Introducing our 'Protection in Research' Series

There has been and continues to be an important need for field research in fragile and conflict-affected areas. Examples of remote-based research needs include humanitarian organizations that require assessments of those living in hard-to-reach areas or donors that request mapping exercises of local organizations to better identify partners they cannot access themselves. Based on interviews with our field staff, coordinators, researchers and analysts as well as academics and humanitarian aid workers, we are excited to launch our five-part series on applying a protection lens to research in fragile settings.

This five-part series explores the ways in which protection and can be integrated into research processes, particularly in conflict-affected and remote environments. It first sets out to define the concept of protection and continues to explore these concepts throughout the research cycle.

Engaging Independent Researchers: The Trials of Shaden Q. and the Vaccine Campaign

Independent research has high potential to fill capacity and information gaps because it provides opportunities to bring in sector and context experts to weigh in on key information relevant to program design and implementation. However, for a variety of reasons, independent research can often end up consuming precious resources only to be left unread and banished to the annals of an organization’s program database. Let’s follow the commissioning and roll out of an imaginary independent research project in order to explore some of the benefits and pitfalls of organizational engagements with independent researchers.

Reasons for externalizing research are usually quite straightforward. First, there is a clear need for specialized researchers with sector and context-based expertise that many organizations lack. Second, the commissioning agencies might not have the time to take a closer view of key considerations while rolling out their programs because they are busy with existing projects or tackling a mountain of logistical and administrative tasks required at the onset of any new project. For these reasons, hypothetical Accra-based researcher, Shaden Q. of the Africa Research Organization has recently been hired to conduct community perceptions research for a vaccine campaign in West Africa.

Proximity has identified five actions through Shaden Q’s hypothetical case study that would improve the engagement of clients with independent researchers as well as the quality of the research.

1. Identification of Research Needs and Drafting Clear ToRs: The best footing for an independent research initiative is a concise and consistent Terms of Reference (ToR) that clearly outlines the research needs. If the TOR is not clear to Shaden or asks for unrealistic activities or timelines, then she will not be able to develop a comprehensive proposal. For example, the TOR might state that the research requires representative statistics for 6 or 7 different samples – data collection that would require thousands of surveys collected randomly – and is meant to happen over the course of one month. Shaden will need to make significant imaginative stretches during the proposal development phase. ToRs don’t necessarily need to include detailed methodologies since it can be useful for commissioners to receive expert inputs on a variety of approaches and ideas, but applicants should at least be able to understand the research question and have enough detail on research parameters that they are able to come up with a solid implementation plan. Parameters should be realistic in terms of budgets, timelines and actual information needs. Commissioners will end up with a half-baked proposal because of this folly, and they are likely to waste a lot of time in the contracting phase negotiating a realistic plan.

2. Incorporation of the Research Process in the Client’s Workflow: The Vaccine Program Manager and Shaden Q. are likely to face serious issues if this research is not properly incorporated into the organization’s workflow. Independent researchers commonly complain that the broader support structure and utilization for external researchers is weak and poorly communicated to the rest of the program team who may be expected to support the effort. Shaden Q. might reach out to other members of the organization’s Health Program to request background documents or meetings, such as with the Vaccine Project Manager (PM), only to find the PM to be completely surprised by this person’s existence and her pending involvement in the PM’s work.

3. Communication of Research to Internal and External Stakeholders and Beneficiaries: Siloed research coordination can threaten projects by leaving gaps in terms of who is responsible for following up on recommendations. Shaden Q. may discover that parents in the target communities have serious reservations about vaccinating their children because children got sick after a similar initiative in a nearby community. If Shaden’s research has not been properly communicated to those responsible for launching the vaccine campaign, then this highly important finding will likely fall to the wayside.

4. Research parameters driven by strong approaches and methodologies and not by budget and timeline constraints: Circling back to the need for clear and concise ToRs, independent research is best leveraged when it can produce findings that are based in scientific, evidence-based methods. Too often are methods sacrificed on the altars of speed and economy. Shaden might propose a beautifully constructed methodology in the beginning, but either due to delayed contract negotiations, hard deadlines and/or logistical, security or budgetary delays, she has to cut it by a third or rush to meet unrealistic targets. If this is the case, her research could amount to surface-level findings at best, and incorrect findings or misrepresentations at worst.

5. Targeted Dissemination of Research Findings: Why even do research if those who would benefit from findings ever finds out about it? Dissemination of research is paramount to improving cross-cutting and cross-agency programming as well as to reduce duplication of efforts. Little does Shaden know, but the Regional Office of the commissioning agency’s competitors has identified a similar gap and is just about to commission Charlie B for almost the exact same research. If Shaden can’t communicate her findings even to those who are working in similar areas, then resources are wasted and knowledge production is stunted. It is understood that some information is proprietary and might cover subjects too sensitive to be shared publicly; however, ensuring that research ends up in the hands of carefully selected decision makers and others working on similar issues should be a priority for all involved. Otherwise – really - what’s the point?

