From research to practice? Questioning the research-practice divide in transitional justice

The field of transitional justice (TJ), as a sub-field of peace research and IR, has highlighted the circulation of actors between different spheres of (knowledge) activities – namely research, practice and policymaking – as both one of its strengths and its weaknesses. It is seen as either a contribution to bring research and practice closer together, producing benefits for both, or as blurring the line between these presumably differentiable practices. This paper starts by outlining some of the assumptions that are being made about the research-policy-practice nexus in TJ before mapping out the multiple ways in which these separations are blurred. Drawing on practice and assemblage theories in IR and unpacking the constructed nature of concepts and labels such “research” and “practice”, “academic” and “practitioner” the paper makes a critical contribution to understanding not only what knowledge is produced, but also why some knowledges and knowledge producers are able to exert greater influence than others. The paper uses the African Union TJ policy process as an empirical example and links this to broader debates in the TJ and IR scholarships. Basing a study of knowledge production in peace research and IR on this particular case allows additional insights on the role of external and internal knowledge in a given context, and the questions of legitimacy associated with that. The paper thus makes three key contributions: 1) an assessment of the research-practice nexus in TJ, 2) an analysis of the labels being employed to describe (and legitimize) certain knowledge-related actors and activities that brings practice theories into conversation with TJ, and 3) an understanding of internal-external knowledge dynamics in a particular policy process that is embedded in the historical and political situatedness of the AU and the issue of TJ.