Peter Krause
Associate Professor of Political Science, Boston College
Research Affiliate, MIT Security Studies Program
I am an Associate Professor of Political Science at Boston College and a Research Affiliate with the MIT Security Studies Program. I have published books on navigating field research, coercion in international politics, and the strategy and success of nationalist rebels in civil war. I am writing two new books: one on how to have a constructive conversation about Israel and Palestine, and the other on which rebel groups take power after regime change. My research and teaching focus on Middle East politics and Israeli-Palestinian relations, political violence, nationalism, rebels and civil war, and peace-building. I give talks and facilitate discussions with universities, think tanks, and business and community groups, and I conduct media interviews. I have a Ph.D. in political science from MIT and a B.A. in political science and history from Williams College.
My article with Sarah Zuckerman Daly was recently published in Conflict, Security, and Development. When conducting research and fieldwork on civil war, it is not only challenging to remain impartial or get physically and emotionally close to conflict participants, but it is especially difficult to do both, given that more of one often requires - or leads to - less of the other. We present the theoretical and practical tensions between impartiality and proximity and introduce three ideal-type approaches that scholars utilize in response: avoiding proximity, shunning impartiality, or eschewing both. Each of these approaches to mitigate the tension between impartiality and proximity possesses different - and often complementary - strengths and weaknesses. Despite the challenges it brings, we use our own experiences studying civil wars in Latin America, the Middle East, and North Africa to demonstrate the plausibility and benefits of a fourth approach - proximate impartiality - which navigates this tension head on, We then spell out how proximate, impartial research can be successfully executed across different phases of the research process. We conclude by offering a blueprint for a methodologically pluralistic community to generate a more comprehensive understanding of political outcomes than any homogenizing approach could yield.
"HOW TO HAVE A CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATION ON ISRAEL AND PALESTINE"
I have led lectures and discussions with numerous universities and community groups in the past two years on my new book project, which focuses on how we can have constructive conversations on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict despite the many real challenges and the high stakes for all involved. These sessions build on my experience teaching classes, facilitating dialogue sessions with Israelis and Palestinians, and living and researching in the region for many years. If you are interested in having me deliver a lecture, discussion, or facilitated event or event series in your community, please contact me.
My article with Betül Özturan and Liane Young was just published in Terrorism and Political Violence. How do students and the public define terrorism, and what impact does education have on those definitions? We gathered evidence from an extensive series of experimental and observational surveys involving students in
31 terrorism and non-terrorism related courses at 12 universities, as well as online survey experiments of the general public. Students and the public initially define terrorism as being committed by non-state actors and targeting civilians at a far lower rate than do academics and governments, although those percentages increase after students and the public take courses and watch video lectures on terrorism. Although other studies identify the religion of the perpetrator (especially Islam) as perhaps the most significant element in implicit, revealed definitions of terrorism, almost no students or members of the public mentioned religion or Islam in any form in their explicit, stated definitions. Finally, latent variable analysis reveals that the more that students and the public learn about terrorism,the more they define it as a rational act. Our findings reveal how the uninformed public’s lack of specificity on perpetrators and victims enables the idea that “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter,” but also how education can change those definitions and, perhaps, their application.