The Funder's Role in Strengthening Ethical Research Practice in EiE
This is the second blog in a series focused on how EiE stakeholders can play a part in strengthening ethical research practice in the sector. See the introduction to the blog series here, and the previous blog in the series here.
In 2023, academics and practitioners gathered at the INEE Data and Evidence Summit to strengthen the EiE data and evidence ecosystem. One of the key questions they asked each other was: what does ethical research funding look like in EiE?
This question emerged in response to the stark realities of the EiE sector’s research landscape, where imbalanced power dynamics between donors, researchers, and affected communities have sometimes led to exploitative or unethical research practices in conflict and crisis settings.
Some of these imbalances are less visible, but shape and affect the research process throughout its life cycle: see reflections from academics on how research agendas have been driven by donors’ interests rather than local realities in Iraq and Syria; as well as reflections on how the local research ecosystem is often excluded in the aftermath of data collection.
Other imbalances are more visible and immediate, such as the premature termination of research funds in the EiE sector. The sector has grappled with the lack of accountability structures for funding organisations, leaving many research projects, researchers’ livelihoods, and affected communities vulnerable to unexpected changes in funding streams; a recent example being the US government's recent stop-work orders, which among other things meant the abrupt end of USAID’s SHARE research project advancing implementation research in education across 55 studies in 21 LMICs. Unfortunately, this example is not novel, but rather builds on a series of similar examples.
In response to these challenges, some researchers have proposed ethical guidelines for funding organizations to use in planning research projects. Others have highlighted their own experiences and proposed principles for equitable partnerships. However, as noted in our previous blog, it is essential to use these guidelines as a stepping stone to continuous reflection and dialogue. So, how do we sustain this conversation and ensure continuous reflection on improving funding practices and norms in the sector?
Drawing on existing resources, this blog sets out to support this reflection process by presenting six key considerations that funding organizations can continually engage with as they support research activities in the sector. Ongoing dialogue on these aspects is essential to shifting the underlying structures of funding practices in the sector.
Six Key Considerations for Funders
1. Research agenda setting: At the outset, funding organisations should explore models of co-creating research agendas with stakeholders from communities living and working in the relevant context: an example is GPE-KIX’s funding and implementation activities, which are shaped by a collaborative process of surfacing national education priorities in consultation with stakeholders from GPE partner countries. Similarly, in the FCDO-funded ERICC Programme, local policymakers and government officials were heavily involved in co-constructing the research agendas which drive the research team’s work in each country. Ideally, embedding and grounding the research agenda setting process results in specific, policy- and program-relevant research questions that address the concerns of affected communities. Although these approaches may face their own set of challenges, they represent a step away from donor-centered decision-making and allow more voices to be centered in knowledge production.
2. Adhering to context-sensitive ethical guidelines: Beyond requiring adherence to institutional ethics processes, funders might consider using or requiring use of EiE-relevant guidelines (such as the UKRI Guidelines for Ethical Research in Fragile Landscapes or Te Ara Tika Guidelines) to the extent possible. Although guidelines by themselves may not address all ethical challenges, the uptake of such resources by influential donors in the space can incrementally shift the overall research culture within the sector and will encourage other actors to follow suit and pay closer attention to EiE-specific ethics.
3. Shaping a culture of open sharing and learning: Funding organisations hold a lot of power in shaping the narrative around transparency, particularly around failures or challenges that researchers may have encountered in the field. Through their own funding mechanisms, funders should explore incorporating dynamic support mechanisms such as peer networks or structured reflections that allow researchers to be transparent about and responsive to unexpected ethical dilemmas. Such structures, when openly supported by funding agencies, can lead to a culture of open discussion on ethical concerns, challenges, successes, and failures. Further, such open discussions incentivise and encourage the sector to continuously reflect on their experiences of using the ethical guidelines noted above, which can come with their own implementation and contextualisation barriers.
4. Funding equitable research partnerships: Just as Global North researchers have a part to play in meaningful collaboration with their Global South counterparts, funders have an equal role in supporting partnerships that are equitable. When funding a research project, funders should explore how researchers from the affected context might be given equal benefits, status, and leadership roles in the project through funding mechanisms and arrangements - for example, are local researchers being compensated fairly for their work if the funding arrangement includes several intermediary INGOs brokering contracts with local actors? In addition, funding organizations should interrogate how “local” is defined in these partnerships: are the funds and decision-making power concentrated in the hands of global organisations’ local offices, or are they in the hands of researchers and institutions from the affected communities? An example of a project with a promising partnership model is Global Evidence for Refugee Education (GERE), which marks a shift from the typical funding arrangement by directly hiring and training refugee youth as researchers.
5. Engaging in (sometimes uncomfortable) self-reflection: Existing work on partnerships in EiE suggests that a first step towards addressing power imbalances is to ask ourselves who holds the power, how, and what ties existing power dynamics might have to capitalism, colonialism, and racism. As the study notes, “interrogating power dynamics can be pre-organized, through workshops, readings, and other scheduled activities, but more importantly involves sometimes uncomfortable self-reflection on the part of individuals.” Asymmetries can only shift when some are open to giving up certain kinds or positions of power. What might this look like in the funder's own interactions with, rules for and expectations of grantees? How might funders, in addition to funding equitable partnerships, also pursue equity with their grantee and partner organisations?
6. Investing in research uptake: Beyond ensuring resources for dissemination, funders should allocate resources specifically to uptake activities. Through this allocation, funders should prompt research partners to include in-depth uptake plans with a particular focus on the relevant local communities and study participants, who are often sidelined once the research is completed and published. Uptake activities should be planned for and included from the inception of research to ensure buy-in from those whom the research aims to influence or serve.
Food for thought: How do we hold ourselves accountable?
Before the USAID stop-work orders, the Education in Emergencies (EiE) sector had already experienced at least two instances of early and abrupt funding stoppages for research programmes. One of these came from foreign aid budget cuts, leaving research institutions to mitigate the damage, and the other from a philanthropic organisation that still owes payments to some of the research institutions it was funding. Although these have been relatively rare instances, the lack of widespread critical response in the sector was telling - given the existing power asymmetries, it was difficult for organisations to call funders out without potentially jeopardising future funding streams.
Beyond recommendations for improving funders’ ethical practice, an important question to consider is whether we, as a sector, are willing to forgo funding in order to call out bad practice. To what extent can we afford to push back against unethical funding practices, and which of us are in the position to be able to do so? What are some ways we can begin to shift the power dynamics through community-led aid and knowledge creation that might help us even the playing field? Recognising that this is a question without easy answers, we welcome thoughts, feedback, and opinions from our membership.
INEE thanks the researchers referenced in this blog as well as Dr. Olya Homonchuk and Dr. Ritesh Shah for their input and review.
This is the second blog in a series focused on how EiE stakeholders can play a part in strengthening ethical research practice in the sector. See the introduction to the blog series here, and the previous blog in the series here.
This material has been funded by UK International Development from the UK government. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed here are entirely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the ERICC Programme, the authors’ respective organisations, or the UK government’s official policies