- Convenors:
-
Basma El Doukhi
(university of kent)
Miram AbuDaqqa (American University of Ras Al Khaimah)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Roundtable
- Stream:
- Conflict, crisis and humanitarianism
Short Abstract
This roundtable explores the ethical and political dimensions of researching Gaza amid ongoing genocide. It explores the ethical and political dimensions of researching Gaza amid ongoing genocide, mass displacement, and the deliberate destruction of civilian, cultural, and academic infrastructures.
Description
This rountable interrogates the ethics of researching Gaza during and after the ongoing genocide, asking what it means to produce knowledge amid systematic violence, displacement, and epistemic erasure. It explores the moral and political implications of conducting, funding, and publishing research on Gaza within a global academic system that often reproduces colonial hierarchies and humanitarian voyeurism. How can researchers avoid reinforcing power asymmetries while amplifying Palestinian voices, agency, and resistance? What are the responsibilities of scholars, institutions, and journals in contexts of active atrocity? Drawing from critical development and decolonial ethics, this discussion invites researchers, practitioners, and students to reflect on positionality, consent, representation, and harm minimization when documenting suffering and survival.
This roundtable explores the ethical and political dimensions of researching Gaza amid ongoing genocide, mass displacement, and the deliberate destruction of civilian, cultural, and academic infrastructures. The discussion interrogates how research agendas, funding frameworks, and data collection practices may inadvertently reproduce colonial hierarchies, humanitarian voyeurism, or epistemic extraction.
Anchored in decolonial, feminist, and critical development ethics, this roundtable invites reflexive dialogue between scholars, practitioners, and activists. It aims to co-produce principles for conducting ethical research on Gaza and other conflict-affected settings that centre justice, accountability, and solidarity.participants rethink the moral purpose of research itself — positioning it not as a detached pursuit of truth, but as a political and ethical act.
The roundtable will culminate in drafting a short collective statement on ethical responsibilities in researching Gaza, to inform academic institutions, funding bodies, and future development research practices.
Accepted contributions
Contribution short abstract
I learned to anticipate issues around participant safety, consent, and emotional well-being. However, a later project in Gaza revealed deeper tensions between institutional ethics and lived ethical realities.
Contribution long abstract
My experience shows that ethics in conflict-affected settings cannot be reduced to procedural
compliance. It demands sensitivity to lived realities, historical trauma, and the safety of all
involved. Ethical review should enable, not restrict, meaningful inquiry, and it should
recognise that the researcher’s positionality is dynamic. Reflection, dialogue, and relational
ethics can help ensure that research remains both respectful and responsive to participants’
realities.
Navigating these experiences reaffirmed my commitment to ethical research that prioritises
safety, dignity, and respect over institutional convenience. It reminded me that even when
institutions hesitate, researchers can still act ethically by centring compassion and care in
their work.
Contribution short abstract
The main driver for wanting to be engaged in the co-production of this guidance is from observing discussions across different spaces, hearing diverging opinions and perspectives across and within different constituents, and seeing the potential for better conversations and allyship.
Contribution long abstract
The Gaza crisis has revealed deep fissures and deficiencies in research ethics discourse and practice and shown the limits of standardised ethics processes when confronting power structures and narratives that undermine respect for fundamental human rights principles.[1]
The politicisation of human suffering and the lack of moral courage to lean into difficult spaces and conversations has had a chilling effect on upholding respect for human rights and our shared humanity. The main driver for wanting to be engaged in the co-production of this guidance is from observing and being a part of discussions across different spaces, listening to diverging opinions and perspectives across and within different constituents, and seeing the potential for better conversations and practices on good allyship.
Below I have listed some questions that may be helpful to start the conversation:
What are the foundational principles for good allyship?
Who needs to be at this table? Who is at the table? Who is missing and why?
Who can and should speak on Gaza? Does this shift across time and issues?
When should allies step up? And step back?
How can we support safer spaces for dialogue on difficult issues?
How should we engage in wider public discussions that can raise confronting views?
What are more effective approaches for engaging those who may be fearful or less informed? How do we build bridges and conversely how can we avoid shutting down opportunities for important discussions?
How can we support collective learning and unlearning?