Thank you for all your amazing contributions to the class, Sara! I Truls loved to teach this fantastic group!

Macado risikerer livet i kampen for demokrati – med ikke-voldelige midler. Jeg har skrevet om henne, Venezuela, og hva forskningen sier om å forsvare demokratiet uten vold. Spoiler alert, men som tittelen avslører så synes jeg at det er en veldig fin pris: www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kro...

Thank you, Ina😘

🔗 Read the article: journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
📖 Explore the special issue: journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....

#Democracy #Ukraine #War #ConflictResearch #PeaceResearch #PoliticalViolence #ComparativePolitics

👉 These results underscore Ukraine’s democratic resilience while showing why we must study specific democratic principles—not just “democracy” in the abstract.

🧩Theory:
• Violence consistently undermines minority rights
• For elections & speech → violence creates competing pressures: sometimes reinforcing, sometimes eroding support

🔑 Findings:
• Those injured or bereaved → somewhat less supportive of minority rights
• Weaker evidence of effects on free speech
• Commitment to elections remains resilient

💡 Our findings highlight Ukraine’s democratic resilience, even in the face of war.

Based on surveys in Ukraine (Oct 2022 & July 2024), we study how wartime violence shapes support for:
🗳 Free & fair elections
🗣 Freedom of speech
🤝 Minority rights

Big congrats, Amalie!☺️ Much looking forward to reading this version of this great paper!

Malin Nærum Aadalen, Stine Bosheim, @sunnivahustad.bsky.social, Jens Koning, Fredrik Methi, @amalienilsen.bsky.social, @solneg.bsky.social, @amobermeier.bsky.social, Madeleine Oppøyen, Rebekka Ringholm, Jan Rustemeyer, Tora Sagård, Mette Sandstad, and Carina Strøm-Sedgwick

Big shout-out to our amazing research assistants 👏 Over 4+ years, they worked with care and dedication to make this data collection possible. We’re so grateful for their hard work and commitment: (see next thread:-)

Read the full article in Comparative Political Studies: doi.org/10.1177/0010...

🔑 Key findings:
• Nonviolent campaigns are more likely to foster democratization after 1900— but outcomes depend on who participates and what they want.
• Students, workers & intellectuals drive democratic change.
• Peasants, middle classes & militaries usually don’t.

We show:
• OMG covers pro-democracy, anti-liberal & pro-regime campaigns.
• Social bases are diverse—no group dominates > 1/8 of movements.
• Ideologies shifted: nationalism, conservatism, liberalism → socialism → democracy & human rights, with nationalism constant.

In the paper, we describe the dataset and how it was constructed, discuss validity and reliability, etc. In addition, we present several important trends in mass mobilization over the last 200+ years.

From the French Revolution to the Arab Spring to the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong, OMG documents mass movements’ goals, strategies, ideologies, size, duration, and social backgrounds. It’s a unique resource for researchers studying, e.g., how and when mass mobilization has shaped political change