Polycomb-group recruitment to a Drosophila target gene is the default state that is inhibited by a transcriptional activator

Polycomb-group (PcG) proteins are epigenetic regulators that maintain the transcriptional repression of target genes following their initial repression by transcription factors. PcG target genes are repressed in some cells, but active in others. Therefore, a mechanism must exist by which PcG proteins distinguish between the repressed and active states and only assemble repressive chromatin environments at target genes that are repressed. Here, we present experimental evidence that the repressed state of a Drosophila PcG target gene, giant (gt), is not identified by the presence of a repressor. Rather, de novo establishment of PcG-mediated silencing at gt is the default state that is prevented by the presence of an activator or coactivator, which may inhibit the catalytic activity of Polycomb-repressive complex 2 (PRC2).

Harnessing Technologies in Focus Group Research

Focus group research is a useful methodology within and beyond the field of political science, as a source of core or supplementary data. The focus group literature is rich and full of guidance, but advice on using digital tools in certain stages of focus group research is relatively scarce. Aiming to fill those gaps, this article draws on experience with two projects in order to outline how researchers can harness technologies for focus group recruitment and data analysis. While traditional recruitment and data analysis techniques are useful, we identify advantages of technology-assisted approaches, particularly for focus group research with marginalized communities. Geared to both new and existing focus group users, the article identifies fruitful ways to harness a wider range of technologies for conducting focus group research while maintaining consistency with established principles and practices.

An Interpretive Account of Individual, Nonviolent Radicalization

While recent research has focused on radicalization mainly in relation to religiously inspired terrorism, we suggest that radicalization is not intrinsically tied to political violence or group recruitment. Drawing on qualitative research conducted in Italy, we analyze two case studies—one religious and one secular—of individual, nonviolent radicalization bearing on personal choices of lifestyle and ethics. We rely on 33 interviews with Catholic hermits and 22 with antispeciesists—a radical fringe of the animal rights movement—to provide an interpretive account of the lived experience of radicalization. The findings suggest that from a subjective viewpoint, radicalization is a highly demanding choice which, however, is also perceived as empowering.

Weakened by the storm

How do natural disasters affect rebel group recruitment? Some influential research to date suggests that natural disasters – by lowering the opportunity cost of joining an armed movement – are likely to facilitate rebel group recruitment. In contrast, this study argues that natural disasters can negatively affect rebel organization and their recruitment efforts. It posits that natural disasters may weaken rebel groups in two main interrelated ways: (1) by leading to acute scarcity for rebel combatants and supporters, weakening the rebel group’s organizational structure and supply lines, and (2) by increasing government and international presence in areas where the insurgents operate. Empirically, this article explores these suggested mechanisms in two cases of natural disasters in the Philippines (typhoons Bopha in 2012 and Haiyan in 2013), which affected regions partially controlled by the communist rebel group, the New People’s Army (NPA). Based on data from extensive fieldwork, there is no evidence suggesting a boom in rebel recruitment in the wake of the typhoons. Rather, the NPA was temporarily weakened following the tropical storms, significantly impacting the civil war dynamics in the Philippines.

Collective Threat Framing and Mobilization in Civil War

Research on civil war mobilization emphasizes armed group recruitment tactics and individual motivations to fight, but does not explore how individuals come to perceive the threat involved in civil war. Drawing on eight months of fieldwork with participants and nonparticipants in the Georgian-Abkhaz war of 1992–93, this article argues that social structures, within which individuals are embedded, provide access to information critical for mobilization decisions by collectively framing threat. Threat framing filters from national through local leadership, to be consolidated and acted on within quotidian networks. Depending on how the threat is perceived—whether toward the self or the collectivity at its different levels—individuals adopt self- to other-regarding roles, from fleeing to fighting on behalf of the collectivity, even if it is a weaker actor in the war. This analysis sheds light on how the social framing of threat shapes mobilization trajectories and how normative and instrumental motivations interact in civil war.