arrow_backEmergency WASH

M.7 Learning: Research and Evidence

The Global WASH Cluster defines research as pursuing ‘a systematic approach to better understand water, sanitation or hygiene interventions that aim to improve the health of populations affected by humanitarian crises’. 

Research in the field of humanitarian aid (including WASH) remains insufficient in both quantity and quality (see [introduction]). Recent studies have described the need to improve quantitative and qualitative data, measure health and behavioural outcomes and strengthen research on affected populations and their safety and access to WASH facilities. 

There are many ways to generate evidence, such as case studies, reviews, field research, action research, Monitoring M.2 and Evaluation M.3 and anthropological studies. Evidence can be generated at a local level and used locally or more widely. What is important is the dissemination of findings to the humanitarian and academic community to continuously improve the WASH response to affected populations. Findings may be disseminated through scientific articles, published technical guides, external communication and joint local or international learning events, each of which may suit different purposes or audiences:

  • A case study is a descriptive and exploratory analysis of a person, group, or event and is commonly used in the social sciences to understand and document what works and how.
  • A scientific article presents research findings written by researchers and scientists. They are generally considered primary sources and are written primarily for other researchers; they may need reworking to be accessible to practitioners.
  • Documents like technical manuals are written primarily for practitioners and often draw on case studies and collective experience.

Hygiene promotion can draw on a range of disciplines and expertise in social sciences or public health. However, the balance between scientific rigour and the challenges of conducting studies whilst also responding to a humanitarian crisis must be continually weighed up. Consequently, the means for implementing robust studies that support the implementation of effective HP programmes must be an integral part of the response strategy of organisations and the sector. Implementation modalities, including the ‘when’ of conducting these studies, should be identified at the onset of the crisis or during strategy development. Below is a list of criteria for framing the studies:

  • A study can be implemented to address short, medium, or long-term needs as part of more comprehensive future planning.
  • Research can be ‘retrospective’, in cases where the research project consists of analysing data already collected during previous operational missions (e.g. from needs assessments, monitoring, programme evaluations and final reports) - or ‘prospective’, if the research activity has been specifically implemented to answer a given research question.
  • A study can lead to the production of tools or methods that may differ according to its objectives, such as recommendations, protocols, guidelines, information and education documents, new materials or training tools.
  • Depending on the subject, partners from different organisations (scientific, institutional, operational and technical) may be involved in the study.

Process & Good Practice

  • Collaborate with national or international research organisations and/or other WASH NGOs to minimise or overcome some of the challenges faced when conducting research in humanitarian settings, such as insecurity, an inability to access affected people, the limited availability of adequately trained research staff or a lack of resources. 

  • Adhere to research ethics; this is crucial in emergencies where crisis-affected people may have lived through traumatic experiences and be very vulnerable. Methods for gaining informed consent must be clearly articulated and studies must incorporate a risk benefit analysis.

  • Consider the ethical implications of using control groups carefully – particularly where needs are high.

  • Involve humanitarian practitioners during all stages of study development and implementation when working with them to design and conduct research. Research institutions rarely have the same local capacity as humanitarian organisations in terms of staffing, logistics and local networks.

  • Work closely with local researchers to improve contextual insights, provide mutual support and guidance and to strengthen local capacities. Such collaboration may involve working with local researchers throughout the study, from data collection through to the publication of study findings. Building a trusting relationship with local researchers is central to the pursuit of high-quality research.

  • Employ a variety of methods and strategies to manage the impact of a changing context (e.g. use quantitative and qualitative methods A.4 and delayed interventions instead of control groups). Changes the methods during a study may be necessary due to a variety of factors, such as security issues, or large-scale population movements. It can affect the study sample size, choice of study group, choice of data collection tools (changing from face-to-face to remote means), data sources (switching from primary to secondary), the ability to follow cohorts over time and, potentially, the ability to continue the study at all. 

  • Avoid presumptions of generalisability. For any research study conducted in a specific context, it is unlikely that its findings will be directly applicable to another. In instances where knowledge may have applicability elsewhere, researchers should demonstrate how – if at all - their results are relevant to other settings and crises, to facilitate the uptake of knowledge.

     

Purpose

To ensure that WASH and hygiene promotion (HP) is evidence based and that practitioners continue to learn from experience and enquiry to improve their practice.

Important

  • There are significant gaps in knowledge and evidence in the humanitarian WASH sector, including in HP and a lack of good quality research in emergencies. Conducting research in the context of a humanitarian response is challenging but creative ways can be found to address the difficulties.

  • Research is important to guide and strengthen evidence based decision making in the design, implementation and evaluation of humanitarian WASH programmes and helps to understand the risks, benefits and consequences of HP.

  • Strengthening collaborative research with national and international scientific or academic partners is key to designing rigorous and effective research protocols that will produce relevant and reliable evidence. 

  • Research helps to develop and test innovative HP interventions in humanitarian settings. Trying out new and innovative approaches is important to broaden current knowledge and to improve HP effectiveness. 

  • Research must adhere to strict ethical standards and ensure that participants are not negatively affected or endangered by it. Research with vulnerable participants often raises particular questions about their protection, which need to be taken into account when planning data collection.

  • Evidence generated on HP will equip the humanitarian community with knowledge of what works so that people affected by crises get the right help when they need it most.

  • The use of electronic devices such as tablets and phones facilitates data collection. Such technologies, if appropriate, enable teams to reduce local travel while making the collation, analysis and sharing of information quicker.

References

Study on research methods used in humanitarian settings, with a specific focus on the utilisation of adaptive or innovative approaches

Smith, J., Blanchet, K. (2020): Research Methodologies in Humanitarian Crises, R2HC, ELRHA

Information on the use of the case study method, a method often practiced but little understood

Gerring, J. (2004): What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?, American Political Science Review, Vol. 98(2)

Quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, with a specific focus on the COVID-19 pandemic

Majorin, F., Hasund Thorseth, A. et al. (2020): Summary Report on Remote Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches for Understanding Covid-19 related Behaviours and Perceptions, COVID-19 Hygiene Hub

Practical examples and case studies on putting accountability into practice

GWC (2009): WASH Accountability Resources. Ask, Listen, Communicate

Information on participatory processes and indicators that can be used to involve community members and other stakeholders

Narayan D. (1993): Participatory Evaluation. Tools for Managing Change in Water and Sanitation World Bank Technical Paper No. 207

How to use the Most Significant Change Approach to Monitoring and Evaluation

Lennie, J. (2011): The Most Significant Change Technique. A Manual for M&E Staff and Others at Equal Access

arrow_upward