This article asks: how do art practice and research give form to changing dynamics of conflict? Its argument is two-fold: art's contribution can be developed from empirical considerations (what art finds out), and from methodological ones (how art finds something out). Bringing in art practice and the research methods it informs into political science helps understand conflict and its changes: by engaging simultaneously with the interaction between the collective and the personal, art practice and research elucidates those complex and layered narratives used by various actors in conflict that often resist approaches rooted in social and political sciences. By paying attention to everyday interactions and emphasizing dynamism, art provides a different way to chart changes in armed conflict. Art documents discourses that are difficult to communicate otherwise and allows us to detect and engage with the grey areas, transformations, processes and ambivalences of conflicts that escape neat categorizations.

In a context of backlash against diversity in many countries, we know little about how ethnic minorities respond politically when they personally experience discrimination. Moving beyond the study of electoral participation, this research investigates whether experiences of discrimination push ethnic minorities toward an alternate political pathway for those who feel sidelined by the political community: protest activity. The study also examines whether the context of discrimination (i.e. public or private sphere) has different consequences for protest participation, and whether intragroup contact enhances the effects of discrimination on protest participation. Relying on a survey of 1647 respondents from racialized backgrounds in Canada, our findings indicate that discriminatory experiences increase participation in protest activities irrespective of its context, and that the positive relationship between discriminatory experiences and protest activity is stronger among respondents with greater intragroup contact.

There is little comparative research on what causes candidates in elections across the world to 'go negative' on their rivals - mainly because of the scarcity of large-scale datasets. In this article, we present new evidence covering over 80 recent national elections across the world (2016-2018), in which more than 400 candidates competed. For the first time in a large-scale comparative setting, we show that, , negativity is more likely for challengers, extreme candidates, and right-wing candidates. Women are not more (or less) likely to go negative on their rivals than their male counterparts, but we find that higher numbers of female MPs in the country reduces negativity overall. Furthermore, women tend to go less negative in proportional systems and more negative in majoritarian systems. Finally, negativity is especially low for candidates on the left in countries with high female representation, and higher for candidates on the right in countries with proportional representation (PR).