Academic Knowledge, Policy and Practice of Interventions Against SGBV in Conflict Contexts

The paper analyses how academic knowledge production is taken up (or not) in policy-making and programming in projects and programmes against sexual violence in conflict. Inspired by field theoretical approaches and based on empirical research in headquarters of IO and INGO as well as in the conflict-affected parts of Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, it addresses the question how controversial academic debate influences intervention policy and practice. A large number of internationally designed and financed intervention projects are implemented in the eastern parts of the DRC to reduce sexual and gender-based violence. As academic debate however shows uncertainty with regard to the causes of this violence, interventions are conceived on unstable assumptions. Yet how much influence does the debate on origins of a problem have on the design of projects? Which other factors play a role when international organisations and NGO seek change in local contexts? We show that there are large differences in policy and programming between organisations. While some organisations take little note of the evolution of academic debate, others actively embrace newer research developments. These latter organisations embrace ambiguity as an opportunity to (re)position themselves on the humanitarian field. Emerging theoretical contradictions are, however, not always problematized. In order to explain different approaches between (and even within) organisations, we argue in a second step that while academic research results may sometimes be translated into policy, they more obviously serve as a means to legitimise approaches.