Data for: Ideational Factors and Civilian Contention in Civil War

This is an Annotation for Transparent Inquiry (ATI) data project. The annotated article can be viewed on the ATI website. Project Summary For long civil war scholarship largely ignored, or at best downplayed, the role of ideology in shaping both macro processes and micro dynamics of civil strive. While in recent years we have seen a renewed interest in exploring whether and how ideology matters, most of this work, naturally, has focused on how ideology shapes armed groups’ behavior. In this paper, I shift the focus away from armed organizations and argue that ideational factors are also fundamental to understand the ways in which organized civilians respond to armed groups. I focus on one particular response, civilian noncooperation — i.e., the refusal to cooperate with each and every armed group present in their territory – and argue that the form that noncooperation takes is – at least partly – shaped by normative and ideological commitments. Ideational forces have an impact on civilians’ repertoire of action and contentious performances: they push civilians towards nonviolent forms of noncooperation (as opposed to armed resistance) and incentivize them to engage in more confrontational forms of noncooperation. Relying on original micro-level data collected in warzones in Colombia, and using the strategy of paired comparisons, I provide detailed evidence for this argument and cast doubt on some alternative explanations. I trace the effect of ideational factors on the repertoire of action in three campaigns that engaged in distinguishable forms of noncooperation and show that the effect is independent and comes from exogenous sources. Data Generation and Analysis The data for this paper was collected in two different waves of fieldwork conducted in 2014 and 2015. During the two waves of fieldwork, I conducted over 150 semi-structured interviews and plenty of conversational, open-ended interviews with a wide array of actors that played a role in the process of mounting noncooperation campaigns in the three cases analyzed in the paper. While interviews different set of actors, including campaign participants and non-participants, most interviews informing this paper were with participant campesinos. The choices under study were made several years ago (in the case of the Peasant Worker Association of the Carare River (ATCC) in 1987, the Peace Community of San Jos´e de Apartad´o (PCSJA) in 1997, and the Youth’s Project of Peace (Joppaz) in the late 1990s/early 2000s) and the process that shaped them (as I argue) took off many years before the decision was made. Therefore, I tried my best to speak to every single resident who was present at the moment of the choice and who lived through the process leading to it. Consequently, the main profile of my interviewees was that of older residents. However, in all three localities, I also interviewed and conducted workshops with participants that were not present when the choice was made, but knew the history of the campaign through accounts transmitted by elders. Having this “secondhand” accounts helped me to fact-check the evidence I was getting from key informants, as well as to get new insights to explore further in subsequent encounters with key informants. To get a balanced view of the process, I interviewed the founding mothers and fathers of each campaign, those who were leading the process at the time of my research, as well as ordinary residents that participated in the campaign but had never played any leadership role. While getting the insights of leaders and learning in detail about their roles was central for understanding the topic of tactical choice as analyzed in the paper, interviewing “rank-and-file” noncooperators was vital to overcome some of the biases common in studies relying exclusively on testimonies of “elite members” of social movements. Not only did their perspectives and experiences differ importantly as they had different access points to the process (and played a different role – or no role – in shaping the form of the campaign), but ordinary participants often provided more critical and less linear accounts compared to those of leaders. The campaigns I studied were largely based on one main settlement, where a large number of participants live and where most of the activities and meetings related to the campaign take place. Nevertheless, all three campaigns covered several neighboring hamlets, including some as distant as eight hours walking through the dense jungle or by canoe through rivers. My intuition was that peoples’ experience and perspective of the process could vary according from where they lived and how close they were to the “center”. To account or this, I took advantage of daily or weekly events that gathered people from different hamlets in the main settlement (meetings, community days, market days, parties) and also I visited as many hamlets as I could. Interviewees were selected following a purposive strategy. I...

此为透明探究（ATI）数据项目之标注。标注之文章可在ATI网站上查阅。项目概述：对于长久以来被学界忽视，或至多被轻描淡写的长期内战学术研究而言，意识形态在塑造内战的宏观进程与微观动态方面所扮演的角色，一直未得到充分探讨。尽管近年来，学界对探讨意识形态是否以及如何产生影响这一问题重新产生了兴趣，但大部分研究自然地集中于意识形态如何塑造武装团体的行为。在本篇论文中，我转移了研究的焦点，不再关注武装组织，并认为观念因素同样对于理解组织化平民如何应对武装团体至关重要。我聚焦于一种特定的回应方式——平民非合作，即拒绝与其领土内出现的每一个武装团体合作——并认为非合作所采取的形式——至少部分上——是由规范性及意识形态承诺所塑造。观念力量影响着平民的行动策略和争议性表现：它们促使平民倾向于非暴力的非合作形式（而非武装抵抗），并激励他们参与更具对抗性的非合作形式。本研究依托于在哥伦比亚战区收集的原始微观数据，并采用成对比较的策略，为上述论点提供了详细的证据，并对一些替代性解释提出了质疑。我追溯了观念因素对三个采取可区分性非合作形式的运动中行动策略的影响，并表明这种影响是独立且源于外生来源的。数据生成与分析：本文数据收集于2014年和2015年进行的两次不同波次的田野调查。在两次田野调查中，我进行了超过150次半结构化访谈，以及与众多在三个案例中参与非合作运动过程中的角色扮演者的开放式访谈。虽然访谈的对象包括运动参与者和非参与者，但为本文提供主要信息的访谈对象主要是参与运动的农民。研究中的选择决策是在数年前（例如，卡雷河农民工人协会（ATCC）在1987年，圣何塞德阿帕塔多和平社区（PCSJA）在1997年，以及20世纪90年代末至21世纪初的青年和平计划（Joppaz））做出的，而塑造这些决策的过程（正如我所论证的）在做出决策之前数年就已启动。因此，我尽力与每一个在决策时刻在场且经历了导致该决策的过程的居民进行交流。因此，我的访谈对象的主要特征是年长的居民。然而，在所有三个地区，我也采访了那些在决策时刻不在场但通过长者叙述了解运动历史的参与者，并举行了研讨会。这些“二手”叙述有助于我核实从关键信息提供者那里获得的证据，并在随后的关键信息提供者交流中获取新的见解。为了获得对过程的平衡视角，我采访了每个运动的创始人，那些在我进行研究时领导该过程的人，以及那些虽然参与了运动但从未扮演过任何领导角色的普通居民。虽然了解领导者的见解并详细了解他们的角色对于理解论文中分析的战术选择主题至关重要，但采访“普通”的非合作者对于克服那些仅依赖于社会运动“精英成员”证词的研究中常见的偏见至关重要。不仅他们的观点和经历因对过程的接触点不同（在塑造运动形式中扮演了不同的角色——或没有扮演任何角色）而存在重要差异，而且普通参与者通常提供的描述比领导者更为批判性且更不线性。我研究的运动大多基于一个主要定居点，其中大部分参与者居住，且大部分与运动相关的活动和会议都发生于此。然而，所有三个运动都覆盖了几个相邻的村庄，其中包括一些通过茂密的丛林步行或乘独木舟穿越河流需要长达八小时才能到达的村庄。我的直觉是，人们对该过程的经验和视角可能因他们居住的位置以及他们与“中心”的距离而有所不同。为了解释这一点，我利用了每天或每周聚集来自不同村庄居民的主定居点的活动（会议、社区日、市场日、派对）的机会，并尽可能多地访问了村庄。访谈对象是根据目的性策略选择的。我...