Conducting operational research in humanitarian settings: is there a shared path for humanitarians, national public health authorities and academics?

Abstract

In humanitarian contexts, it is a difficult and multi-faceted task to enlist academics, humanitarian actors and health authorities in a collaborative research effort. The lack of research in such settings has been widely described in the past decade, but few have analysed the challenges in building strong and balanced research partnerships. The major issues include considering operational priorities, ethical imperatives and power differentials. This paper analyses in two steps a collaborative empirical endeavour to assess health service utilization by Syrian refugee and Lebanese women undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) and the Harvard François-Xavier Bagnoud (FXB) Center. First, based on challenges documented in the literature, we shed light on how we negotiated appropriate research questions, methodologies, bias analyses, resource availability, population specificities, security, logistics, funding, ethical issues and organizational cultures throughout the partnership. Second, we describe how the negotiations required each partner to go outside their comfort zones. For the academics, the drivers to engage included the intellectual value of the collaboration, the readiness of the operational partners to conduct an empirical investigation and the possibility that such work might lead to a better understanding in public health terms of how the response met population needs. For actors responding to the humanitarian crisis (the ICRC and the MOPH), participating in a technical collaboration permitted methodological issues to be worked through in the context of deliberations within the wider epistemic community. We find that when they collaborate, academics, humanitarian actors and health authorities deploy their respective complementarities to build a more comprehensive approach. Barriers such as the lack of uptake of research results or weak links to the existing literature were overcome by giving space to define research questions and develop a longer-term collaboration involving individual and institutional learning. There is the need ahead of time to create

Can Primary Healthcare be Protected as a Public Good in Lebanon Today?

“…These important questions for Lebanon relate to the need to recognize the trade-offs embedded in any decisions taken to respond to Covid-19 as an acute disaster unfolds, and how these can be negotiated in both the short and long term. These constraints include the necessity to integrate local knowledge and to build partnerships; while aiming to respond to acute needs, to diminish the cumulative impact in a population affected by different layers of crises, and to discern what has to be addressed immediately, while building longer term resilience [6,9]. These questions now confront those delivering primary health care in Lebanon.…”

Ethically Researching Local Impacts of Environmental Change without Travel

“…Online research can be more logistically straightforward than travelling, with major difficulties being time zone differences, technological reliability, and technological security. Equity also plays an ethical role in balancing different research modes and participants [14]. Many locations have no capability for remote work, so being in the location is essential.…”

The Humanitarian Lives Saved Tool: An evidence-based approach for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health program planning in humanitarian settings

“…Developing a resource that aims to be relevant and accessible for multiple stakeholders can be complicated, although fostering collaboration in this environment remains feasible and worthwhile [ 6 ]. Strengths of the H-LiST approach center around the rapid adaptation of an existing, evidence-based tool.…”