, American citizens and politicians consistently rank terrorism as a top security threat, leading to costly wars abroad and the repression of civil liberties at home. To what extent can education about terrorism alter perceptions of the threat? Much existing scholarship—and consistent polling over the past two decades—suggests that it cannot, but we disagree. Evidence gathered from an extensive series of experimental and observational surveys involving students in 31 terrorism and non-terrorism related courses at 12 universities—including massive open online courses (MOOC) and online surveys—reveals that the more individuals learn about terrorism, the smaller they perceive the threat to be to themselves and to the U.S. In the fight against terrorism and the fear it inspires, knowing really is half the battle.
Research Interests: Sociology, Psychology, International Relations, Education, Media Studies, and 15 morePeace and Conflict Studies, International Terrorism, Political Science, Security Studies, Political Violence and Terrorism, Political Violence, Conflict Resolution, Cognitive Bias, Counter terrorism, Applied Economics, Civil liberties, Counter Radicalization, Scholarship, Covert, and battle
Research Interests:
When and why do national movements succeed? What explains variation in the use and effectiveness of political violence employed by nationalist groups? Groups pursue common strategic goals against external enemies, such as the founding of... more
When and why do national movements succeed? What explains variation in the use and effectiveness of political violence employed by nationalist groups? Groups pursue common strategic goals against external enemies, such as the founding of a new state, while engaging in zero-sum competition for organizational dominance with internal rivals in their national movement. The distribution of power within a national movement provides its structure, which serves as the key variable for both the internal and external struggle. The hierarchical position of groups within the movement drives their actions, while the number of significant groups in the movement drives its effectiveness. Contrary to existing scholarship that treats nonstate coercers as unitary or suggests that united or fragmented movements perform best, hegemonic movements with one significant group are most likely to succeed. Hegemonic movement structure incentivizes the pursuit of shared strategic goals; reduces counterproducti...
Research Interests: Terrorism, Violence, Effectiveness, Security, Political Science, and 11 morePolitical Violence and Terrorism, Nonviolence, Insurgency/Counterinsurgency(COIN), Protest, Political Violence, Social movements and revolution, Algeria, Public Policy and Administration, Power Structures, Israel Palestine, and National and Social Movements
ABSTRACT
Research Interests:
Hatred of terrorists is an obstacle to the implementation of effective counterterrorism policies-it invites indiscriminate retaliation, whereas many of the greatest successes in counterterrorism have come from understanding... more
Hatred of terrorists is an obstacle to the implementation of effective counterterrorism policies-it invites indiscriminate retaliation, whereas many of the greatest successes in counterterrorism have come from understanding terrorists' personal and political motivations. Drawing from psychological research, traditional prejudice reduction strategies are generally not well suited to the task of reducing hatred of terrorists. Instead, in 2 studies, we explored education's potential ability to reduce extreme negative attitudes toward terrorists. Study 1 compared students in a college course on terrorism (treatment) with wait-listed students, measuring prosocial attitudes toward a hypothetical terrorist. Initially, all students reported extremely negative attitudes; however, at the end of the semester, treatment students' attitudes were significantly improved. Study 2 replicated the effect within a sample of treatment and control classes drawn from universities across the Un...
Research Interests: Sociology, Psychology, Cognitive Science, Experimental Psychology, Education, and 15 morePublic Opinion, Terrorism, Educational Research, Political Science, Political Violence and Terrorism, Prejudice, Medicine, Counter terrorism, Curriculum, Motivation, Students, Humans, Comprehension, Female, and Male
This reflection article presents insights on conducting fieldwork during and after COVID-19 from a diverse collection of political scientists—from department heads to graduate students based at public and private universities in the... more
This reflection article presents insights on conducting fieldwork during and after COVID-19 from a diverse collection of political scientists—from department heads to graduate students based at public and private universities in the United States and abroad. Many of them contributed to a newly published volume, Stories from the Field: A Guide to Navigating Fieldwork in Political Science (Krause and Szekely 2020). As in the book, these contributors draw on their years of experience in the field to identify the unique ethical and logistical challenges posed by COVID-19 and offer suggestions for how to adjust and continue research in the face of the pandemic’s disruptions. Key themes include how contingency planning must now be a central part of our research designs; how cyberspace has increasingly become “the field” for the time being; and how scholars can build lasting, mutually beneficial partnerships with “field citizens,” now and in the future.