Article type
Year
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Humanitarian actors and researchers have amassed evidence about the state of knowledge in the humanitarian sector, including grey literature assessments of what works and what does not. Synthesizing this information and gaining research uptake by policymakers and humanitarian practitioners remains challenging.
The Humanitarian Evidence Programme commissions a series of systematic reviews to distil evidence in the humanitarian sector and focuses on uptake and communication of findings to key stakeholders, with the ultimate goal of improving humanitarian policy and practice.
The programme is a partnership between Oxfam GB and Feinstein International Center (FIC) at Tufts University, funded by UK Aid. This partnership is unusual in its emphasis on practitioners and the symbiotic involvement of individuals occupying multiple roles in the humanitarian field.
Methods: The programme collected data for deciding the review questions and research uptake strategy through a survey with 273 responses from individuals based in 55 different countries with an average of 15 years of experience as well as 45 key informant interviews.
Results: The data show that key humanitarian practitioners access and use research through conversations with key colleagues as well as through briefings, articles, and the media. Importantly, some individuals act as ‘nodes’ through which a number of individuals access trusted research. The resulting research uptake strategy for the programme uses three core approaches:
1. meaningful consultation throughout the life process of the programme;
2. targeting of key thought leaders; and
3. leveraging existing platforms and using a multi-channel communications strategy to increase reach.
Conclusions: For the Humanitarian Evidence Programme, this research contributed to an iterative process to develop a list of systematic review questions in the humanitarian field and a research uptake plan. The first call for proposals solicited a strong response, showing interest in this programme. For the broader systematic review field, this model may be of interest and adaptable for other programmes and reviews.
The Humanitarian Evidence Programme commissions a series of systematic reviews to distil evidence in the humanitarian sector and focuses on uptake and communication of findings to key stakeholders, with the ultimate goal of improving humanitarian policy and practice.
The programme is a partnership between Oxfam GB and Feinstein International Center (FIC) at Tufts University, funded by UK Aid. This partnership is unusual in its emphasis on practitioners and the symbiotic involvement of individuals occupying multiple roles in the humanitarian field.
Methods: The programme collected data for deciding the review questions and research uptake strategy through a survey with 273 responses from individuals based in 55 different countries with an average of 15 years of experience as well as 45 key informant interviews.
Results: The data show that key humanitarian practitioners access and use research through conversations with key colleagues as well as through briefings, articles, and the media. Importantly, some individuals act as ‘nodes’ through which a number of individuals access trusted research. The resulting research uptake strategy for the programme uses three core approaches:
1. meaningful consultation throughout the life process of the programme;
2. targeting of key thought leaders; and
3. leveraging existing platforms and using a multi-channel communications strategy to increase reach.
Conclusions: For the Humanitarian Evidence Programme, this research contributed to an iterative process to develop a list of systematic review questions in the humanitarian field and a research uptake plan. The first call for proposals solicited a strong response, showing interest in this programme. For the broader systematic review field, this model may be of interest and adaptable for other programmes and reviews.