Considerations on ‘Process-concurrent’ Research in Transitional Justice

Research on transitional justice often takes place in times and places that are dynamic, rather than static. The respective ‘transition’ is “unachieved and open” (Guillaume 2009), the transitional justice process one is researching may still be ongoing and political ‘realities’ are subject to change: new institutions are created and dissolved, new personalities are appointed and dismissed, new law ‘projects’ are brought forward, adopted or rejected. The economic situation is volatile, as may be the security situation. Transitional justice is a field of research closely interlinked with these reconfigurations and political realities of a transitional context. This entails challenges and questions of responsibilities for the researcher, both in the practice of doing field research and in interpreting and ‘ordering’ the collected data in a social scientific manner. Drawing on field research experience in Tunisia, this paper aims to reflect on how it is to do research in what John Law would call a ‘messy’ context and how to deal with this practically and conceptually as a social scientist. This is not to exoticize Tunisia (or any other research site) as a place that is particularly ‘messy’ or in ‘disorder’. This impression may depend on the researcher’s positionality, lack of familiarity or level of comprehension, but still influence the researcher’s ‘research reality’. Drawing on a (critical) strand of literature on thinking about the use of methods in empirical international relations/social scientist research, this paper aims to reflect on questions of how one as a researcher interferes in ongoing (political) processes, either knowledgeably or due to the very fact that one is there and doing research. What do I need to consider as researcher when I am working in a volatile political climate? Does this influence the sensitivity of my data? These challenges and questions of responsibility are illustrated with examples from the Tunisian context. Without attempting to offer universally valid solutions for any research situation, the paper suggests that, as a first step, it is useful to acknowledge this ‘messiness’ and the researcher’s own role in (1) influencing the situation and (2) enacting certain realities by ‘ordering’ it. ‘Good’ research practice then needs to be determined in constant deliberation and in relation to the political situation.