Knowledge production in humanitarian crises: beware of the innovation trap
Authors: James Smith, Katherine Whitehouse, Karl Blanchet
Journal: The Lancet Global Health (2020)

Kadir and colleagues1Kadir A Garcia DM Romero F New ways to measure the effects of armed conflict in civilian population.Lancet Glob Health. 2019; 7: e1585-e1586Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar have outlined some of the challenges that affect the ability to accurately quantify the effect of conflict on mortality and health, and associated risk factors. However, they inaccurately suggest that mortality estimates “are based primarily on reports from combating parties, news media, and non-governmental organisations.” This might be the case for the Uppsala Conflict Data Program to which they refer, which draws from the media and reports from non-governmental organisations, as well as a smaller sample of other sources.2Uppsala UniversitetDepartment of Peace and Conflict Research. UCDP: methodology.https://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/methodology/#tocjump_6651539753649337_0Date accessed: December 16, 2019Google Scholar However, in addition to systematic body count analyses, many other approaches exist to estimate mortality, including the commonly used retrospective mortality survey, key informant interviews for acute recall, and, where feasible, prospective surveillance.3Checchi F Estimation of population mortality in crisis-affected populations. Guidance for humanitarian coordination mechanisms. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK2018Google Scholar To counteract limitations intrinsic to each approach, triangulation of sources is key. Capture-recapture analyses have proven helpful in this regard, as shown by a recent analysis of deaths during civil demonstrations in Sudan in 2019.4Dahab M Abdelmagid N Kodouda A Checchi F Deaths, injuries and detentions during civil demonstrations in Sudan: a secondary data analysis.Confl Health. 2019; 13: 16Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar Kadir and colleagues1Kadir A Garcia DM Romero F New ways to measure the effects of armed conflict in civilian population.Lancet Glob Health. 2019; 7: e1585-e1586Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar proceed to call for “new innovative research methods”, without qualifying what such innovation might look like. Collaboration with local people and organisations is emphasised, which we perceive as a component of good research practice, but argue is far from innovative. Our recent research suggests that the humanitarian health research community rarely recognise or use innovative research methods, and are more interested in the innovative application of established methods.5Smith J, Blanchet K. Research methodologies in humanitarian crises. Cardiff, UK: Elrha (in press).Google Scholar As such, we emphasise the need to improve the application of existing research methods, and to document and publicise both the successes and failures of adaptive practice. Most pertinent in relation to an improved understanding of humanitarian crises, health, and the effectiveness of interventions, is a need to ask the right research questions. This action can only be done with genuine community consultation and engagement. Improvements to the quality of routine data collection, and increased investment in the analysis of existing data, are also essential. Additionally, mixed methods research holds great promise, and yet qualitative methods remain underused. We must avoid calls for innovation that distract from opportunities to improve the use of existing data and methods, and that undermine the pursuit of a more radical re-imagination of hierarchies of knowledge production and power imbalances intrinsic to many research processes. As Tom Scott-Smith suggests, a continued “love of novelty” will leave researchers and practitioners alike “blind to the often mundane humanitarian practices that really change people's lives”.6Scott-Smith T Humanitarian neophilia: the ‘innovation turn' and its implications.Third World Q. 2016; 37: 2229-2251Crossref Scopus (72) Google Scholar We declare no competing interests. New ways to measure the effects of armed conflict in civilian populationThe short-term and long-term effects of armed conflict on the health of women and children are poorly understood. Public health infrastructure is often underfunded or destroyed during conflict and health facilities are actively targeted by combatants. The resulting barriers in access to health care and data collection pose substantial challenges to our understanding of how and to what degree conflict affects civilian health and mortality.1 Even estimates of mortality directly due to combat remain problematic, since they are based primarily on reports from combating parties, news media, and non-governmental organisations. Full-Text PDF Open Access