Pub Date : 2022-12-18DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2022.2158014
Andrey Plotnitskiy, Arnab Roy Chowdhury
ABSTRACT The Shor people are protesting the ongoing mining of coal in the southern Kemerovo region of Siberia, while the Izhma Komi people are contesting the extraction of oil in the northern Komi Republic (Northwestern Federal District). The theory of “political opportunities” states that movements emerge when opportune moments create spaces for these, but we argue that in illiberal spaces, movements emerge against “threats” in an ever-decreasing political space. We argue that the extraction of coal and oil in Russia’s eastern regions poses not only structural threats – economic problems, public health/environmental decline, erosion of rights, and state repression – to its Indigenous peoples, but also cultural threats to their livelihoods and life-worlds. The various structural threats are thus intertwined with cultural threats in the case of Indigenous rights movements, and environmental decline is inextricably bound with the erosion of rights.
{"title":"“Killing nature—killing us”: “Cultural threats” as a fundamental framework for analyzing Indigenous movements against mining in Siberia and the Russian North","authors":"Andrey Plotnitskiy, Arnab Roy Chowdhury","doi":"10.1080/1060586X.2022.2158014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2022.2158014","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Shor people are protesting the ongoing mining of coal in the southern Kemerovo region of Siberia, while the Izhma Komi people are contesting the extraction of oil in the northern Komi Republic (Northwestern Federal District). The theory of “political opportunities” states that movements emerge when opportune moments create spaces for these, but we argue that in illiberal spaces, movements emerge against “threats” in an ever-decreasing political space. We argue that the extraction of coal and oil in Russia’s eastern regions poses not only structural threats – economic problems, public health/environmental decline, erosion of rights, and state repression – to its Indigenous peoples, but also cultural threats to their livelihoods and life-worlds. The various structural threats are thus intertwined with cultural threats in the case of Indigenous rights movements, and environmental decline is inextricably bound with the erosion of rights.","PeriodicalId":46960,"journal":{"name":"Post-Soviet Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45155721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-17DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2022.2158685
Paul D’Anieri
ABSTRACT Understanding why the Minsk process failed is essential both for explaining why Russia invaded in 2022 and for ensuring that a new peace settlement does not prove similarly ineffective. Many analyses point to the conflicting goals of the combatants as the basic obstacle to peace. However, rationalist approaches show that some peace agreement should always be preferable to war. The commitment problem represents an obstacle to peace in Ukraine that is distinct from the territorial questions at the center of the war. The failure of Minsk reflects the actors’ inability to credibly commit to fulfilling their promises. Third-party guarantees are essential to solving the conflict, but external guarantees have their own credibility problems. Therefore, further conflict was the only route to a settlement. Unless better solutions for the commitment problem can be found, a peace deal will rely either on one side being defeated or the two sides fighting to exhaustion.
{"title":"Commitment problems and the failure of the Minsk process: the second-order commitment challenge","authors":"Paul D’Anieri","doi":"10.1080/1060586X.2022.2158685","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2022.2158685","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Understanding why the Minsk process failed is essential both for explaining why Russia invaded in 2022 and for ensuring that a new peace settlement does not prove similarly ineffective. Many analyses point to the conflicting goals of the combatants as the basic obstacle to peace. However, rationalist approaches show that some peace agreement should always be preferable to war. The commitment problem represents an obstacle to peace in Ukraine that is distinct from the territorial questions at the center of the war. The failure of Minsk reflects the actors’ inability to credibly commit to fulfilling their promises. Third-party guarantees are essential to solving the conflict, but external guarantees have their own credibility problems. Therefore, further conflict was the only route to a settlement. Unless better solutions for the commitment problem can be found, a peace deal will rely either on one side being defeated or the two sides fighting to exhaustion.","PeriodicalId":46960,"journal":{"name":"Post-Soviet Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44444245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-08DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2022.2156222
G. Yusupova
ABSTRACT This essay suggests legitimizing and promoting critical approaches in Russian studies, as well as acknowledging the multifaceted diversity within Russian society. This diversity needs to be taken into serious consideration in any research on Russia. Moreover, various levels of inequality that this rich diversity both creates and challenges should be reflected upon in multidisciplinary research, with the focus on historical legacies in the reproduction of those inequalities. The author argues against a limited understanding of inequalities as economic phenomena, and proposes to think about the variety of inequalities that are very prominent in the Russian context: categorical, symbolic, territorial, etc.
