International mediation has become a standard response to armed conflicts, reflected in an expanding research agenda on the topic. This article examines the alleged disconnect between practice and research on mediation. It analyses articles published in highly ranked academic journals and provides insights on who produces knowledge on mediation, how such knowledge is produced and what knowledge is produced. It shows that western male scholars produce the majority of scholarly research on mediation; that positivist approaches dominate these analyses and that most publications theorize about reasons for mediation success. Through this analysis, the article demonstrates that while high-impact mediation research is practice-oriented in that most contributions examine how to make it more effective, its practice-relevance could be strengthened in three ways: by increasing the diversity of perspectives, by adding more interpretive and qualitative approaches and by producing more critical research. The article demonstrates that broader mediation research published in more specialized journals, books and the policy literature contributes to filling these gaps. It therefore nuances the presumed disconnect between mediation research and practice. Overall, the article provides a thorough review of knowledge production on mediation and adds to discussions on diversity and the critical potential of the broader field of peace studies.

中文翻译：

---

调解知识生产：以实践为导向，但与实践无关？

国际调解已成为武装冲突的标准应对措施，这反映在该主题不断扩大的研究议程上。本文探讨了调解实践与研究之间所谓的脱节。它分析了在排名较高的学术期刊上发表的文章，并提供了有关谁产生调解知识、如何产生这些知识以及产生什么知识的见解。这表明西方男性学者对调解的学术研究占大多数；实证主义方法在这些分析中占主导地位，并且大多数出版物都对调解成功的原因进行了理论分析。通过这一分析，本文表明，虽然高影响力的调解研究是以实践为导向的，因为大多数贡献都研究如何使其更有效，可以通过三种方式加强其实践相关性：增加观点的多样性、增加更多的解释性和定性方法以及开展更多批判性研究。本文表明，在更专业的期刊、书籍和政策文献中发表的更广泛的调解研究有助于填补这些空白。因此，它对调解研究与实践之间假定的脱节进行了细微的区分。总体而言，本文对调解知识的产生进行了全面回顾，并补充了关于多样性和更广泛的和平研究领域的关键潜力的讨论。本文表明，在更专业的期刊、书籍和政策文献中发表的更广泛的调解研究有助于填补这些空白。因此，它对调解研究与实践之间假定的脱节进行了细微的区分。总体而言，本文对调解知识的产生进行了全面回顾，并补充了关于多样性和更广泛的和平研究领域的关键潜力的讨论。本文表明，在更专业的期刊、书籍和政策文献中发表的更广泛的调解研究有助于填补这些空白。因此，它对调解研究与实践之间假定的脱节进行了细微的区分。总体而言，本文对调解知识的产生进行了全面回顾，并补充了关于多样性和更广泛的和平研究领域的关键潜力的讨论。