Would you support or oppose taking military action if Sudan continues to perpetrate human rights abuses within its borders?and
Would you support or oppose taking military action to support the government of Estonia in the event that Russia intervenes militarily in support of ethnic Russians living in Estonia?Except for the single case of Russian intervention in Estonia, the scholars were less supportive of war in every scenario. Presumably Estonia stands out because the scholars know that Estonia is part of NATO, and most of the public does not, which puts a rather different face on the problem.
The authors tried to correct for the fact that most professors are liberal by comparing self-identified conservative professors (15% of the total) with conservative citizens, and liberal scholars with liberal citizens. They found that the difference is still there; conservative scholars are less belligerent than conservative citizens, liberal scholars more pacifistic than liberal citizens.
The biggest differences turned up by the poll concern helping Iraq defend itself against the Islamic State, and attacking Iran if it is "very close" to a nuclear weapon. Even a majority of conservative scholars opposes both interventions. News coverage of recent events in the Middle East seems to have the public spoiling for a fight. International relations professors must also have been thinking a lot about these two crises, but their response has largely been to doubt that force will do any good.
One interesting detail is that about 15% of the public supported armed intervention in every single case -- never met a war they didn't like, I guess -- but this was not true of a single professor.