Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Background

Research partnerships in conflict-affected and humanitarian settings can reveal complex power hierarchies between academics and NGOs. During the process of research, decision-making may skew in favour of more powerful actors, who often direct the scope of the research, hold the budget and lead the analysis. Co-production is increasingly emerging as a helpful approach that attempts to equalise power dynamics during research. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the main challenges associated with a "research as usual" approach to research partnerships in humanitarian settings, as power hierarchies may be particularly magnified in these settings.

Methods

This paper is based on a comprehensive literature review and 32 semi-structured interviews with academics and practitioners from non-government organisations. Participants were selected purposively based on their experience in co-producing research or working within research partnerships. Some participants had worked in humanitarian settings while others had experience co-producing research in non-humanitarian contexts. We used Nvivo to thematically code data.

Results

This paper documents the problems with "research as usual" partnerships in humanitarian settings, specifically: the burden on communities as merely sources of data, certain forms of knowledge being valued over others, lack of reflection on the power hierarchies structuring research partnerships, top-down decision-making and lack of transparency, one-way "capacity-building", lack of mutual benefit, and rigid research processes and timeframes.

Conclusion

This paper highlights key challenges with standard research practices in humanitarian settings and identifies seven key principles of co-production that can be helpful in attempting to equalise power dynamics within research partnerships, specifically in conflict-affected and humanitarian settings.

SUBMITTER: Lokot M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8390113 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn estimated 70.8 million people are forcibly displaced worldwide, 75% of whom are women and children. Prioritizing a global research agenda to inform guidance, service delivery, access to and quality of services is essential to improve the survival and health of women, children and adolescents in humanitarian settings.MethodA mixed-methods design was adapted from the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology to solicit priority research questions across the sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (SRMNCAH) domains in humanitarian settings. The first step (CHNRI) involved data collection and scoring of perceived priority questions, using a web-based survey over two rounds (first, to generate the questions and secondly, to score them). Over 1000 stakeholders from across the globe were approached; 177 took part in the first survey and 69 took part in the second. These research questions were prioritized by generating a research prioritization score (RPP) across four dimensions: answerability, program feasibility, public health relevance and equity. A Delphi process of 29 experts followed, where the 50 scored and prioritized CHRNI research questions were shortlisted. The top five questions from the CHNRI scored list for each SRMNCAH domain were voted on, rendering a final list per domain.ResultsA total of 280 questions were generated. Generated questions covered sexual and reproductive health (SRH) (n = 90, 32.1%), maternal health (n = 75, 26.8%), newborn health (n = 42, 15.0%), child health (n = 43, 15.4%), and non-SRH aspects of adolescent health (n = 31, 11.1%). A shortlist of the top ten prioritized questions for each domain were generated on the basis of the computed RPPs. During the Delphi process, the prioritized questions, based on the CHNRI process, were further refined. Five questions from the shortlist of each of the SRMNCAH domain were formulated, resulting in 25 priority questions across SRMNCAH. For example, one of the prioritized SRH shortlisted and prioritized research question included: "What are effective strategies to implement good quality comprehensive contraceptive services (long-acting, short-acting and EC) for women and girls in humanitarian settings?"ConclusionData needs, effective intervention strategies and approaches, as well as greater efficiency and quality during delivery of care in humanitarian settings were prioritized. The findings from this research provide guidance for researchers, program implementers, as well as donor agencies on SRMNCAH research priorities in humanitarian settings. A global research agenda could save the lives of those who are at greatest risk and vulnerability as well as increase opportunities for translation and innovation for SRMNCAH in humanitarian settings.

