Introduction: evidence‐based action in humanitarian crises

Dijkzeul, Dennis; Hilhorst, Dorothea; Walker, Peter

doi:10.1111/disa.12009

Cited by 31 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Christensen and Carlile (2009), understanding/measuring a phenomenon of interest and explaining the causes leading to the outcome reflect the descriptive and prescriptive facets of theory building. Such a theory-building approach is essential because the humanitarian research is in need of sound theoretical frameworks that not only promote further research, but also inform practice (Jahre, Jensen, and Listou, 2009;Dijkzeul, Hilhorst, and Walker, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the strategic antecedents of agility in humanitarian logistics

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the strategic antecedents of operational agility in humanitarian logistics. It began by identifying the particular actions to be taken at the strategic level of a humanitarian organisation to support field-level agility. Next, quantitative data (n=59) were collected on four strategic-level capabilities (being purposeful, action-focused, collaborative, and learning-oriented) and on operational agility (field responsiveness and flexibility). Using a quantitative analysis, the study tested the relationship between organisational capacity building and operational agility and found that the four strategic-level capabilities are fundamental building blocks of agility. Collectively they account for 52 per cent of the ability of humanitarian logisticians to deal with ongoing changes and disruptions in the field. This study emphasises the need for researchers and practitioners to embrace a broader perspective of agility in humanitarian logistics. In addition, it highlights the inherently strategic nature of agility, the development of which involves focusing simultaneously on multiple drivers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the strategic antecedents of agility in humanitarian logistics

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pressure to demonstrate that responses to crises are grounded in research evidence has been growing over recent years [1][2][3]. While other domains have been able to make progress in this field, the humanitarian aid domain still faces some challenges [1,4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting the use of research evidence in decision-making in crisis zones in low- and middle-income countries: a critical interpretive synthesis

Khalid

Lavis

El‐Jardali

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Decision-makers in crisis zones are faced with the challenge of having to make health-related decisions under limited time and resource constraints and in light of the many factors that can influence their decisions, of which research evidence is just one. To address a key gap in the research literature about how best to support the use of research evidence in such situations, we conducted a critical interpretive synthesis approach to develop a conceptual framework that outlines the strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use in crisis zones. Methods: We systematically reviewed both empirical and non-empirical literature and used an interpretive analytic approach to synthesise the results and develop the conceptual framework. We used a 'compass' question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SSCI and Web of Science. A second reviewer was assigned to a representative sample of articles. We purposively sampled additional papers to fill in conceptual gaps. Results: We identified 21 eligible papers to be analysed and purposively sampled an additional 6 to fill conceptual gaps. The synthesis resulted in a conceptual framework that focuses on evidence use in crisis zones examined through the lens of four systemspolitical, health, international humanitarian aid and health research. Within each of the four systems, the framework identifies the most actionable strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use. Conclusions: This study presents a new conceptual framework that outlines strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use in crisis zones within different systems. This study expands on the literature pertaining to evidence-informed decision-making.

show abstract

“…These different definitions lead to different interpretations of humanitarian governance; in particular, they vary about the extent to which they emphasise morality and norms, as well as political considerations, and promote human welfare. 1 Since the late 1990s, many humanitarian organisations-especially the multimandate ones that prefer the broader definition-have taken on more tasks, as the imperatives of 'do no harm' (Slim, 1997;Anderson, 1999;Darcy and Hofmann, 2003), rights-based approaches, and effectiveness and efficiency have also begun to claim import as a second tier of humanitarianism's conceptual underpinnings beyond the humanitarian principles (Dijkzeul, Hilhorst, and Walker, 2013). Perhaps best described as a desire for a consequentialist ethic, this development is part of the humanitarian field's growing effort to deal with consequences, be they a lack of impact, a negative impact or unexpected consequences.…”

Section: Perspectives On Humanitarian Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

A world in turmoil: governing risk, establishing order in humanitarian crises

Dijkzeul

Sandvik

2019

Disasters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue of Disasters on humanitarian governance focuses on risk and order. Its contributions show the tensions between humanitarian normative ideals and practical consequences, as many of the ordering effects are associated with either intended or unintended consequences. This introduction offers a conceptual framing of humanitarian governance. Defining humanitarian governance as a subset of global governance, the paper shows how humanitarians have attempted to improve the consequences of their work by fighting instrumentalisation and instituting rationalisation processes. It adapts four questions, originally formulated by Michael Barnett (), to examine the ways in which humanitarian governance functions in more detail: what kind of world is being imagined and produced through the specific concern with order and risk? Who governs? How is this a form of humanitarian governance and how is it organised? And finally, what are the principal techniques of such governance? The conclusion summarises the main findings and sets an agenda for further research.

show abstract

Introduction: evidence‐based action in humanitarian crises

Cited by 31 publications

References 15 publications

Investigating the strategic antecedents of agility in humanitarian logistics

Investigating the strategic antecedents of agility in humanitarian logistics

Supporting the use of research evidence in decision-making in crisis zones in low- and middle-income countries: a critical interpretive synthesis

A world in turmoil: governing risk, establishing order in humanitarian crises

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About