Whose side are you on? Balancing impartiality and proximity in the study of civil wars

Abstract

ABSTRACT When conducting research and fieldwork on civil war, it is not only challenging to remain impartial or get physically and emotionally close to conflict participants, but it is especially difficult to do both, given that more of one often requires – or leads to – less of the other. We present the theoretical and practical tensions between impartiality and proximity and introduce three ideal-type approaches that scholars utilise in response: avoiding proximity, shunning impartiality, or eschewing both. Each of these approaches to mitigate the tension between impartiality and proximity possesses different – and often complementary – strengths and weaknesses. Despite the challenges it brings, we use our own experiences studying civil wars in Latin America, the Middle East, and North Africa to demonstrate the plausibility and benefits of a fourth approach – proximate impartiality – which navigates this tension head on. We then spell out how proximate, impartial research can be successfully executed across different phases of the research process. We conclude by offering a blueprint for a methodologically pluralistic community to generate a more comprehensive understanding of political outcomes than any homogenising approach could yield.