{"title":"Critical approaches and research on inequality in Russian studies: the need for visibility and legitimization","authors":"G. Yusupova","doi":"10.1080/1060586X.2022.2156222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2022.2156222","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay suggests legitimizing and promoting critical approaches in Russian studies, as well as acknowledging the multifaceted diversity within Russian society. This diversity needs to be taken into serious consideration in any research on Russia. Moreover, various levels of inequality that this rich diversity both creates and challenges should be reflected upon in multidisciplinary research, with the focus on historical legacies in the reproduction of those inequalities. The author argues against a limited understanding of inequalities as economic phenomena, and proposes to think about the variety of inequalities that are very prominent in the Russian context: categorical, symbolic, territorial, etc.","PeriodicalId":46960,"journal":{"name":"Post-Soviet Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47651888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-05DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2022.2151767
Bryn Rosenfeld
ABSTRACT Amid ongoing uncertainty, regular surveying in Russia continues to date and collaborations with Western academics have too. These developments offer some basis for cautious optimism. Yet they also raise critical questions about the practice of survey research in repressive environments. Are Russians less willing today to respond to surveys? Are they less willing to answer sensitive questions? How can we design research to elicit truthful responses and to know whether respondents are answering insincerely about sensitive opinions? This article lays out some of the existing evidence on these important questions. It also makes the argument that cross-fertilization with other fields can help to ensure a rigorous understanding of and response to changes in the environment for survey research in Russia.
{"title":"Survey research in Russia: in the shadow of war","authors":"Bryn Rosenfeld","doi":"10.1080/1060586X.2022.2151767","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2022.2151767","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Amid ongoing uncertainty, regular surveying in Russia continues to date and collaborations with Western academics have too. These developments offer some basis for cautious optimism. Yet they also raise critical questions about the practice of survey research in repressive environments. Are Russians less willing today to respond to surveys? Are they less willing to answer sensitive questions? How can we design research to elicit truthful responses and to know whether respondents are answering insincerely about sensitive opinions? This article lays out some of the existing evidence on these important questions. It also makes the argument that cross-fertilization with other fields can help to ensure a rigorous understanding of and response to changes in the environment for survey research in Russia.","PeriodicalId":46960,"journal":{"name":"Post-Soviet Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48748220","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-28DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2022.2152261
G. Sharafutdinova
ABSTRACT This essay highlights the potential analytical leverage from the import of recent approaches in social and political psychology into the study of politics in Russia. The core argument is that social psychology offers suitable conceptual and analytical tools to explore the political phenomena that have come to the forefront of social and political processes in Russia over the past decade. Social psychology is best at dealing with collective emotions and allows for integrating into the political analysis such affective issues as resentment, national humiliation, and collective victimhood. It also enables the appreciation and exploration of the phenomenon of political leadership from a collective perspective.
{"title":"On double miss in Russian studies: can social and political psychology help?","authors":"G. Sharafutdinova","doi":"10.1080/1060586X.2022.2152261","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2022.2152261","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay highlights the potential analytical leverage from the import of recent approaches in social and political psychology into the study of politics in Russia. The core argument is that social psychology offers suitable conceptual and analytical tools to explore the political phenomena that have come to the forefront of social and political processes in Russia over the past decade. Social psychology is best at dealing with collective emotions and allows for integrating into the political analysis such affective issues as resentment, national humiliation, and collective victimhood. It also enables the appreciation and exploration of the phenomenon of political leadership from a collective perspective.","PeriodicalId":46960,"journal":{"name":"Post-Soviet Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49447444","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-24DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2022.2151275
Jeremy Morris
ABSTRACT As reliable and unfiltered access to Russia and Russians becomes a fraught issue for social scientists who wish to conduct surveys, focus groups, do ethnographies, or interview elite actors, the war presents scholars with an opportunity to reflect on questions of what data collection means, and on better communication between quantitative and qualitative scholars. Similarly, it forces us confront the extractive and colonial nature of knowledge production; the war reveals how social science has always relied on, but not really acknowledged, the labor of native scholars, but can no longer ignore indigenously produced work, particularly qualitative research. In this review piece, the author highlights both blind spots in the potential communication between political scientists and other social scientists, and already-existing points of connection that can be further expanded, precisely because of, not despite the war.