Independent research can only reach its full potential with clear communication on timelines and methodologies, thorough understanding and agreement on how findings will tie into programs, and when the relevant program stakeholders are informed on the existence and provide full buy-in to the research being conducted. Realistic, evidence-driven research parameters and well-conceived dissemination plans are also fundamental elements of a successful independent research project. Key suggestions for agencies who seek to improve their engagements with external researchers are as follows:

Third Party Monitoring and the humanitarian and development “nexus” in Iraq

A man sits outside a re-opened business next to a business destroyed during the IS conflict in Baiji, Iraq

Iraq has seen a significant decline in active conflict and improved security conditions in the years following the defeat of the Islamic State (IS). During the emergency humanitarian response to large-scale displacement due to the IS offensive and military operations to reclaim IS occupied territory (2014-2017), third party monitoring (TPM) was used as a project verification tool, as it is often used where access is limited and programs are managed remotely. Now that security and access are improving and international funding mechanisms are shifting, is there still use for TPM in Iraq? Is TPM relevant in a post-conflict environment?

In 2018, Proximity spoke with over 30 representatives of humanitarian and development agencies that were operating in Iraq to discuss with them concerns around access, accountability and monitoring in a reduced conflict environment. This post will explore the question around the use and need for TPM in the Iraq context and suggest points of consideration for those involved in either the provision or commissioning of TPM services.

In 2018, UN agencies and NGOs in Iraq began factoring improved security into their operational strategies, causing some to reconsider their contracts with TPM actors. For example, one UN agency noted that in 2017, it had employed 120 third party monitors but that the figure had decreased to 57 in 2018 due to improved access. This particular agency had recently undertaken yet another review process to determine whether to further decrease the number of monitors.

At the same time, although humanitarian and development agencies in Iraq largely agree that their access has improved alongside the diminishing armed conflict, many continue to struggle with other access constraints. These include lengthy and opaque bureaucratic procedures for travel imposed by the government or armed actors in certain areas, poor road conditions, and a dearth of field-based guesthouses. One UN official described the procedures behind conducting operations in Sinjar, a city located about 200 kilometers west of Erbil: “It take three hours to get to Sinjar from Erbil, often due to long checkpoints and the poor quality of the roads. Since we can’t spend the night there, then it takes 3 hours to get back. Sometimes there’s access, but it’s not stable”.

It is likely that the response coordination will remain heavily concentrated in the existing Baghdad and Erbil hubs for the time being, a situation that presents its own unique set of access concerns, and which continues to drive demand for TPM and additional oversight mechanisms. One NGO Country Coordinator put it this way: “The concept of ‘hard-to-reach’ is no longer related to security; it’s related to operational expense.” This suggests the emergence of a trade-off between allocating resources to hiring monitors out of convenience versus making investments in far-flung field offices to truly increase access. If funding for the Iraq emergency response decreases as expected in the coming years, it is possible that TPM arrangements may still remain the more attractive option of the two.

There is currently significant debate about the best way to navigate Iraq’s transition out emergency response and how best to continue ensuring organizational accountability during this period. During this transition, it is important to remember that because the Iraq crisis, along with other modern humanitarian crises, are increasingly protracted in nature the trajectories of humanitarian and development responses are non-linear. Development actors have been active in Iraq for decades, provided assistance throughout the IS conflict, and are still at work today in parallel with and in coordination with humanitarian actors. However, as funding for emergency response becomes increasingly scarce and as security and access improve, it will likely mean that TPM for the purpose of increased verification measures in remote access environments will continue to decrease, albeit slowly and only to be replaced by different transparency concerns.

Iraq is likely to see continued assistance efforts in the post-conflict phase, namely reconstruction. Reconstruction and development projects will usher in a new set of concerns around oversight and accountability, and TPM projects can still serve as powerful accountability mechanisms in this regard and potentially serve as a measure to build trust between local communities and development agencies. According to respondents in other research Proximity conducted in Iraq in 2018, such as its independent research on the impact of increased assistance to minorities in the Ninewa Plains, there is significant mistrust and suspicion of humanitarian and development agents involved in reconstruction.

Some of these concerns stem from communities struggling to understand how projects are implemented while agencies fail to adequately understand the new socioeconomic realities of post-conflict environments. Because Iraq is a country with longstanding and widespread corruption concerns, it is logical for communities to write off activities and behavior they might not understand as corruption. For this reason, independently monitored reconstruction projects in the “nexus” phase where such projects are monitored by members of the affected communities would not only verify that projects are unfurling according to plan, but also build communication channels and trust between the incoming development actors and affected communities.

It is true that TPM in a “traditional” sense – risk transfer and increased access – is fading. However, there is arguably value in maintaining TPM programs or in developing more creative research/TPM hybrid projects that can address key programmatic concerns such as corruption or provide additional oversight for projects in logistically remote locations. TPM actors should remain part of the conversation on how the “nexus” in Iraq can be approached in a way that ensures that a program’s bases are still covered in terms of access and verification, and also as a way to improve trust between agencies and communities at a time when communities are worried about exploitation and corruption.