Safeguarding is rapidly rising up the international development agenda, yet literature on safeguarding in related research is limited. This paper shares processes and practice relating to safeguarding within an international research consortium (the ARISE hub, known as ARISE). ARISE aims to enhance accountability and improve the health and well-being of marginalised people living and working in informal urban spaces in low-income and middle-income countries (Bangladesh, India, Kenya and Sierra Leone). Our manuscript is divided into three key sections. We start by discussing the importance of safeguarding in global health research and consider how thinking about vulnerability as a relational concept (shaped by unequal power relations and structural violence) can help locate fluid and context specific safeguarding risks within broader social systems. We then discuss the different steps undertaken in ARISE to develop a shared approach to safeguarding: sharing institutional guidelines and practice; facilitating a participatory process to agree a working definition of safeguarding and joint understandings of vulnerabilities, risks and mitigation strategies and share experiences; developing action plans for safeguarding. This is followed by reflection on our key learnings including how safeguarding, ethics and health and safety concerns overlap; the challenges of referral and support for safeguarding concerns within frequently underserved informal urban spaces; and the importance of reflective practice and critical thinking about power, judgement and positionality and the ownership of the global narrative surrounding safeguarding. We finish by situating our learning within debates on decolonising science and argue for the importance of an iterative, ongoing learning journey that is critical, reflective and inclusive of vulnerable people.

The government of India has, over the past decade, implemented the “integration” of traditional, complementary and alternative medical (TCAM) practitioners, specifically practitioners of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-rigpa, and Homoeopathy (collectively known by the acronym AYUSH), in government health services. A range of operational and ethical challenges has manifested during this process of large health system reform. We explored the practices and perceptions of health system actors, in relation to AYUSH providers' roles in government health services in three Indian states – Kerala, Meghalaya, and Delhi. Research methods included 196 in-depth interviews with a range of health policy and system actors and beneficiaries, between February and October 2012, and review of national, state, and district-level policy documents relating to AYUSH integration. The thematic ‘framework’ approach was applied to analyze data from the interviews, and systematic content analysis performed on policy documents.We found that the roles of AYUSH providers are frequently ambiguously stated and variably interpreted, in relation to various aspects of their practice, such as outpatient care, prescribing rights, emergency duties, obstetric services, night duties, and referrals across systems of medicine. Work sharing is variously interpreted by different health system actors as complementing allopathic practice with AYUSH practice, or allopathic practice, by AYUSH providers to supplement the work of allopathic practitioners. Interactions among AYUSH practitioners and their health system colleagues frequently take place in a context of partial information, preconceived notions, power imbalances, and mistrust. In some notable instances, collegial relationships and apt divisions of responsibilities are observed. Widespread normative ambivalence around the roles of AYUSH providers, complicated by the logistical constraints prevalent in poorly resourced systems, has the potential to undermine the therapeutic practices and motivation of AYUSH providers, as well as the overall efficiency and performance of integrated health services.

COVID-19 brings uncertainties and new precarities for communities and researchers, altering and amplifying relational vulnerabilities (vulnerabilities which emerge from relationships of unequal power and place those less powerful at risk of abuse and violence). Research approaches have changed too, with increasing use of remote data collection methods. These multiple changes necessitate new or adapted safeguarding responses. This practice piece shares practical learnings and resources on safeguarding from the Accountability for Informal Urban Equity hub, which uses participatory action research, aiming to catalyse change in approaches to enhancing accountability and improving the health and well-being of marginalised people living and working in informal urban spaces in Bangladesh, India, Kenya and Sierra Leone. We outline three new challenges that emerged in the context of the pandemic (1): exacerbated relational vulnerabilities and dilemmas for researchers in responding to increased reports of different forms of violence coupled with support services that were limited prior to the pandemic becoming barely functional or non-existent in some research sites, (2) the increased use of virtual and remote research methods, with implications for safeguarding and (3) new stress, anxiety and vulnerabilities experienced by researchers. We then outline our learning and recommended action points for addressing emerging challenges, linking practice to the mnemonic ‘the four Rs: recognise, respond, report, refer’. COVID-19 has intensified safeguarding risks. We stress the importance of communities, researchers and co-researchers engaging in dialogue and ongoing discussions of power and positionality, which are important to foster co-learning and co-production of safeguarding processes.