The Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) is a public institute for independent research and analysis of international affairs, financed primarily by the Danish state. DIIS conducts and communicates multidisciplinary research on globalisation, security, development and foreign policy.DIIS has approximately 100 employees, comprising both research and support staff. Researchers have different academic backgrounds, mostly in social studies, international development studies, military studies and anthropology. DIIS contributes to the education of researchers both at home and in developing countries and welcomes practitioners from relevant ministries for prolonged periods of time, in order to qualify the knowledge of how DIIS research is used outside of academic circles. The institute performs and communicates basic research, research-based consultancy and commissioned work. Commissioned policy work can be requested by the Danish Parliament, its ministries, NGOs and other clients. DIIS participates in academic networks and publishes in high-ranking academic journals. The legal foundation for DIIS states, that the institute must continuously assess Denmark's foreign policy and political situation and inform the Danish media, politicians and the public about its findings.DIIS was founded as an independent institution by law nr. 411 of 6 June 2002, and the Institute commenced activities on 1 January 2003. DIIS was created as a fusion of the former Center for Freds og Konfliktforskning (COPRI), Center for Udviklingsforskning (CUF), Dansk Center for Holocaust og Folkedrabsstudier (DCHF) og Dansk Udenrigspolitisk Institut (DUPI). The current law is law nr 554 of 18 June 2012.DIIS is led by a board primarily from academia, in order to secure that the institute fulfils its scholarly obligations. The director is appointed by the board and advised by an internal Research Committee on strategic planning of the institute's research. DIIS is committed to the Principles of Research Integrity.According to the law, the purpose of DIIS is to:The Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program at the University of Pennsylvania ranks DIIS in the annual Go To Think Tank Index. The institute is ranked consistently high, in 2017 DIIS was ranked fifth among research institutes in Western Europe, and in 2018 the index improved DIIS’ ranking to fourth in Western Europe..
This article explores the ethical and practical challenges of conducting long-term ethnographic fieldwork in conflict zones in an era of widespread smartphone and social media use. It argues that digital technology not only transforms methodological approaches but also reshapes the nature of war itself. Drawing on insights from fieldwork in various conflict zones, including Somalia, Ukraine, and South Sudan, it asks: How does rapidly acquired digital connectivity change the way we conceptualize, approach, and conduct fieldwork in conflict zones? When smartphones are both research tools and potential weapons of war (Ford and Hoskins 2022), how can we use them ethically? Reflecting on three online/offline complexities of the author’s fieldwork experiences in Somalia/Somaliland in 2021, the article suggests that participative warfare and digital research methodologies are intertwined, driven by the proliferation of connected devices. Practical, ethical, and security concerns arise from this intersection. First, researchers may become direct participants in war, whether physically present or not. Second, there is limited awareness of the security risks posed by technology, especially given the rise of mis- and disinformation in conflict settings. Finally, since the traditional notion of the “field” has collapsed, making us potentially reachable anywhere and at any time, we need to reconsider how we establish temporal boundaries to ensure safe and sustainable research practices. The article concludes that researchers must navigate a blended field of offline and online phenomena, underscoring the need to safeguard in-person fieldwork while allowing sufficient time to engage with the digital realm.
Formalisation of land is a strategy advocated by local and international NGOs for pastoralists and hunter-gatherers whose livelihoods depend on mobility and access to traditional territories with seasonal resources. As ever more land is sequestered into fortress conservation, as more underground mineral deposits are identified and as large-scale agriculture expands, even semi-arid landscapes are attracting a wide range of actors. In this article we focus on how pastoralists and hunter-gatherers in Tanzania have attempted to increase security of tenure over their communal land by utilising new institutional forms. We explore how changes in the political, administrative and legal contexts within which these communities live often undermine their efforts to protect their land rights. Finally, through a series of case studies, we show how the strategic adoption of new institutions by these communities has had variable success in advancing security of tenure over their communal lands and livelihoods.This article was published open access under a CC BY-NC 4.0 licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
During the United Kingdom's (UK' first COVID-19 lockdown, the Clap for Carers ritual was framed as a national act of gratitude for healthcare workers. For ten weeks, millions clapped, banged pots and cheered from their homes - yet for many National Health Service (NHS) workers, this display of public appreciation sat uneasily with their lived realities. This article examines the Clap for Carers as a complex and contested phenomenon, drawing on mainstream and social media discourse (2020-2024) and interviews with NHS clinicians conducted during a period of historic strike action (2023-2024). It explores how the ritual, although presented as a spontaneous outpouring of solidarity, reinforced divisions between the public and healthcare workers, transforming staff into symbols rather than addressing their material needs. The study situates the Clap within the cultural and political history of the NHS, highlighting its entanglement with narratives of national identity, duty and resilience. Clinicians' testimonies reveal the emotional and ethical burdens of their role, resisting the wartime rhetoric of sacrifice and instead pointing to experiences of moral injury and systemic neglect. As the UK emerges from the pandemic, this article asks how public narratives of care, crisis and gratitude shape the realities of healthcare work - and what is at stake when symbolic gestures replace meaningful support.
This article examines Somali WhatsApp groups as socio-technical gathering spaces used for emergency assistance during crises. Drawing on multi-sited fieldwork in Nairobi and Mogadishu, and a case study of a WhatsApp group mobilising drought relief in 2022, we explore how platform usage is shaped by social norms, care practices and kinship structures to enable mobilisation, coordination, and distribution of aid. Inspired by scholarship on communicative affordances, we conceptualise WhatsApp kinship groups as closed but scalable online spaces, highlighting assembly and coordination in a context where disasters and emergencies are recurrent. We argue that these groups extend long-standing Somali mutual support systems into digital space, intensifying practices of connectivity and emergency response, while reflecting and potentially reproducing social hierarchies. By analysing Somali WhatsApp usage as situated socio-technical practices, the article contributes to broader debates on digital and diaspora humanitarianism, vernacular giving, and crisis response.
