Sometimes researchers work with data that the human eye cannot perceive. Infrared and false colouration, for example, enable the analysis of incidents and trends that would otherwise go unnoticed, while Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellites use radar to produce images, working at night and in cloudy conditions. In February, academics working with SAR and road traffic data from GPS were the first to spot that Russian troops amassed on the Ukrainian border were preparing to invade.

Pushing the boundaries

Satellite and tech-informed research methods enable a more holistic view of how multiple phenomena intersect to drive and resolve conflict. For example, they illuminate how climate change, water scarcity, food insecurity and conflict intersect and exacerbate each other – a critical area of research given that 14 of the 25 countries most affected by climate change are beset by conflict.

Research by XCEPT and RHIPTO on the tri-border area of Chad, Libya, and Sudan uses satellite and other data to show how falling oil prices have catalysed alternative livelihoods, including artisanal gold mining and people smuggling. It reveals how control over people, gold, and other commodities ebbs and flows between different powerbrokers and armed groups across borders, redrawing battle lines and affecting wider stability – the Libyan ceasefire, for example. And it shows how broader national, regional, and global factors affect these transnational dynamics. For example, COVID-19’s curbs on air travel led to a surge in illegal overland migration.

Mixed-methods research incorporating satellites has also revolutionised our ability to understand change over time. Researchers can access a “multi-year time machine that allows you to detect change”, in spectrums beyond the human eye, says Nathaniel Raymond, lecturer at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. This is a game-changer for conflict analysis, expanding our understanding of conflict’s short-term shocks and long-term effects. By combining aggregated satellite imagery with other data, researchers can unlock correlations that previously would have been impossible.

This analysis helps shape policies more attuned to the granular detail, triggers and trends that make up the big picture over time. It sharpens policies and interventions on conflict resolution, humanitarian aid, peacebuilding, and long-term stability, shedding light on how to balance political, development and security priorities and better integrate local, national and regional responses. Alongside predictive peacekeeping tools, it can help forecast when conflicts might occur and how and when to intervene, enabling pre-emptive interventions rather than reactive responses, which typify peacebuilding today.

With much research being open access, it has rapidly become a public good benefiting multiple communities and governments.

Remote methods are new tools in researchers’ existing methods toolkit. They are most valuable when blended with traditional methods. The optimal mix leverages these new approaches alongside traditional qualitative and quantitative field methods. Ground truth data collection, such as interviews and surveys, enables calibration, framing and sense checking of remote methods.

A Revolution Requiring Careful Handling

Of course, remote sensing research is not without its challenges. As a new and growing sector, it faces a raft of issues – including a lack of expertise, outdated ethical frameworks, misuse and misinterpretation, and the constant danger of actionable, real-time information being exploited by bad actors to cause harm. The challenge now is to address these problems, be laser-focused on the problems at hand, and ensure robust ethical frameworks for research.

Misinterpretation is a major challenge. Often, expertise within academia has not kept pace with the sophisticated tools now available, while misinterpretation by proliferating users outside of expert networks is also widespread. Incorrect assumptions and false correlations are common pitfalls where satellite imagery and open-source data aren’t properly contextualised and analysed.

In the wrong hands, open-access data and research can cause severe harm to vulnerable populations and reshape conflict dynamics to devastating effect. For example, Raymond says the publication of a 2012 report by Harvard’s Satellite Sentinel Project (where he then worked) on road construction and military deployments in southern Sudan contributed to Sudanese rebels kidnapping 29 Chinese road builders.

Researchers are not Nostradamus, they cannot predict the future, he says. They need to recognise that information could be used in unpredictable ways and take the potential second-order effects of using and releasing tech-gleaned data much more seriously.

“We have to continually reckon with the balance between the need to disclose and the need to minimise harm”, says Lee. “Civilian communities overwhelmingly pay the price in war –  their protection… should extend to what information is shared about them and … [where they are]”.

Start With Problems, Not Solutions

The hype surrounding new tech is another issue. Researchers can be tempted to start with a new tech-based solution and find problems to apply it to, rather than the other way around. But technology rarely offers ‘magic keys’ and should be treated as an asset, not a panacea – and one requiring expert handling.

Moving away from ‘solutions-led’ to ‘problem-driven’ approaches is far more likely to lead to robust interventions, says Heather Marquette, professor of development politics at the University of Birmingham and a specialist in corruption and anti-corruption evidence and interventions. For researchers, this means “being driven by the research question and not the tool or the method – technology-based or otherwise”.

“If we keep starting with the research questions, built around solving real-world problems, we can help avoid investing in tech for tech’s sake, and all the potential consequences that could go with that”, argues Professor Marquette.

There is also a danger that remote sensing becomes a comparatively cheap and easy proxy for informed engagement with vulnerable communities and raises issues of consent and anonymity that require far more attention. If researchers make decisions based on remote data rather than community consultations, their research risks further disenfranchising – and potentially endangering – the very people it strives to support. As with all research, but particularly in sensitive conflict settings, “community engagement … can’t just be replaced by an appropriate or a convenient tech solution,” says Charlotte Watts, the Chief Scientific Adviser at the FCDO.

Spotlight on Ethics

All research requires the constant evaluation of risk and ethics, but the stakes are particularly high for conflict-related research: if undertaken or communicated poorly, it has the potential to cause harm and suffering on an enormous scale.

As remote sensing research gets more ubiquitous, researchers must use it responsibly from start to finish – understanding and mitigating its dangers, following ‘Do No Harm’ principles, and ensuring robust ethics frameworks are in place. Researchers need to justify using satellite imagery and adhere to research ethics principles such as anonymity, openness of purpose, and ensuring risks to researchers and informants are mitigated, says Marquette.

Research institutes and governance bodies also need to step up and overhaul ethics frameworks. One major problem, says Raymond, is the focus on personally identifiable information (PII), which has seen institutional review boards (IRBs) give the greenlight to research because it does not include PII. But this research might include what Raymond terms “demographically identifiable information (DII)” – group characteristics like ethnicity or gender – which he calls the “engine … of remote sensing”. Because IRBs don’t think about populations in this way, they overlook the harms that research involving DII could cause – revealing information that could lead to ethnic cleansing, for example. And this oversight puts the onus on individual researchers to self-police.

Research bodies could take the lead in reassessing the ethics of remote sensing research and providing guidance. Organisations like the Economic and Social Research Council could help work through dilemmas and provide frameworks for practitioners and researchers – including by developing best practices, publicising examples of harm, and ensuring systems adapt over time to reflect new realities.

None of this will remove research risks entirely. But being clear about research questions, adhering to high ethical standards, and striving to anticipate potential use and misuse could mitigate them substantially. This culture shift needs to happen fast. For, as conflicts grow increasingly complex, strategies based on ethically robust research that mobilises myriad data types to deepen our understanding of wars and ways to resolve them, are becoming ever more vital.