Research report: Localisation of humanitarian research

Barriers to localisation in humanitarian research  

Please find the full report here

 Humanitarian research has long been dominated by institutions from the Global North, while institutions and researchers from the Global South have been largely excluded or relegated to minor roles. Global North donors control the funding and tend to fund Global North humanitarian research institutions, which enables them to control research agendas, research standards, peer-reviewed publications, and the structure of partnerships with their counterparts in the Global South. Global North organisations continue to shape knowledge generation and dissemination in the humanitarian sector.

Despite some progress in promoting Global South participation in humanitarian research, the continued under-representation of Global South researchers undermines the quality of humanitarian research and its ability to improve humanitarian programming outcomes and shape the narrative around the future of aid. 

 Building on a previous report on the localisation of humanitarian assistance, the Feinstein International Center and NEAR have published a study that focuses on issues unique to the localisation of humanitarian research and highlights the challenges that Global South HRIs face, as well as opportunities for increased participation. “‘Co-investigators but with different power’: Local voices on the localisation of humanitarian research” combines a literature review with 42 interviews of humanitarian researchers from 20 countries. 

The study identifies a self-reinforcing triad of power, funding, and language as the main underlying barrier affecting the equitable participation of Global South institutions and researchers in humanitarian research. The accumulated wealth of Global North institutions gives them the resources to out-compete their Global South counterparts for grants, making it difficult for them to access direct funding, build their credibility, and set their research agendas.

The "mental legacy of colonialism", as one interviewee put it, has led to biases that value Global North researchers and their methods more than those of their Global South counterparts. As a result, Global South researchers are often included in projects as token subcontractors to meet donor localisation criteria. Humanitarian research is dominated by English (and, to a lesser extent, French and Spanish), which serves as a form of gatekeeping for securing research opportunities, publishing, and gaining credibility. This can exclude some local actors, often underrepresented in academic journal articles and conferences, reinforcing power differentials. 

Efforts to redistribute power in humanitarian research are not systematic. Even those GN actors ready to shift power to their GS counterparts struggle to do so within the existing power structures and paradigms of the humanitarian system. Excluding Global South researchers from decision-making in humanitarian research can lead to neglect of important areas and issues, resulting in reduced impact. Additionally, when Global South actors shape knowledge production, they tend to employ more participatory approaches. This, combined with their expertise and understanding of the needs and priorities of affected communities, can lead to better dissemination and uptake of research findings among affected communities and increase the chances of influencing decision-makers. 

 The study also examines specific issues around partnerships, capacity, contextual differences, risks, and ethical processes. It concludes that the barriers Global South institutions face are systemic and profound, necessitating structural changes to achieve equitable participation in humanitarian research.

A list of recommendations is available in the full report.