Methodological Approaches in Kurdish Studies: Theoretical and Practical Insights from the Field, edited by Bahar Baser, Mari Toivanen, Begum Zorlu, and Yasin Duman, 123–45. Lanham: Lexington Books., 2018
This chapter discusses a period of fieldwork we conducted in September 2012 in Northern Kurdistan... more This chapter discusses a period of fieldwork we conducted in September 2012 in Northern Kurdistan, which was a relatively bloody month in the ongoing conflict resulting in 96 reported deaths: 53 members of the security forces, 39 PKK guerrillas and 4 civilians1. Violence had resumed in August 2011, marking the end of the so-called Kurdish Opening initiated by the AKP a few years earlier (Gunter 2013, 442–43). The three Kurdish majority cities where we conducted interviews Kızıltepe (Qoser), Mardin (Mêrdîn) and Diyarbakır (Amed) did not witness any fighting or significant disturbances in that period but there was certainly a pervasive atmosphere of tension. Our local contacts expressly warned us and essentially prohibited us from travelling to Hakkari and Yüksekova due to a number of large scale counter-insurgency operations. Undoubtedly, the conditions there would have been significantly more challenging and more akin to the situation described by other authors with experience of research directly in conflict areas (Sluka 1989, 9–43; E. J. Wood 2003). Yet, many of the people with whom we socialized, and we conducted interviews, had been directly or indirectly affected by the state’s clampdown on Kurdish civil society which had resulted in the imprisonment of thousands of Kurdish activists, as well as politically non-mobilized Kurds (Casier, Jongerden, and Walker 2011). Accordingly, although our physical safety was never in question, the research environment was profoundly influenced by the broader security situation. It rendered us more cautious in spontaneous interactions and likely ensured that people were more hesitant in agreeing to speak with us and also regarding the material they felt comfortable discussing.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers
the spaces where insurgents and civilians interact. Building on relational research addressing insurgent support networks and rebel governance, it develops the concept of Routinised
Insurgent Space (RIS) as a means to systematically assess the way that movements spatially order interactions with existing and potential supporters. It focuses on four specific
examples of RIS: insurgent systems of justice and policing, service provision, prison mobilisation and funerals. It draws primarily on two case studies, the M-19 in Colombia (early
1970s–1990) and the PKK in Turkey (mid 1970s–1999).
Books
Journal Articles
the spaces where insurgents and civilians interact. Building on relational research addressing insurgent support networks and rebel governance, it develops the concept of Routinised
Insurgent Space (RIS) as a means to systematically assess the way that movements spatially order interactions with existing and potential supporters. It focuses on four specific
examples of RIS: insurgent systems of justice and policing, service provision, prison mobilisation and funerals. It draws primarily on two case studies, the M-19 in Colombia (early
1970s–1990) and the PKK in Turkey (mid 1970s–1999).
process of radicalisation. Violent dyads remain a relatively understudied phenomenon. Using a relational approach, this article
analyses the unique character of dyadic radicalisation and how it differs from instances of lone actor or group-based terrorism.
It draws on a number of recent case studies, analysing instances of non-kin, fraternal, and spousal dyads. Its principal case
study is a failed attack in Germany in 2006, based on a range of documentary sources as well as an interview with one of the
perpetrators.
radicalization from a relational perspective. Extant research on loneactor
terrorism has shown that lone actors are rarely as “lone” as
public perceptions suggest. In most cases, lone-actor terrorists have
some social ties to established radical groups. Accordingly, this article
asks (1) why these individuals do not integrate into the radical groups
they frequent and engage in collective violence, and (2) if they do
integrate, why do they then end up engaging in violence on their
own? The article argues that patterns of lone-actor terrorist radicalization
can be categorized according to the extent and evolution of
their loneness. It highlights two broad patterns of lone-actor radicalization
in relation to broader radical groups/movements – peripheral
and embedded – and explores the reasons why some lone-actor
terrorists remain peripherally integrated in radical groups, while
others become more embedded only to engage in violence alone.
The article is based on qualitative research, drawing on a geographically
and ideologically diverse sample of cases (N = 25), and access to
restricted material. The article identifies and theorizes five recurrent
radicalization trajectories, which are variations of the peripheral and
embedded patterns, and discuss the implications for prevention/
interdiction.