Gender Based Violence Research Methodologies in Humanitarian Settings: An Evidence Review and Recommendations
The guidance document ‘Gender Based Violence Research Methodologies in Humanitarian Settings: An Evidence Review and Recommendations’, authored by Mazeda Hossain and Alys McAlpine, offers recommendations in the areas of research methodology and research ethics to support researchers in developing humanitarian gender-based violence (GBV)-themed research proposals. While Elrha’s Research for Health in Humanitarian Crises (R2HC) programme commissioned the guidance to inform applicants preparing proposals for the R2HC annual grant call and for other funding opportunities, the guidance document should also prove of interest to any researcher interested in developing and conducting rigorous, appropriate research around GBV prevention and response in humanitarian settings.
The recommendations in the guidance document were developed following a review of GBV evidence in humanitarian settings, a systematic review of research evaluations in conflict settings and a review of GBV research methodologies, with case study examples. The authors used a multi-staged approach to synthesise available evidence regarding what is currently known and recommended in terms of conducting GBV research, with a focus on humanitarian settings. Three literature reviews were conducted to assist in developing the guidelines, covering evidence gaps in existing GBV research, methodologies used in GBV evaluation research, as well as best practice recommendations for conducting GBV research.
New Research Ethics Tool for Public Health Researchers Working in Contexts of Humanitarian Crises
All research requires careful consideration of associated ethical implications, and researchers who work directly with people must always be especially cognisant of the potential impacts and consequences of their research. In humanitarian settings, the importance of research ethics is particularly pronounced, amidst heightened levels of vulnerability, upheaval, risk, and possible conflict.
Some of the ethical considerations include questions of when to initiate research following an acute crisis, how best to protect both researchers (international and local) as well as participants from any potential risk or repercussions of participating in research, and how to ensure the personal safety of all those involved in the work. Research in such settings is often conducted in a context of limited resources, infrastructure, and without access to local ethics review mechanisms. Many researchers and participants must also engage with the challenges that can arise from working across cultures, languages, and educational backgrounds. Further, researchers and participants need to negotiate what may be very different priorities, and engage with challenging questions of power, privilege, and knowledge.
In 2017, the development of a ‘Research Ethics Tool’ was commissioned by Elrha’s R2HC programme to provide guidance to public health researchers working in humanitarian crisis contexts. Authored by Chesmal Siriwardhana, Sapfo Lignou, Shannon Doherty, and Dónal O’Mathúna, the tool is designed to stimulate reflection and discussion regarding the many ethical considerations researchers may encounter in humanitarian settings. It is organised around the design, implementation, dissemination, and post-research evaluation of the research project.
The approach used in the ‘Research Ethics Tool’ acknowledges the debates that often arise regarding what sorts of research or projects require ethical approval from research ethics committees or institutional review boards. It also takes account of the fact that different jurisdictions often have their own regulatory and legal frameworks, which may apply differently to various types of research. It therefore takes a broad view of the term ‘research’, emphasising that diverse types of evidence-generation and data collection activities may also raise similar ethical issues, deserving of careful consideration and reflection by those undertaking such work. The ethics framework presented in this Tool builds upon the earlier R2HC Ethical Framework. It was developed following a review of recent literature, an analysis of other available research ethics guidance, and in consultation with a range of stakeholders.
The tool guides users through reflections around risks versus benefits, confidentiality, privacy and data protection, informed consent, and what kind of ethical approvals may be required. It then engages users around ethical questions that may arise during the fieldwork stage, including the ethics of stakeholder engagement. The tool guides readers through a reflection of ethical questions that should be considered after research is completed, including dissemination, sustainability, and post-research ethics and project reflections. Given the centrality and complexity of research ethics in contexts of humanitarian crises, this tool provides a welcome resource for public health researchers, including sexual and reproductive health and rights researchers, working in this context.
Preventing Household Violence: Promising Strategies for Humanitarian Settings
This 2017 report, entitled ‘Preventing Household Violence: Promising Strategies for Humanitarian Settings’, probes the literature to compile potential strategies for the prevention of violence in the household within humanitarian settings. The report was authored by Khudejha Ashgar, Beth Rubenstein, and Lindsay Stark, for the Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, the CPC Learning Network, UNICEF, and USAID. It notes that violence against women and violence against children are both global and intimately interconnected epidemics, with violence against both often occurring within the same households. However, the authors note that most interventions to address these issues in emergency contexts have been fragmented across the GBV and child protection sectors.
To the extent that violence against women and violence against children do receive attention in humanitarian emergencies, the authors highlight that the focus is often not on violence in the home, including violence perpetrated by spouses, intimate partners, and caregivers, even though the majority of acts of violence are committed within the household. Instead, attention tends to focus on a few high-profile forms of violence (e.g. from armed groups, or the abuse and exploitation from humanitarian workers).
Using a holistic lens, the review examines interventions that have been used in humanitarian contexts, with potential applicability to the primary prevention of interpersonal household violence, including violence against women, violence against children, or both. Amongst other findings, the review found that out of 43 identified interventions, only 6 focused on the prevention of both intimate partner violence and violence against children, suggesting that there may currently be missed opportunities within existing programmes to address the related and intersecting vulnerabilities of children and women at the household level. It also noted a dearth of literature on key population subgroups, including refugees, displaced populations, and emergency-affected populations in the Middle East and North Africa region. Further, the review found physical violence to be the most frequently examined violence outcome, with only 13 of 32 quantitatively evaluated interventions measuring more than one type of violence. It found inconsistencies in relation to the operational definition of violence across the evaluations reviewed, and revealed that evaluations taking into account multiple locations were few and far between.
This review provides a valuable resource, with important insights for researchers working on issues of household violence in humanitarian settings, pointing a way forward for more robust research, evaluations, and potential interventions.
By: Reproductive Health Matters