Objectivity and Emotions in Crisis and Conflict Knowledge Production

Objectivity and factual argumentation are arguably key virtues in academic knowledge production, policy advice and journalistic reporting. However, in highly politicized and volatile contexts, such as security crises and violent conflicts, the strive for objectivity is countered by emotional public discourses and affective experiences of knowledge producers and communicators. This Section aims to explore how (social) scientists, policy experts and media professionals navigate objectivity and emotions when researching, analysing and reporting their findings in such contexts. In academic and policy knowledge production as well as in quality journalism, objectivity and emotions are commonly seen as mutually exclusive. Rooted in the positivist tradition, the understanding of objectivity as ‘the view from nowhere’ (Nagel 1989) is conventionally regarded as a precondition for sound scientific judgement, unbiased policy advice and factual reporting (Laurent 2023). However, this understanding of objectivity is challenged by increscent calls from a range of social sciences for exercising active reflexivity and explicating researchers’ positionality, potential biases ingrained in knowledge production practices, and not least, emotional experiences of researchers, experts and media professionals (e.g., Axyonova & Lozka 2023; Bliesemann de Guevara & Bøås 2020; Johnstone 2019; Soedirgo & Glas 2020). These calls are particularly relevant when it comes to knowledge generation about highly politicized phenomena, such as security crises, violent conflicts and wars, characterized by limited factual evidence, emotionalization of public discourses, and information warfare. The Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the 2023 Hamas attacks, Israel's war on Gaza, and violence in the wider Middle East are vivid examples of such contexts. Moreover, recent research on wartime journalism suggests that underscoring impartiality, neutrality, and detachment can be seen as counterproductive in certain war contexts, whereby media practitioners’ emotions have an epistemic value of their own (Kotišová & van der Velden 2023). Building on the above, this Section will collect novel insights and advance the debate on objectivity and emotions in researching and reporting on crisis, conflict and war, delving into interrelationships between objective knowledge and reflexive research, evidence-based expertise and emotional experiences, fact-checking and personal bias in crisis and conflict-torn settings. We welcome original contributions focusing on: - Conceptualizations of objectivity and emotions in crisis and conflict knowledge production - Methodological approaches to the study of objectivity and emotions - Empirical accounts of conflict knowledge producers navigating objectivity and emotions - Reflections on objectivity, positionality, affective proximity and personal bias - Best practices in researching and reporting on crisis, conflict and war Prospective papers may address one or several of the following questions, among others: 1. How can we conceptualize and study the relationship between objectivity and emotions in knowledge production about crisis, conflict and violence? 2. What is the role (value and drawbacks) of personal emotional experiences of knowledge producers in this process? 3. What effects do highly emotionalized public discourses have on scientists, policy experts and journalists as knowledge producers and communicators? 4. How do academic researchers, policy experts and media professionals understand objectivity and navigate emotionalized contexts? 5. What are best practices in reconciling the strive for evidence-based knowledge with explicating positionality and personal bias in researching and reporting on crisis, conflict and war? The Section seeks to connect scholars from various disciplinary backgrounds and encourages innovative theoretical, conceptual and methodological approaches. The aim is to bring the disciplines of political science, international relations and public policy into dialogue with history, anthropology, sociology, critical and postcolonial studies. The Section also seeks to be diverse in terms of its geographic and thematic coverage, and inclusive of a variety of analytical and epistemic approaches. In terms of methods, we invite empirical works that might draw on single, small- medium- or large-N studies, papers aiming at a conceptual / theoretical contribution, as well as methodological reflections on the conduct and dissemination of research. Full panel proposals are welcome. In addition to the thematic fit and relevance, Section Chairs will evaluate full panel proposals based on the diversity of their composition in terms of the career stage of the contributors, gender, academic background (e.g., Global South), and other characteristics underrepresented in academia. References Axyonova, V. & Lozka, K. (2023) ‘We are at war’: Reflections on positionality and research as negotiation in post-2022 Ukraine. Journal of international relations and development, 26, 711-721. Bliesemann de Guevara, B. & Bøås, M. (2020) Doing Fieldwork in Areas of International Intervention: A Guide to Research in Violent and Closed Contexts. Bristol University Press. Johnstone, L. (2019) The Politics of Conducting Research in Africa: Ethical and Emotional Challenges in the Field. Springer. Kotišová, J., & van der Velden, L. (2023) The Affective Epistemology of Digital Journalism: Emotions as Knowledge among On-the-Ground and OSINT Media Practitioners Covering the Russo-Ukrainian War. Digital Journalism, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2273531 Laurent, B. (2023) Institutions of Expert Judgment: The Production and Use of Objectivity in Public Expertise. In: G. Eyal and T. Medvetz (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Expertise and Democratic Politics. Oxford University Press, pp.214-236. Nagel, T. (1989) The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press. Soedirgo, J. & Glas, A. (2020) Toward Active Reflexivity: Positionality and Practice in the Production of Knowledge. Political Science & Politics, 53(3), 527–31.