Research as usual in humanitarian settings? Equalising power in academic-NGO research partnerships through co-production

Accountability and objectivity: Humanitarian narratives at the intersection of evidence and localisation

In the last decade, there has been a push for greater evidence-based practice within the humanitarian sector, alongside an increasing turn towards localising humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian actors and organisations have been increasing their production and use of evidence, while also being encouraged to reflect more critically on power hierarchies and decolonise humanitarian aid. This paper explores the intersection of these two narratives, examining how the use of evidence in humanitarian decision-making fits within a localisation agenda. Based on interviews with humanitarian health practitioners located globally, we examine how evidence is defined, and how it is used, including to inform both hierarchical and bottom-up approaches to decision-making. We find clear hierarchies about what counts as good evidence, with a weighting towards randomised-controlled trials, and that the perspectives of populations most affected by crises and the expertise of local actors were not routinely seen as central forms of evidence. Narratives about needing to build the capacity of local actors persist, alongside the notion of evidence as objective. We suggest that a disconnect exists between humanitarian discourses about evidence and localisation, arguing for the need to view evidence as political and influenced by researcher positionality This suggests that more consideration of locally-driven knowledge is needed and will strengthen humanitarian decision-making. We argue that a distinction between evidence and localisation does a disservice to both agendas and that finding synergies between these concepts would strengthen both.

Exploring the perspectives and practices of humanitarian actors towards the Participation Revolution in humanitarian digital health responses: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

As crises escalate worldwide, there is an increasing demand for innovative solutions to enhance humanitarian outcomes. Within this landscape, digital health tools have emerged as promising solutions to tackle certain health challenges. The integration of digital health tools within the international humanitarian system provides an opportunity to reflect upon the system's paternalistic tendencies, driven largely by Global North organisations, that perpetuate existing inequities in the Global South, where the majority of crises occur. The Participation Revolution, a fundamental pillar of the Localisation Agenda, seeks to address these inequities by advocating for greater participation from crisis-affected people in response efforts. Despite being widely accepted as a best practice; a gap remains between the rhetoric and practice of participation in humanitarian response efforts. This study explores the extent and nature of participatory action within contemporary humanitarian digital health projects, highlighting participatory barriers and tensions and offering potential solutions to bridge the participation gap to enhance transformative change in humanitarian response efforts.

METHODS

Sixteen qualitative interviews were conducted with humanitarian health practitioners and experts to retrospectively explored participatory practices within their digital health projects. The interviews were structured and analysed according to the Localisation Performance Measurement Framework's participation indicators and thematically, following the Framework Method. The study was guided by the COREQ checklist for quality reporting.

RESULTS

Varied participatory formats, including focus groups and interviews, demonstrated modest progress towards participation indicators. However, the extent of influence and power held by crisis-affected people during participation remained limited in terms of breadth and depth. Participatory barriers emerged under four key themes: project processes, health evidence, technology infrastructure and the crisis context. Lessons for leveraging participatory digital health humanitarian interventions were conducting thorough pre-project assessments and maintaining engagement with crisis-affected populations throughout and after humanitarian action.

CONCLUSION

The emerging barriers were instrumental in shaping the limited participatory reality and have implications: Failing to engage crisis-affected people risks perpetuating inequalities and causing harm. To advance the Participation Revolution for humanitarian digital health response efforts, the major participatory barriers should be addressed to improve humanitarian efficiency and digital health efficacy and uphold the rights of crisis-affected people.

Challenges and opportunities in coproduction: reflections on working with young people to develop an intervention to prevent violence in informal settlements in South Africa

Coproduction is widely recognised as essential to the development of effective and sustainable complex health interventions. Through involving potential end users in the design of interventions, coproduction provides a means of challenging power relations and ensuring the intervention being implemented accurately reflects lived experiences. Yet, how do we ensure that coproduction delivers on this promise? What methods or techniques can we use to challenge power relations and ensure interventions are both more effective and sustainable in the longer term? To answer these questions, we openly reflect on the coproduction process used as part of Siyaphambili Youth ('Youth Moving Forward'), a 3-year project to create an intervention to address the social contextual factors that create syndemics of health risks for young people living in informal settlements in KwaZulu-Natal province in South Africa. We identify four methods or techniques that may help improve the methodological practice of coproduction: (1) building trust through small group work with similar individuals, opportunities for distance from the research topic and mutual exchanges about lived experiences; (2) strengthening research capacity by involving end users in the interpretation of data and explaining research concepts in a way that is meaningful to them; (3) embracing conflicts that arise between researchers' perspectives and those of people with lived experiences; and (4) challenging research epistemologies through creating spaces for constant reflection by the research team. These methods are not a magic chalice of codeveloping complex health interventions, but rather an invitation for a wider conversation that moves beyond a set of principles to interrogate what works in coproduction practice. In order to move the conversation forward, we suggest that coproduction needs to be seen as its own complex intervention, with research teams as potential beneficiaries.

Overcoming structural barriers to sharing power with communities in global health research priority-setting: Lessons from the Participation for Local Action project in Karnataka, India

Community engagement is gaining prominence in global health research. But communities rarely have a say in the agendas or conduct of the very health research projects that aim to help them. This paper provides new evidence on how to share power in priority-setting in ways that seek to overcome structural constraints created by the funding environment. The five strategies were identified through case study research on the Participation for Local Action project in Karnataka, India. That project was carried out by researchers in partnership with the Zilla Budakattu Girijana Abhivrudhhi Sangha, an indigenous community development organisation representing the Solega people. The paper describes each identified strategy for sharing power in priority-setting, followed by a report of the pitfalls and challenges that arose when implementing it. Thus, the study also demonstrates that even where actions and strategies are used to address power imbalances, pitfalls will arise that need to be navigated. Given those challenges, considerations to reflect upon before employing the identified strategies are suggested. Ultimately, the paper aims to communicate strategies for sharing power during and after priority-setting and lessons on how to implement them effectively that can be used by global health researchers in the current funding environment.

“Nothing about us, without us”? A qualitative study of service user involvement in the development of lay-delivered psychological interventions in contexts affected by humanitarian crises

Background

: Service user involvement has become increasingly prioritised within health research, and more recently, within mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS). However, there is limited exploration of service user involvement in the development of lay-delivered MHPSS psychological interventions. The aim of this research was to investigate how service users have been involved in the development of lay-delivered psychological interventions for populations affected by humanitarian crises.

Methods

: Thirteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with respondents involved in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lay-delivered MHPSS psychological interventions, either as principal investigators or as focal points for service user involvement. Thematic data analysis used was used to analyse the data.

Results

: There was a common perception that service user involvement is vital to the development of lay-delivered psychological interventions, but there was concern about how that happened in practice. Respondents desired to increase service user involvement, but they either did not know how to do this into practice or felt that they lacked the resources to do so. Recommendations were made for strengthening involvement, such as employing service users onto research teams. However, legal difficulties in compensating service users for their work were raised.

Conclusion

: Service user involvement was viewed as vital in the development of lay delivered psychological interventions, but remains predominantly tokenistic, partly due to limited guidance, time, and finances. Guidelines could support more meaningful and ethical service user involvement in lay-delivered psychological interventions in areas affected by humanitarian crises.