The Covid-19 pandemic, and measures to contain the spread of the virus, such as border closures, quarantine requirements, mandatory PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) tests, curfews, and social distancing requirements, have had a significant impact on research methods and approaches. Most of the available literature assumes that remote data collection is the only viable means of collecting primary data during the pandemic, so that is the focus of this report. While there is an extensive discussion of challenges associated with undertaking primary data collection during this time, there are also several commentaries and opinion pieces that highlight the opportunities and positive aspects of remote data collection.

There is some evidence of the private sector playing a role in supporting refugee livelihoods and self-reliance in Uganda during the period 2016-2020. However, a number of evaluations and research reports highlight the potential for greater private sector involvement, if existing constraints are addressed. Key lessons identified in the literature include the need for more research, especially on market potential, to address the existing knowledge gaps on the role the private sector can play in supporting refugee livelihoods and self-reliance in Uganda. The literature notes that limited access to capital, as well as appropriate financing schemes, are key constraints to the growth of the agribusiness sector. Furthermore, access to natural resources required for agri-business, such as land and water needs to receive more attention from NGOs and donors. The evidence also shows that there is a need for guidelines on the monitoring and evaluation of humanitarian adaptations of market systems development programming. The literature also notes that local actors should be involved in the design and assessment of investment opportunities and risk of interventions to increase project impact.

If the purpose of IR theory is to aid our understanding of the major events and problems facing us today, then it is imperative that events are not simplified purely for the sake of theory. All potentially relevant resources must be considered, regardless of the theoretical tradition in which they are rooted. It is entirely possible that there are problems, which can be viewed and understood, through the lens of one school of thought alone, yet the reality of more complex problems, which do not fit into a particular box, must be acknowledged. Sil and Katzenstein, exponents of 'analytic eclecticism,' 59 acknowledge the limitations of viewing problems through a single theoretical lens. They describe analytic eclecticism as "a means for social scientists to guard against the risks of excessive reliance on a single analytic framework and the simplifying assumptions that come with it." 60 Sil and Katzenstein argue that "analytic eclecticism increases the chance that scholars and other actors will hit upon hidden connections and new insights that elude us when we simplify the world for the sole purpose of analyzing it through a single theoretical lens." 61 Fearon and Wendt reinforce this argument stating that the most interesting research is likely to be that, which cuts across the rationalist/constructivist boundary. 62 They argue that structuring IR as a "battle of analytical paradigms" can lead to scholars being method-driven rather than problem-driven in their approach which can in turn result in important questions or answers being ignored if they do not fit in with the "preferred paradigmatic fashion." 63 This is particularly pertinent in the case of the decision-making processes behind Norway's interventions in intra-state conflicts, as attempts to view this through one or other theoretical framework have failed to provide convincing explanations. The ways in which this approach will be applied in the context of this study are described in detail in the conceptual framework, laid out in Chapter Two.

Eastern Ukraine has been affected by conflict since 2014, resulting in large numbers of people requiring humanitarian assistance. Throughout the different phases of the conflict, numerous lessons have been learned by humanitarian actors. This report outlines lessons learned in three categories, protect (protecting civilians, humanitarian access and civil-military coordination), prioritise (prioritising effective humanitarian assistance to people in greatest need), and prevent (preventing and anticipating future shocks and rebuilding resilience in protracted and recurring crises). There is a limited body of literature on lessons learned from humanitarian interventions in the Ukraine. Evaluations provide some evidence on best practices and areas for improvement, but these are limited in number. While these evaluations often provide lessons learned and recommendations for specific organisations, many of these are applicable for other international humanitarian actors operating in Ukraine. While Ukraine has a well-established social protection system, there is limited evidence on the use of existing social protection mechanisms to channel assistance. The existing literature on humanitarian interventions in Ukraine between 2014 and 2021 discusses persons with disabilities and the elderly from the perspective of inclusion in programming. There are also numerous gender analysis reports of conflict-affected areas, and gender is addressed in the context of gender mainstreaming in humanitarian interventions within programme evaluations.