Humanitarian research is critical to delivering effective aid to affected people, and that makes it a key tool and consideration for philanthropists around the globe. However, it has historically been dominated by research institutions and nongovernmental organizations in the Global North, often excluding institutions and researchers from the Global South.
A recent study by the Network for Empowered Aid Response (NEAR) and the Feinstein International Center at Tufts University interviewed 42 humanitarian researchers and explored the barriers to the participation of Global South researchers in knowledge generation and dissemination. It found that Global South research agendas, methods and approaches often bring a perspective and voice missing from current humanitarian research, one closer to that of the affected population. This gap in existing research weakens our overall understanding of humanitarian crises.
Based on the joint study, here are five insights we have gained about how to localize humanitarian research, making it relevant to and inclusive of affected populations.
The exclusion of Global South researchers is systemic and requires structural change.
Historical power and funding differentials have left national and local researchers in the Global South at a structural disadvantage. Global North donors compound existing funding and power imbalances by favoring Global North institutions when awarding research grants. As one of the researchers interviewed for this study explained, this preference stems from and fosters the “mental legacy of colonialism” in which Global North researchers and their methods are valued more than those of their Global South counterparts.
The advantage of accumulated resources and wealth enables Global North institutions to outcompete their Global South counterparts for grants. This limits Global South researchers’ access to direct funding from donors, opportunities to set research agendas, and capacity to build credibility by, for example, publishing and presenting their work. This perpetuates a cycle of underfunding and disempowerment.
As one interviewee put it: “The system is stacked against Global South researchers — the methods considered respectable are defined by the Global North, the journals that are prestigious are all Global North, the conferences where connections happen are mostly hosted by the Global North, the money is in Global North organizations… The exclusion and inequality are systemic.”
Short-term, restricted funding does not allow Global South humanitarian research institutions to build capacity and infrastructure.
Most of the budget for research is controlled by Global North donors, who tend to fund large international organizations, often leaving Global South institutions to be engaged as token subcontractors, or as cheap labor for less prestigious research activities. A recent report indicates that when local and national organizations are subcontracted and receive indirect funding, their decision-making power and access to resources are limited.
Funding for these partnerships tends to be short-term, project-based and restricted to specific purposes. This dynamic creates a self-reinforcing hierarchy in knowledge production, with Global North researchers having access to more resources and receiving more credit for their research, enabling them to get more for further research.
Donors need to provide equitable opportunities for Global South researchers to access direct and flexible research funding. Long-term partnerships of mutual learning, where trust and rapport can be built, should be prioritized. This will provide Global South institutions with the ability to build their capacity and infrastructure, reducing their reliance on Global North funders.
Humanitarian research in the Global South is seldom a priority for donors (but it should be).
For Global North donors, research often takes a back seat to more tangible interventions. According to a recent study by Elrha, between 2017 and 2021, funding for humanitarian projects with research and innovation components accounted for only 0.26% and 1.32%, respectively, of total humanitarian assistance budgets. This means that humanitarian assistance budgets are almost 400 times larger than research budgets.
Global South organizations, which are often still mostly valued for their operational skills in a particular context rather than their technical research capacity, are often forced to integrate small research components into larger strategic partnerships and humanitarian assistance delivery projects. The implications of this disparity are concerning, as research is critical to ensuring that interventions are evidence-based, effective and sustainable over the long term.
Global-South-led research and South-to-South research partnerships are rare (but they should not be).
In partnerships, the partner in control of the funding controls the research agenda and study design. South-to-South (S2S) partnerships are generally different from Global South–Global North partnerships, as they tend to be perceived as more equal, with easier communication and flexibility in deciding roles. The partners tend to form long-term relationships between organizations and individuals who share a common experience.
But Global-South-led research and South-to-South research collaborations are rare. Despite their expertise and experience, Global South institutions still struggle to secure direct funding or take the lead in research partnerships. We did not find examples in the literature or in our interviews of a Global South–Global North partnership that was truly led by the Global South partner, or in which the Global North partner had a subgrant from a Global South partner.
Donors and international organizations must recognize and prioritize the value of research led by Global South institutions and support S2S partnerships to enhance the quality and effectiveness of research.
Existing donor proposal processes and compliance requirements are too cumbersome, not contextualized, and can exclude Global South institutions.
Well-funded Global North institutions are better equipped to navigate the language and processes involved in applying for grants from Global North donors, exacerbating existing inequities. These institutions typically have specialized staff who focus on proposal writing and are more familiar with donor requirements.
One interviewee said: “International organizations compete with local organizations for funding, but this is an uneven battle. Even if [Global South institutes] try to form consortiums, they still would get a smaller amount of money than international organizations.”
Stringent donor requirements and proposal evaluation criteria often do not take into account contextual differences and local realities, and can become nonsensical, offensive and difficult to comply with. For example, interviewees cited requirements to have receipts for any purchase in places where they are not a part of the normal commerce process.
Reporting requirements frequently do not consider the substantial administrative work it takes to meet compliance standards. Global South organizations typically operate with smaller budgets and lower overheads. While their leaner financial processes often allow them to respond more swiftly to emergencies, they are often considered risky by donors who prioritize administrative capacity. This has led to an emphasis on building sophisticated administrative processes, which can be unsustainable for Global South institutions and potentially weaken them in the long term.
What does this mean for donors and INGOs?
Donors and international organizations must recognize the value and unique perspectives of Global South researchers and redress the historical power and funding differentials that exclude them from equitable participation.
Global South research agendas tend to be more practical and focused on the research questions important to their context and target population. By prioritizing the information needs of the affected population, Global South researchers can provide valuable insights that may not be captured by Global-North-led research. This can ultimately increase the potential impact of humanitarian research for the affected population.
Donors should take steps to better resource and harness the potential of Global South researchers. This requires, for example, making changes to the grant management process to make it easier for Global South institutions to compete, providing them with more direct and flexible funding, building flexibility into donor expectations, accommodating different languages and adjusting reporting expectations.
Donors should also continue to explore new paradigms for investing in Global-South-led research using proposal evaluation criteria that do not favor Global North methods and designs. Global South institutions should be supported through long-term, co-learning Global North-Global South and S2S partnerships. These partnerships require trust that evolves through long-term relationships and funding, with the express intention of an equal partnership and the objective of reciprocal respect and complementarity.
Isabella Cordua is Research Coordinator at the Network for Empowered Aid Response (NEAR) and a Rotary Peace Fellow. She has previous human rights research experience with Global Insight, the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice, AdvocAid and Defence for Children Sierra Leone.
The Network for Empowered Aid Response (NEAR) is a movement of Local and National Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) from the Global South rooted in communities who share a common goal of promoting fair, equitable and dignified partnerships in the current aid system.
Credit:Source link
