Exploring the case study of the Moscow-led counterinsurgency in Chechnya, this article shows the crucial importance of cultural knowledge understood in an ethnographic sense in terms of patterns of social organization, persisting value systems, and other related phenomena -in the relative success of the eradication of the Chechnya-based insurgency. Using a range of first-hand sources -including interviews by leading Russian and Chechen experts and investigative journalists, and the testimonies of eyewitnesses and key actors from within local and Russian politics -the article explains the actual mechanisms of Moscow's policy of Chechenization that have sought to break the backbone of the local resistance using local human resources. To this end, the study focuses on the crucial period of 2000 -2004, when Moscow's key proxy in Chechnya, the kadyrovtsy paramilitaries, were established and became operational under the leadership of Akhmad Kadyrov, which helped create a sharp division within Chechen society, reducing the level of populacebased support for the insurgents, thereby increasing support for the pro-Moscow forces.

Despite a considerable amount of anthropological research into the phenomena of blood revenge and blood feud, little is known about the role of blood revenge as a cause of violent mobilization in irregular wars. Blood revenge, or the practice of seeking blood retribution for a grave offense committed against an individual or his or her relatives, has been practiced since the dawn of humankind. In recent years, it has functioned as an important apolitical mechanism in encouraging violent mobilization in irregular wars, including against foreigners.Scholars in disciplines as varied as anthropology, sociology, psychology, and criminology have explored the phenomenon of blood revenge in depth. In his seminal work on blood revenge among Yanomamo tribes of the Amazon basin, Napoleon Chagnon stated that " [b]lood revenge is one of the most commonly cited causes of violence and warfare in tribal societies." 1 Some scholars have examined the practice of blood revenge in conflict-ridden societies, including those in Albania, Chechnya, Yemen, and Colombia.2 Overall, however, the literature on political violence and conflict studies has yet to offer a comprehensive, systematic empirical account of how blood revenge manifests itself in in contemporary irregular wars.This study takes a step toward filling this gap by presenting a detailed empirical analysis of the role of blood revenge as a cause of violent mobilization in irregular wars. In contrast to the literature on 2 blood revenge in tribal or premodern warfare and on blood revenge as a form of social violence and social justice, 3 this study argues that blood revenge has much wider application in conflict environments than scholars generally have assumed. We empirically ground this proposition in a contextualized and systematic examination of blood revenge practices during the anti-Russian insurgencies in Chechnya from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s.We begin by conceptualizing the term "blood revenge." Drawing insights from the extensive literature on blood revenge in anthropology, ethnography, and sociology, we then examine the theoretical implications of blood revenge for the discipline of conflict studies. This section also analyzes the importance of blood revenge in several major present-day irregular wars, including those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia. Next, we categorize blood revenge as an apolitical, grievance-driven cause of violent mobilization in irregular wars. These conceptual and theoretical sections are followed by a section on methods and data. The subsequent empirical sections present our case study and report our findings on the practice of blood revenge among Chechens during the First Chechen War and the Second Chechnya War (1999-present day) in Russia's North Caucasus region. Conceptualizing Blood RevengeThe words "revenge," "feud," "vengeance," "retribution," and "retaliation" have many meanings. In contrast, the term "blood revenge" typically refers to a more specific, context-bound form of "revenge": a desire to kill an offender or hi...

This reflection article presents insights on conducting fieldwork during and after COVID-19 from a diverse collection of political scientists—from department heads to graduate students based at public and private universities in the United States and abroad. Many of them contributed to a newly published volume, Stories from the Field: A Guide to Navigating Fieldwork in Political Science (Krause and Szekely 2020). As in the book, these contributors draw on their years of experience in the field to identify the unique ethical and logistical challenges posed by COVID-19 and offer suggestions for how to adjust and continue research in the face of the pandemic's disruptions. Key themes include how contingency planning must now be a central part of our research designs; how cyberspace has increasingly become “the field” for the time being; and how scholars can build lasting, mutually beneficial partnerships with “field citizens,” now and in the future.

No abstract