Project description:BackgroundEmbedded implementation research (IR) promotes evidence-informed policy and practices by involving decision-makers and program implementers in research activities that focus on understanding and solving existing implementation challenges. Although embedded IR has been conducted in multiple settings by different organizations, there are limited experiences of embedded IR in humanitarian settings. This study highlights some of the key challenges of conducting embedded IR in a humanitarian setting based on our experience with the Rohingya refugee population in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh.Methods and findingsWe collected qualitative data in between January and July 2019. First, we visited Rohingya refugee camps and interviewed representatives from different humanitarian organizations. Second, we conducted interviews with researchers from BRAC University who were engaged with data collection and analysis in a broader embedded IR study on maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (MNCAH) program implementation challenges. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Two researchers developed and agreed on codes and relevant themes based on the objectives of this study. The findings of this study highlight several challenges encountered while conducting embedded IR in the Rohingya emergency setting in Cox's Bazar, which may have implications for other humanitarian settings. The overall context of the camps was complex, with more than 100 organizations devoted to providing health services for approximately 1 million refugees. Despite the presence of the Bangladesh government, United Nations agencies and other international organizations played key roles in making programmatic and policy decisions for the Rohingya. Because health service delivery modalities and policies and related implementation challenges for MNCAH programs for the refugees changed rapidly, the embedded IR approach used was flexible and able to adapt to changes identified, with research questions and methods modified accordingly. Access to the camps, reaching Rohingya respondents, overcoming language barriers in order to get quality information, and the limited availability of local research collaborators were additional challenges. Working with researchers or research institutes that are familiar with the context and have experience in conducting implementation and health systems research can help with collection of quality data, identifying key stakeholders and bringing them on board to ensure the execution of the project, and ensuring utilization of the research findings. Study limitations include possible constraints in generalizing our conclusions to other humanitarian settings. Implementation research conducted in additional humanitarian settings can contribute to the evidence on this topic.ConclusionsFindings indicate that embedded IR can be done effectively in humanitarian settings if the challenges are anticipated, and appropriate strategies and in-country partners put in place to address or mitigate them, before commencing the funding or starting of the project. Understanding the context and analyzing the role of relevant stakeholders prior to conducting the research, considering a simple descriptive method appropriate to answering real-time IR questions, and working with local researchers or research institutes with specific skill sets and prior experience conducting research in humanization contexts may reduce costs and time spent, and ensure collection of quality data relevant for policy and practice.

Project description:Community involvement in HIV research has increased over recent years, enhancing community-academic partnerships. Several terms have been used to describe community participation in research. Clarification is needed to determine whether these terms are synonymous or actually describe different research processes. In addition, it remains unclear if the role that communities play in the actual research process follows the recommendations given in theoretical frameworks of community-academia research.The objective of this study is to review the existing terms and definitions regarding community-academic partnerships and assess how studies are implementing these in relation to conceptual definitions.A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed. Two reviewers independently assessed each article, applying the following inclusion criteria: the article must be published in English before 2013; it must provide an explicit definition and/or defining methodology for a term describing research with a community component; and it has to refer to HIV or AIDS, reproductive health and/or STDs. When disagreements about the relevance of an article emerged, a third reviewer was involved until concordance was reached. Data were extracted by one reviewer and independently verified by a second. Qualitative data were analyzed using MaxQDA for content and thematic analyses while quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Community feedback on data analysis and presentation of results was also incorporated.In total, 246 articles were retrieved, 159 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The number of studies that included community participation in the field of HIV research increased between 1991 and 2012, and the terms used to describe these activities have changed, moving away from action research (AR) to participatory action research (PAR), community-based research (CBR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR), with the latter being the most commonly used term. While definitions of all terms had common characteristics (e.g. participation of community in research process), they varied with regard to the emphasis placed on these characteristics. The nature of community participation in reviewed studies differed considerably from that described in theoretical models.This study indicates the increase of participatory approaches in HIV research and underlines the need for clarification of terms and a framework providing orientation to community-academia partnerships.

Project description:BackgroundDespite growing enthusiasm for co-production in healthcare services and research, research on co-production practices is lacking. Multiple frameworks, guidelines and principles are available but little empirical research is conducted on 'how to do' co-production of research to improve healthcare services. This paper brings together insights from UK-based collaborative research partnerships on leading co-production. Its aim is to inform practical guidance for new partnerships planning to facilitate the co-production of applied health research in the future.MethodsUsing an auto-ethnographic approach, experiential evidence was elicited through collective sense making from recorded conversations between the research team and senior leaders of five UK-based collaborative research partnerships. This approach applies a cultural analysis and interpretation of the leaders' behaviours, thoughts and experiences of co-production taking place in 2008-2018 and involving academics, health practitioners, policy makers and representatives of third sector organisations.ResultsThe findings highlight a variety of practices across CLAHRCs, whereby the intersection between the senior leaders' vision and local organisational context in which co-production occurs largely determines the nature of co-production process and outcomes. We identified four tensions in doing co-production: (1) idealistic, tokenistic vs realistic narratives, (2) power differences and (lack of) reciprocity, (3) excluding vs including language and communication, (4) individual motivation vs structural issues.ConclusionsThe tensions were productive in helping collaborative research partnerships to tailor co-production practices to their local needs and opportunities. Resulting variation in co-production practices across partnerships can therefore be seen as highly advantageous creative adaptation, which makes us question the utility of seeking a unified 'gold standard' of co-production. Strategic leadership is an important starting point for finding context-tailored solutions; however, development of more distributed forms of leadership over time is needed to facilitate co-production practices between partners. Facilitating structures for co-production can enable power sharing and boost capacity and capability building, resulting in more inclusive language and communication and, ultimately, more credible practices of co-production in research. We provide recommendations for creating more realistic narratives around co-production and facilitating power sharing between partners.