{"title":"Political ethnography and Russian studies in a time of conflict","authors":"Jeremy Morris","doi":"10.1080/1060586X.2022.2151275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2022.2151275","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As reliable and unfiltered access to Russia and Russians becomes a fraught issue for social scientists who wish to conduct surveys, focus groups, do ethnographies, or interview elite actors, the war presents scholars with an opportunity to reflect on questions of what data collection means, and on better communication between quantitative and qualitative scholars. Similarly, it forces us confront the extractive and colonial nature of knowledge production; the war reveals how social science has always relied on, but not really acknowledged, the labor of native scholars, but can no longer ignore indigenously produced work, particularly qualitative research. In this review piece, the author highlights both blind spots in the potential communication between political scientists and other social scientists, and already-existing points of connection that can be further expanded, precisely because of, not despite the war.","PeriodicalId":46960,"journal":{"name":"Post-Soviet Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49145578","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-23DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2022.2150490
W. Reisinger, Marina Zaloznaya, Byung-Deuk Woo
ABSTRACT Following its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the Russian government sharply broadened what actions were illegal and raised the level of punishment. Many more topics of interest to survey researchers became politically sensitive. Questions about these topics may generate high levels of misleading responses and question-specific (item) non-responses, both of which introduce biases that undermine inference. We use survey data from 2015 and 2018 in Russia and neighboring countries to illustrate how these two problems were already issues prior to the invasion, especially for questions that invoked potential punishment by the state. In a climate of heightened state punishment, it becomes even more important to address misresponse and item non-response when interpreting survey data. We argue that, in addition to employing list experiments regularly and taking advantage of recent innovations in their design, scholars must develop ways to reduce item non-response and model how it biases estimates of interest.
{"title":"Fear of punishment as a driver of survey misreporting and item non-response in Russia and its neighbors","authors":"W. Reisinger, Marina Zaloznaya, Byung-Deuk Woo","doi":"10.1080/1060586X.2022.2150490","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2022.2150490","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Following its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the Russian government sharply broadened what actions were illegal and raised the level of punishment. Many more topics of interest to survey researchers became politically sensitive. Questions about these topics may generate high levels of misleading responses and question-specific (item) non-responses, both of which introduce biases that undermine inference. We use survey data from 2015 and 2018 in Russia and neighboring countries to illustrate how these two problems were already issues prior to the invasion, especially for questions that invoked potential punishment by the state. In a climate of heightened state punishment, it becomes even more important to address misresponse and item non-response when interpreting survey data. We argue that, in addition to employing list experiments regularly and taking advantage of recent innovations in their design, scholars must develop ways to reduce item non-response and model how it biases estimates of interest.","PeriodicalId":46960,"journal":{"name":"Post-Soviet Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48019973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-23DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2022.2148814
V. Gel’man
ABSTRACT The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a major exogenous shock, which greatly affected the scholarly field of Russian studies. Not only did some previous theoretical lenses and analytic approaches become outdated, but the intellectual and institutional infrastructure of scholarship in Russian studies also faced major challenges. In a sense, these changes were similar to the effects of the exogenous shock of the Soviet collapse on scholarship, albeit in the opposite direction in political terms. The article focuses on the need to search for new scholarly solutions for research into Russian politics and society amid major political, economic, and social deterioration and a high level of uncertainty. It will also critically reconsider previous achievements and shortcomings of Russian studies as well as their relevance in a post-2022 world. Some suggestions for reframing of the research agenda in Russian studies in the wake of recent developments are discussed.
