How does seemingly spontaneous communal violence become politically organized, and how does state response shape this process as violence unfolds? This article uses event-structure analysis to examine the 2008 anti-Kurdish riots in Altınova, Turkey. Drawing on reports on the Altınova riots produced by human rights organizations and twenty news articles drawn from mainstream, nationalist, Islamist, and left-wing newspapers, the analysis reconstructs the temporal and causal relationships among mass mobilization, extreme-right political intervention, and state response across successive attack cycles. The findings distinguish between the conversion and re-production of collective violence. In initial attack cycles, extreme-right actors did not create mass mobilization from scratch but seized opportunities generated by triggering events and collective gatherings to convert already mobilized crowds into targeted violence. In subsequent cycles, as broader mass mobilization subsided, organized actors became more directly involved in gathering participants, directing mobilization, and reproducing violence. State response also changed across the sequence, combining non-intervention during larger crowd mobilizations with selective repression of organized actors. These findings show that spontaneity, political organization, and state response are not fixed characteristics of riots but become consequential in different combinations at different stages of communal violence.

The COVID-19 pandemic created a racialized social crisis in which Asians and Asian Americans in the United States faced heightened discrimination and concern about hate crime victimization. Using online survey data collected from Korean community members in the United States during summer 2021, this study examines direct and indirect anti-Asian hate crime/discrimination victimization before and after COVID-19 and identifies factors associated with fear of anti-Asian hate crime/discrimination. Contrary to broader national evidence documenting increased anti-Asian hate during the pandemic, the findings indicate that both direct and indirect victimization experiences decreased after COVID-19 within this sample. Multiple regression results further show that income was negatively associated with fear of anti-Asian hate crime/discrimination, while media exposure was positively associated with fear. The findings suggest that the relatively high-income composition of the sample may have reduced exposure to public victimization opportunities during the pandemic, potentially through greater access to remote work and other protective resources. These results highlight the importance of socioeconomic vulnerability and exposure patterns in shaping victimization experiences and fear of anti-Asian hate crime/discrimination among Korean community members during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study also discusses policy-relevant information based on the results.

The current study examines the relationship between social media consumption and fear of violent crime. The goal of our study is to make three contributions to the literature. One is to provide further evidence about social media consumption and the fear of violent crime, as previous research has yet to find a link between the two. A second is to provide evidence on various types of media consumption and their association with fear of violent crime, specifically. While research has evaluated the relationship between multiple types of media consumption and fear of crime in general, little research on fear of violent crime as an outcome variable has been conducted. The third contribution of our study is to provide evidence on the impact of mass communication on fear of violent crime, using samples from several regions. Most existing studies that measured fear of crime as a dependent variable have relied upon young adult samples from one or two schools. All these studies have suggested that future research should use larger, more diverse samples to replicate previous findings. Addressing these gaps in the extant research, the current study empirically builds on research on media consumption and fear of crime by examining a national sample of 1,014 U.S. adults from the American Fears survey.

Peer influence has long been established as a robust correlate of offending, yet debate persists over whether such associations reflect a causal socialization process or merely the sorting of already delinquent individuals into like-minded friendship groups. Drawing on a nationally representative panel of Korean adolescents (the Korean Youth Panel Survey), this study examines the impact of delinquent peer associations on offending, comparing early and non-early starters of delinquency through socialization, selection, and typological (dual taxonomy) approaches. Using propensity score matching on covariates measured prior to treatment, the analysis balances adolescents with and without delinquent peers at age 15 and tracks their offending from ages 16 to 18. Results show that delinquent peers significantly impact offending across both groups, with no significant difference in effects based on the age of onset, though the influence of delinquent peers is consistently stronger among younger adolescents. Theoretical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Faculty workload inequities are common, with women faculty reporting high levels of service, mentoring, and teaching-related activities, even though this work is often devalued in faculty evaluations. We describe insights developed through a National Science Foundation ADVANCE-funded project, “Faculty Workload & Rewards,” aimed at ensuring equity in how teaching and service are taken up, assigned, and rewarded. We identify concrete strategies that improve transparency, enhance perceived fairness, allow for crediting, address accountability, and attend to context to strengthen workload equity. We also identify key challenges to revising workload, including denial, fear, the need for control, and lack of creativity, as well as approaches to addressing these forms of resistance.

Whether nationally distinctive regulatory arrangements can survive global liberalization pressure remains unsettled. The comparative financialization literature establishes that national trajectories hold out but says little about the internal political process that produces such divergence. This paper explains South Korea’s contestation over the institutional arrangement of Geum-San Bunri (GSB)—the statutory separation of industrial and financial capitals—over four decades. Using explaining-outcome process-tracing, the analysis reconstructs socio-political coalitions, resources, and framing strategies at work in each of the five key phases. Two findings emerge. Substantively, GSB’s regulatory reach has narrowed through accumulated exceptions—a trajectory that layering describes accurately in broad outline. However, this path has not been monotonic; the industrial-capital ownership ceiling rose in 2009 and returned to its prior level in 2013. Formally, its status has remained unresolved for forty-four years, the principle continuing to organize every liberalization debate without ever being settled in either direction. The paper theorizes this combination as contested adaptation, a trajectory-level pattern specifying the political conditions under which layering fails to cumulate into displacement. It argues that Korea’s developmental state legacy persists not as inertia but as a heterogeneous configuration of moral, epistemic, and mobilizational resources actively reproduced in institutional changes.

Humanity currently navigates an era defined by the Anthropocene and the “polycrisis”—a complex, destabilizing web of interconnected ecological, social, and political emergencies. Concurrently, our primary mode of processing, debating, and governing these existential threats is mediated through the algorithmic infrastructure of digital platforms. This said, this paper synthesizes five distinct but deeply interconnected domains of contemporary scholarship to propose a novel theoretical framework: Digital Anthropocene Studies. By integrating theories of algorithmic curatorial assemblages, the interactive synopticon of live media, affective media practices in networked feminism, the macro-political sustainability trilemma, and the literary conceptualization of transcorporeality in the Anthropocene, this study argues that contemporary digital and political infrastructures attempt to address the polycrisis using the exact neoliberal and anthropocentric logics that created it. Digital platforms function as curatorial assemblages that commodify human affect, ranging from feminist outrage to deviant public disruption, into engagement metrics. This interactive synopticon traps public discourse in a reinforcement-amplification loop, characterized by lagged accountability and Eurocentric geopolitical realism. To transcend this metacrisis, we need to look beyond algorithmic feeds toward “trans-corporeal” narratives that reimagine the human condition not as a dominant, world-ending force (anthropos), but as a deeply entangled, ecological participant (homo). The present work offers a comprehensive paradigm for understanding how digital visibility, affective governance, and postcolonial intersectionality should evolve to foster genuine planetary survival.