Search

The term “co-production” is increasingly used to describe varied forms of research partnerships, expanding from its application within the health sector to other sectors. In humanitarian settings, alongside increased calls for localisation and decolonising aid, research co-production is emerging as a means of tackling power dynamics within NGO-academia research partnerships. Based on semi-structured interviews with practitioners and academics with experience in co-producing research and participating in research partnerships, we present the opportunities and challenges associated with co-producing research in humanitarian settings. Our findings suggest that similar to other buzzwords in the humanitarian sector, the label of “co-production” is sometimes uncritically applied to any kind of research partnership. We emphasise the importance of centering power within co-produced research in humanitarian settings and suggest that while the term co-production is sometimes misappropriated, the principles underlying this concept remain essential to unraveling power hierarchies within the humanitarian sector.

This note from the field explores the purpose, process and value of using a sustainable-livelihoods framework and operational map to study refugee livelihoods. The current absence of a livelihoods framework specifically tailored to refugees has created a gap not only in research, but in policy development and application. This article reflects on the utility of this methodology to generate insight into the lives of refugees in four diverse contexts: Central African Republic (CAR) refugees in Cameroon; Rohingya refugees in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Syrian refugees in Zarqa, Jordan; and Syrian refugees in Istanbul, Turkey. The framework was helpful in that it enabled us to explore how refugees perceive their context, risks and possibilities as well their objectives, actions and strategies. As per Levine’s methodology, starting with refugees and their perceptions unlocked a new way of looking at the environment within which refugees try to sustain themselves and a deeper understanding of how refugees’ perceptions dictate their livelihood goals, strategies and actions. This article extends analysis to consider the broader policy implications that this specific methodological approach supports.

Background Research partnerships in conflict-affected and humanitarian settings can reveal complex power hierarchies between academics and NGOs. During the process of research, decision-making may skew in favour of more powerful actors, who often direct the scope of the research, hold the budget and lead the analysis. Co-production is increasingly emerging as a helpful approach that attempts to equalise power dynamics during research. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the main challenges associated with a “research as usual” approach to research partnerships in humanitarian settings, as power hierarchies may be particularly magnified in these settings. Methods This paper is based on a comprehensive literature review and 32 semi-structured interviews with academics and practitioners from non-government organisations. Participants were selected purposively based on their experience in co-producing research or working within research partnerships. Some participants had worked in humanitarian settings while others had experience co-producing research in non-humanitarian contexts. We used Nvivo to thematically code data. Results This paper documents the problems with “research as usual” partnerships in humanitarian settings, specifically: the burden on communities as merely sources of data, certain forms of knowledge being valued over others, lack of reflection on the power hierarchies structuring research partnerships, top-down decision-making and lack of transparency, one-way “capacity-building”, lack of mutual benefit, and rigid research processes and timeframes. Conclusion This paper highlights key challenges with standard research practices in humanitarian settings and identifies seven key principles of co-production that can be helpful in attempting to equalise power dynamics within research partnerships, specifically in conflict-affected and humanitarian settings.