{"title":"Exogenous shock and Russian studies","authors":"V. Gel’man","doi":"10.1080/1060586X.2022.2148814","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2022.2148814","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a major exogenous shock, which greatly affected the scholarly field of Russian studies. Not only did some previous theoretical lenses and analytic approaches become outdated, but the intellectual and institutional infrastructure of scholarship in Russian studies also faced major challenges. In a sense, these changes were similar to the effects of the exogenous shock of the Soviet collapse on scholarship, albeit in the opposite direction in political terms. The article focuses on the need to search for new scholarly solutions for research into Russian politics and society amid major political, economic, and social deterioration and a high level of uncertainty. It will also critically reconsider previous achievements and shortcomings of Russian studies as well as their relevance in a post-2022 world. Some suggestions for reframing of the research agenda in Russian studies in the wake of recent developments are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46960,"journal":{"name":"Post-Soviet Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48363054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-21DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2022.2147382
Tomila Lankina
ABSTRACT This essay reflects upon the consequences of Russia’s war against Ukraine on the sub-field of Russian studies in political science. I argue that the war has exposed some blind spots in our knowledge. Notably, it has left us struggling to understand the historically deprived communities in Russia whose values, sentiments, and vulnerabilities may be indirect buttresses to both support for Putin and the war. I discuss two key issues in the sub-field: (1) the elite-centered approaches in research in mainstream work on Russia, not least due to data availability preoccupations; and (2) the paucity of inter-disciplinary perspectives, particularly the reluctance of mainstream studies to cast their nets into history and sociology. Disciplinary pressures – the credibility revolution – complicate a historically sensitive revision of long-internalized assumptions. I draw on my recent work on the historical underpinnings of social structure and its implications for civil society, protest, and support for democracy in Russia.
{"title":"Branching out or inwards? The logic of fractals in Russian studies","authors":"Tomila Lankina","doi":"10.1080/1060586X.2022.2147382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2022.2147382","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay reflects upon the consequences of Russia’s war against Ukraine on the sub-field of Russian studies in political science. I argue that the war has exposed some blind spots in our knowledge. Notably, it has left us struggling to understand the historically deprived communities in Russia whose values, sentiments, and vulnerabilities may be indirect buttresses to both support for Putin and the war. I discuss two key issues in the sub-field: (1) the elite-centered approaches in research in mainstream work on Russia, not least due to data availability preoccupations; and (2) the paucity of inter-disciplinary perspectives, particularly the reluctance of mainstream studies to cast their nets into history and sociology. Disciplinary pressures – the credibility revolution – complicate a historically sensitive revision of long-internalized assumptions. I draw on my recent work on the historical underpinnings of social structure and its implications for civil society, protest, and support for democracy in Russia.","PeriodicalId":46960,"journal":{"name":"Post-Soviet Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49164808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-21DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2022.2148446
A. Libman
ABSTRACT The credibility revolution transformed quantitative social sciences and was both a curse and a blessing for Russian studies. On the one hand, Russia turned out to be an attractive field for experimentalist research, which allowed Russian studies to gain unprecedented recognition in the broader disciplines. On the other hand, a focus on causal identification could have contributed to insufficient attention to potentially important topics relevant for understanding Russia and to some aspects of the Russian setting able to augment the general social science discourse. The war in Ukraine makes many causal identification designs used for studying Russia (with the exception of natural experiments) difficult or impossible to implement. It may make the return to other approaches and de-emphasizing causal identification necessary, at least to some extent. At the same time, the question remains of how the general social science disciplines will perceive such shift in focus.
{"title":"Credibility revolution and the future of Russian studies","authors":"A. Libman","doi":"10.1080/1060586X.2022.2148446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2022.2148446","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The credibility revolution transformed quantitative social sciences and was both a curse and a blessing for Russian studies. On the one hand, Russia turned out to be an attractive field for experimentalist research, which allowed Russian studies to gain unprecedented recognition in the broader disciplines. On the other hand, a focus on causal identification could have contributed to insufficient attention to potentially important topics relevant for understanding Russia and to some aspects of the Russian setting able to augment the general social science discourse. The war in Ukraine makes many causal identification designs used for studying Russia (with the exception of natural experiments) difficult or impossible to implement. It may make the return to other approaches and de-emphasizing causal identification necessary, at least to some extent. At the same time, the question remains of how the general social science disciplines will perceive such shift in focus.","PeriodicalId":46960,"journal":{"name":"Post-Soviet Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46793963","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：