6-edbe14fb087782a2.js?dpl=dpl_Bamz2YNyDEHy1DVCpMFmYjzV1t4W","5480","static/chunks/5480-7f72458cac685fcc.js?dpl=dpl_Bamz2YNyDEHy1DVCpMFmYjzV1t4W","4088","static/chunks/4088-572a0e66f44f0f5f.js?dpl=dpl_Bamz2YNyDEHy1DVCpMFmYjzV1t4W","2378","static/chunks/2378-26273e35e21f157d.js?dpl=dpl_Bamz2YNyDEHy1DVCpMFmYjzV1t4W","9869","static/chunks/app/pdf/%5Bslug%5D/page-ebbc9ea59715b7b9.js?dpl=dpl_Bamz2YNyDEHy1DVCpMFmYjzV1t4W"],"LanguageSpecificPDF"] 1b:T6ba,

Humanitarian research has long been dominated by institutions from the Global North (GN), while institutions and researchers from the Global South (GS) have been largely absent or relegated to minor roles. GN humanitarian research institutes (HRI) control the funding, which enables them to control research agendas, research standards, peer-reviewed publications, and the structure of partnerships with their counterparts in the GS. Therefore, GN organizations continue to shape knowledge generation and dissemination in the humanitarian sector.

Despite some progress in promoting GS participation in humanitarian research, continued under-representation of GS researchers undermines the quality of humanitarian research and its ability to improve humanitarian programming outcomes.

Building on a previous report on the localization of humanitarian assistance, this study focuses on issues unique to the localization of humanitarian research.

Four major themes emerge from the report:

Power differentials define the relationships between GN actors and GS HRIs and dictate how the HRIs engage in humanitarian research.
The research agenda and what it means to conduct robust research is defined by GN HRIs, based in some cases on unfounded biases against GS researcher skills and GS research methods.
GS HRIs are more likely to engage in more participatory research, more closely aligning with the needs and norms of the crisis-affected population.
There has been a shift toward more equitable access to research, but it is still ad