 So, my article explores how humanitarian space in conflict affected states impacts on the knowledge produced about those states and how humanitarians then respond to that knowledge. And the background to the article is actually an observation that's made in quite a lot of the literature that humanitarian agencies working in conflict affected states don't actually occupy the exact sites where violence takes place in those states, but rather they live or occupy this space that is a kind of safe, bunkerised area slightly away from the violence. But despite the fact they don't occupy that space they do need to know what's happening in the places where there is most violence and they need to gather information about that. And my article looks at how they go about doing that and in large part the main way they do that is by resorting to remote technologies to gather information. So the article specifically looks at the peacekeepers in the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo and there the UN peacekeeping mission is using a number of remote technologies in order to gather information. They are using crowdsourcing technology that is asking populations affected by conflict to give them information via mobile phone and internet technologies and they're also using unarmed aerial vehicles or drones as they're perhaps better known to survey the areas where there's high levels of violence, particularly areas where armed groups might operate. And then they're using that information to inform their practices to help with the delivery of aid and to survey the activities of armed groups. Because of the multiple uses of this technology there is a tendency to think that remote technologies are a magical fix to the problems of insecurity that prevent the humanitarians from operating in specific areas and that the potential of tools, particularly tools like crowdsourcing can't be overestimated. But in my article I show that the potential of these technologies can actually be overestimated and in some cases they can lead to harmful practices because they reify the type of knowledge, the kind of simplistic narratives of the causes of conflict that often end up leading to ill judged humanitarian policies. So the article focuses specifically on two different approaches to research that I undertook when I was conducting research on armed groups in the Eastern Congo with humanitarians in mind and reflects on the types of knowledge the two types of research methodology generated. So in the first case I was conducting a kind of ethnographic study with armed groups travelling to the areas that they occupied interviewing armed group members and the populations under their control and in the second research approach I was utilising these remote technologies. I set up a crowdsourcing platform and conducted some semi-structured interviews via text message with armed group members and populations under their control. And reflecting on that I found that there were two quite clear differences in the research in that the first element of the research, more ethnographic approach to research produced quite detailed understandings of complex dynamics and the more remotely gathered data actually produced quite thin data that was quite hard to verify and hard to follow up on. But there were other issues such as who gets to control the narrative in these two different approaches and in remotely gathered data a lot of the narrative tends to be monopolised by elite actors who are more technologically savvy and able to speak out and reach out more but it's also controlled by these elite actors and we've seen that actually a lot of the information gathered ostensibly for humanitarian purposes gets used by authoritarian governments and authoritarian actors for coercion and control. So I conclude by arguing that humanitarians and academics have to be weary of being overly reliant on remotely gathered data and that while it might be helpful supplementary evidence when there are issues of inaccessibility and security that they can't rely on this alone and that they must supplement their knowledge with embedded on-the-ground data that they gather themselves.