Apart from transnational political phenomena like transnational insurgency and migration, I am also interested in the role of stereotypes and identity in conflict and post-conflict settings. To this end, I am involved in a number of collaborative projects that aim to unpack questions surrounding identity and conflict using survey and quasi-experimental methods. These projects are detailed below:
Troops, Statebuilding, and Freedmen's Education in Reconstruction Texas -- With Breanna C. Gray
Abstract: How do post-conflict statebuilding initiatives affect the livelihoods of marginalized and minority groups after civil war? While existing work speaks to the broad consequences of statebuilding, less work studies minority engagement with post-conflict institutions. We investigate this question in the context of the Reconstruction South, where educational programs formed a particularly critical component of federal peacebuilding activities. Using digitized teacher's reports from the Freedmen's Bureau archives, we introduce an original county-month dataset of Freedmen's Bureau schools and emancipated slaves' educational achievements from 1865 to 1870. Then, leveraging the plausibly exogenous deployment of federal troops to Texas counties during the the French intervention in Mexico and the Comanche Wars , we identify the effect of occupation troop presence on Freedmen's educational achievements. This strategy also presents an opportunity to explore how the identity of peacebuilding forces influences their efficacy. The effect of occupation troops on emancipated slaves' educational achievements is driven by the presence of Black troops, who held a vested interest in protecting and institutionalizing Freedmen's Bureau programs. Cavalry, which could extend the range of federal enforcement in support of the Freedmen's Bureau, are also important. Finally, marshaling data disaggregated by gender, we highlight the importance of a robust military presence on women's engagement with statebuilding institutions in particular.
Abstract: How do post-conflict statebuilding initiatives affect the livelihoods of marginalized and minority groups after civil war? While existing work speaks to the broad consequences of statebuilding, less work studies minority engagement with post-conflict institutions. We investigate this question in the context of the Reconstruction South, where educational programs formed a particularly critical component of federal peacebuilding activities. Using digitized teacher's reports from the Freedmen's Bureau archives, we introduce an original county-month dataset of Freedmen's Bureau schools and emancipated slaves' educational achievements from 1865 to 1870. Then, leveraging the plausibly exogenous deployment of federal troops to Texas counties during the the French intervention in Mexico and the Comanche Wars , we identify the effect of occupation troop presence on Freedmen's educational achievements. This strategy also presents an opportunity to explore how the identity of peacebuilding forces influences their efficacy. The effect of occupation troops on emancipated slaves' educational achievements is driven by the presence of Black troops, who held a vested interest in protecting and institutionalizing Freedmen's Bureau programs. Cavalry, which could extend the range of federal enforcement in support of the Freedmen's Bureau, are also important. Finally, marshaling data disaggregated by gender, we highlight the importance of a robust military presence on women's engagement with statebuilding institutions in particular.
The Two Faces of Opposition to Chemical Weapons: Sincere Versus Insincere Norm-Holders -- With Jonathan A. Chu and Joshua A. Schwartz
Abstract: Prominent research holds that the use of weapons of mass destruction is taboo. But how strong are these norms? Investigating this question among the mass public, we argue that some citizens actually support taboo policies in private but are unwilling to express counter-normative opinions openly due to fear of social sanction. These insincere norm-holders are difficult to identify empirically because they are observationally equivalent to sincere norm-holders in direct-question surveys. To overcome this challenge, we use a list design, which allows survey respondents to indirectly express sensitive opinions. The results from three list experiments show that between 10% and 17% of Americans falsify their preferences over chemical weapons use when asked directly. Our findings advance a specific debate on the strength of weapons taboos, while our conceptualization of insincere norm-holders and methodological application have broader implications for how scholars might think about and measure norms in international politics.
Abstract: Prominent research holds that the use of weapons of mass destruction is taboo. But how strong are these norms? Investigating this question among the mass public, we argue that some citizens actually support taboo policies in private but are unwilling to express counter-normative opinions openly due to fear of social sanction. These insincere norm-holders are difficult to identify empirically because they are observationally equivalent to sincere norm-holders in direct-question surveys. To overcome this challenge, we use a list design, which allows survey respondents to indirectly express sensitive opinions. The results from three list experiments show that between 10% and 17% of Americans falsify their preferences over chemical weapons use when asked directly. Our findings advance a specific debate on the strength of weapons taboos, while our conceptualization of insincere norm-holders and methodological application have broader implications for how scholars might think about and measure norms in international politics.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5774-5976