Introducing the Anatomy of Resistance Campaigns (ARC) dataset
| Author | Charles Butcher,Ingrid Vik Bakken,Jessica Maves Braithwaite,Eirin Haugseth,Marius Swane Wishman,Jonathan Pinckney |
| Published date | 01 May 2022 |
| Date | 01 May 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00223433211029512 |
| Subject Matter | Special Data Features |
Introducing the Anatomy of Resistance
Campaigns (ARC) dataset
Charles Butcher
a,d
, Jessica Maves Braithwaite
b
, Jonathan Pinckney
c
,
Eirin Haugseth
a,d
, Ingrid Vik Bakken
a
, and Marius Swane Wishman
a
Abstract
We introduce the Anatomy of Resistance Campaigns (ARC) dataset, which records information on 1,426 organi-
zations that participated in events of maximalist violent and nonviolent contention in Africa from 1990 to 2015. The
ARC dataset contains 17 variables covering organization-level features such as type, age, leadership, goals, and
interorganizational alliances. These data facilitate new measurements of key concepts in the study of contentious
politics, such as the social and ideological diversity of resistance episodes, in addition to measures of network
centralization and fragmentation. The ARC dataset helps resolve existing debates in the field and opens new avenues
of inquiry.
Keywords
civil war, data, dissent, networks, organizations, protest
Most resistance movements are composed of organiza-
tions that mobilize people, make tactical decisions, issue
demands, and accept or reject concessions (Braithwaite
& Cunningham, 2020; Cunningham et al., 2017; Hag-
gard & Kaufman, 2016; McAdam, 2010; Metternich
et al., 2013; Tarrow, 2011). Organizations often head
transitional regimes, assume power after post-conflict
elections, and remobilize when democratic institutions
are threatened (Haggard & Kaufman, 2016; Wood,
2000). However, we lack systematic cross-national data
on dissident organizations spanning a variety of tactics,
goals, and group identities.
This matters because organizational dynamics are
often central to theories of the onset, dynamics, and
outcomes of violent and nonviolent resistance cam-
paigns (Bethke & Pinckney, 2019; Belgioioso, 2018;
Brancati, 2016; Celestino & Gleditsch, 2013; Cheno-
weth & Stephan, 2011; Huang, 2016; Schaftenaar,
2017; Sutton, Butcher & Svensson, 2014; Svensson
& Lindgren, 2011; Thurber,2019). Empirical analyses,
however, usually depend on broad indicators of
contention summarized over a campaign or campaign-
year (Chenoweth & Stephan, 2011), which leaves uncer-
tainty around whether the theorized mechanisms drive
observed effects (Schock, 2005). Case studies show that
resistance campaigns involve complex networks of organi-
zations and social groups (Metternich et al., 2013; Osa,
2003; Schock, 2005) and demonstrate – with detailed
assessments of actors and their characteristics – that the
features of these organizations and networks help explain
tactical choices, campaign outcomes, and democratization
(Collier, 1999; Nepstad, 2011; Pearlman, 2011; Schock,
2005; Thurber, 2019; Wood, 2000). Yet, it is difficult to
generalize these findings to a larger sample of cases.
a
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
b
University of Arizona
c
United States Institute of Peace
d
Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
Corresponding author:
charles.butcher@ntnu.no
Journal of Peace Research
2022, Vol. 59(3) 449–460
ªThe Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00223433211029512
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
To continue reading
Request your trial