Leresche Enrica, Truppa Claudia, Martin Christophe, Marnicio Ariana, Rossi Rodolfo, Zmeter Carla, Harb Hilda, Hamadeh Randa Sami, Leaning Jennifer
International Committee of the Red Cross Delegation, Beirut, Lebanon.
2Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
Confl Health. 2020 May 13;14:25. doi: 10.1186/s13031-020-00280-2. eCollection 2020.
In humanitarian contexts, it is a difficult and multi-faceted task to enlist academics, humanitarian actors and health authorities in a collaborative research effort. The lack of research in such settings has been widely described in the past decade, but few have analysed the challenges in building strong and balanced research partnerships. The major issues include considering operational priorities, ethical imperatives and power differentials. This paper analyses in two steps a collaborative empirical endeavour to assess health service utilization by Syrian refugee and Lebanese women undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) and the Harvard François-Xavier Bagnoud (FXB) Center. First, based on challenges documented in the literature, we shed light on how we negotiated appropriate research questions, methodologies, bias analyses, resource availability, population specificities, security, logistics, funding, ethical issues and organizational cultures throughout the partnership. Second, we describe how the negotiations required each partner to go outside their comfort zones. For the academics, the drivers to engage included the intellectual value of the collaboration, the readiness of the operational partners to conduct an empirical investigation and the possibility that such work might lead to a better understanding in public health terms of how the response met population needs. For actors responding to the humanitarian crisis (the ICRC and the MOPH), participating in a technical collaboration permitted methodological issues to be worked through in the context of deliberations within the wider epistemic community. We find that when they collaborate, academics, humanitarian actors and health authorities deploy their respective complementarities to build a more comprehensive approach. Barriers such as the lack of uptake of research results or weak links to the existing literature were overcome by giving space to define research questions and develop a longer-term collaboration involving individual and institutional learning. There is the need ahead of time to create balanced decision-making mechanisms, allow for relative financial autonomy, and define organizational responsibilities. Ultimately, mutual respect, trust and the recognition of each other's expertise formed the basis of an initiative that served to better understand populations affected by conflict and meet their needs.
在人道主义背景下,让学者、人道主义行动者和卫生当局参与合作研究工作是一项艰巨且多方面的任务。在过去十年中,此类背景下研究的匮乏已被广泛描述,但很少有人分析建立强大且平衡的研究伙伴关系所面临的挑战。主要问题包括考虑行动优先事项、道德要求和权力差异。本文分两个步骤分析了红十字国际委员会(ICRC)、黎巴嫩公共卫生部(MoPH)和哈佛弗朗索瓦 - 泽维尔·巴格诺德(FXB)中心开展的一项合作实证研究,该研究旨在评估叙利亚难民和黎巴嫩妇女的卫生服务利用情况。首先,基于文献中记载的挑战,我们阐明了在整个伙伴关系中,我们是如何就合适的研究问题、方法、偏差分析、资源可用性、人群特殊性、安全、后勤、资金、伦理问题和组织文化进行协商的。其次,我们描述了这些协商如何要求每个伙伴走出自己的舒适区。对于学者而言,参与的驱动因素包括合作的学术价值、行动伙伴开展实证调查的意愿,以及此类工作可能有助于从公共卫生角度更好地理解应对措施如何满足人群需求。对于应对人道主义危机的行动者(红十字国际委员会和公共卫生部)来说,参与技术合作使得方法问题能够在更广泛的认知社区的审议背景下得到解决。我们发现,当学者、人道主义行动者和卫生当局进行合作时,他们会发挥各自的互补性,构建更全面的方法。通过留出空间来确定研究问题并开展涉及个人和机构学习的长期合作,克服了诸如研究结果未被采纳或与现有文献联系薄弱等障碍。提前创建平衡的决策机制、允许相对的财务自主权并明确组织责任是很有必要的。最终,相互尊重、信任以及对彼此专业知识的认可构成了一项旨在更好地了解受冲突影响人群并满足其需求的倡议的基础。