This article focuses on researcher distress and well-being. It presents a survey carried out with scholars engaged in conflict-related sexual violence research from various disciplines. Respondents were asked about how they reacted to the research they engaged in and how their respective academic institutions supported them. Academia’s understanding of and preparedness for research-related distress is limited. While there is a focus on researcher safety in the field, typically from the perspective of institutional insurance and liability, there is less focus on researcher well-being. Our findings suggest that there is a need, and indeed willingness, to address distress and well-being within the conflict-related sexual violence research community. The ability to do so, however, depends in large part on the institutional setting of the individual researcher. We find there are institutional differences between the fields of political science, law, history, and international relations on the one hand where scholars report more difficulties, than within the fields of anthropology, social work, psychology, public health, and gender studies, which appear more trauma aware. The findings show that there are great variations between different scholarly disciplines and institutions. We find a clear need to address these topics not only in academic reflections in scholarly articles, but also on institutional levels within academic communities.

中文翻译：

---

研究与冲突相关的性暴力：这对研究人员的福祉意味着什么？


本文重点介绍研究人员的痛苦和幸福感。它介绍了对来自不同学科从事冲突相关性暴力研究的学者进行的调查。受访者被问及他们对所从事的研究有何反应，以及各自的学术机构如何支持他们。学术界对研究相关痛苦的理解和准备是有限的。虽然该领域通常从机构保险和责任的角度关注研究人员的安全，但对研究人员福祉的关注较少。我们的研究结果表明，在与冲突相关的性暴力研究界中，存在解决痛苦和福祉的需要，而且确实愿意。然而，这样做的能力在很大程度上取决于研究人员个人的机构环境。我们发现，政治学、法律、历史和国际关系领域之间存在制度差异，一方面，学者们报告的困难比人类学、社会工作、心理学、公共卫生和性别研究领域更多，而人类学、社会工作、心理学、公共卫生和性别研究领域似乎更了解创伤。研究结果表明，不同的学术学科和机构之间存在很大差异。我们发现，不仅在学术文章的学术反思中，而且在学术界的机构层面上，都明确需要解决这些主题。