Nada Yehia

The Beginning

Growing up in Egypt in the 1990s & 2000s, I have always been surrounded by news about the thousands of displaced people who fled their countries because of occupation, famine, drought, or civil wars. The news told stories about the Palestinian resistance, Palestinian refugee crisis and Palestinian right to return, Somali famine and drought in the horn of Africa, genocide in Rwanda, conflicts in Sudan, war on Iraq, war on Afghanistan, and conflict in Bosnia. I wanted to help, to be there for ‘the victims’ to be saved. In high school, I became a member of the local Red Crescent Society. I then joined the faculty of Mass Communication to be there for “those who need my help” and raise awareness about their plights. The Arab Spring erupted while I was at college and massive numbers of people around the Middle East ended up fleeing their countries. I wanted to be there for them and to take part in providing them with humanitarian assistance, so I pursued a MSc degree on humanitarian action, thinking that this would equip me with the needed skills and knowledge to ‘help’ and ‘provide aid’.

The mainstream narratives in humanitarian, academic, and practical discourses created a sharp dichotomy between those who provide help and those who receive it.

These narratives situate crises in particular spaces and places and attribute victimhood to people of certain races, classes & migration status. I went to my first humanitarian placement in Zaatari Camp in Jordan thinking that there are humanitarians who provide help – who are either expats ‘with extensive experience and knowledge’ or locals who are ‘meant to be trained on humanitarianism’ by the expats – and then refugees who are ‘the victims’ to be saved, provided, assisted, or helped. I was shocked. My whole idea around humanitarianism and humanitarian actors got dismantled when I found out that there are so many refugees who work for international humanitarian organizations inside the camp. So many refugees are part of the suffering because of displacement, yet also part of the response.

Structural Inequalities, Organizational Hierarchies, and Disconnections from Humanitarian Principles

Between 2013 and 2018, as I worked in humanitarian placements across the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and southeast Asia, I have witnessed how refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) acted as indispensable humanitarian service providers and a critical part of the workforce of international humanitarian organizations. Yet, their role was always rendered as peripheral volunteers. They take part in meetings, yet they don’t have a say on what will be discussed in the meeting, where the meeting shall take place, or when. They receive financial reimbursement, yet it doesn’t amount to the effort they exert, nor does this compensation equate to the salaries of their peers who haven’t experienced displacement. Their existence is crucial to ‘reach’ the ‘target’ community, yet their systems of knowledge, ways of living, local traditions, and practices of humanitarianism aren’t rendered as valuable or approached as knowledge. The perplexing dynamics of this exclusive inclusion, of welcome and hostility, that existed in the sector among workers occupying different positionalities with varying racial, class and migration statuses urged me to pursue a PhD degree in sociology.

Through the research, I employ a Decolonial approach and Critical Race Theory to examine how refugee agency is cultivated in humanitarian encounters. Twelve oral history narrative interviews were conducted with humanitarian workers occupying different positionalities in the humanitarian sector across the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa & south/southeast Asia. Mohamed, Manasek, Mawada and Safaa (names changed for privacy) from Sudan and Syria have directly experienced forced migration. Their work in the humanitarian sector varied between educating, coordinating, facilitating, promoting hygiene, offering legal support, and providing psychosocial support, yet they were all contracted as volunteers. Haya, Talal, Sara & Lana are Palestinian Jordanians and have intergenerational legacies of forced migration.  Dareen, Amal, and Layal from Egypt and Jordan have not experienced displacement, yet closely worked with humanitarians who have. All humanitarians who have not personally experienced displacement were contracted fixed-term workers. The recruitment of the interlocutors took place through a snowballing sampling technique. Because of COVID and the multiple geographic locations where the interviewees reside, the interviews took place online. In this blog post, I shall focus on how humanitarian practice is disconnected from humanitarian principles and the ways this disconnection manifests in how humanitarians who experienced forced migration access and navigate the humanitarian space as workers.

A Purpose Behind our Presence

“When I used to work as a volunteer, we used to have a volunteer and an employee, the volunteer would work way much more than the employees because most of the volunteers are very well connected to the community. On the other side most of the employees stayed in the office. There wasn’t proper appreciation and there wasn’t any equality. We have different job titles, different contracts, yet we provide the same service. People who used to work as volunteers didn’t have the same value as employees. I felt there was kind of a purpose through our presence and that is it… the organization used to provide certain incentives for people working at it, such incentives were exclusive to the employees which was degrading for volunteers who are working in the field” [Manasek]

Manasek’s reflections on the different labels that exist in international humanitarian organizations was highlighted in the work produced by Reem Farah.¹ Her work describes how within the humanitarian sector there are international staff, local or national staff, and volunteers from the refugee community. Through the interviews, it was clear how humanitarian workers’ labels/titles entitle them to have different access to different sets of rights.

Manasek’s experience demonstrated the clear disparities existing in the humanitarian sector between contracted employees and volunteers who are from the forced migrant population.

It is striking the absence of equality in terms of financial remuneration, recognition as equal contracted employees, provision of incentives, and appreciation of the effort exerted. Such practices reflect the extent to which humanitarians from the forced migrant population are treated as a means to an end, regardless of their rights as equal human beings and their valuable contributions to the organization.

These disparities reflect a clear form of disconnection between humanitarian principles and humanitarian practice.

Moreover, interlocutors working across different contexts agreed that there is a certain level of classism and lack of acceptance within the sector among field staff, volunteers, and office staff. Gloria Haddad and Soha Bouchabke² referred to the exclusive nature of international humanitarian organizations and the fact that there is proliferation of different social groups that compete against each other. In their work, they focused on the disparities that exist between international ‘expats’ and locals. However, the interviews showed that such disparities transcend the international-local dichotomy towards graver disparities that humanitarians from the displaced community encounter.

“I don’t know whether this is an attitude or not … it is always that the organizations advocating for the integration and acceptance of the other … doesn’t really practice what it preaches … there is always a certain level of classism” [Amal]

Through the interviews, it was prevalent that many contracted fixed-term humanitarians refuse to sit with the volunteers in the same spaces. Amal, Haya and Layal mentioned that some refuse to eat with the volunteers, or refuse to organize meetings in the areas where the refugees live and provide the services. In his reflections, Mohamed highlighted that some humanitarians perceive and treat refugees as less equal, as victims to be saved who lack any sort of agency or aptitude.

There is an obvious disconnection between the principles of humanitarian organizations and the practices of some of their employees related to how they approach their colleagues in the field, their colleagues from the forced migrant population, and the general refugee population they are meant to serve.

Anne-Marie Fechter in her work highlighted the fact that individuals’ relationships, belief systems, and values could very much affect the humanitarian practice.³

“Some humanitarians have this tendency to use their positions and disrespect the dignity of people they are supposed to serve.” [Sara]

Other forms of disconnection emerged in the discussions:

“There is a gap between office-based employees and field-based employees …they didn’t always get to properly estimate what we go through in the field … a systematic gap that exists because some don’t really care enough to know … for them everything that is managerial is way much important than whatever happens in the field” [Lana]

Field staff (fixed-term and volunteers) felt that the policies set in the office are disconnected from the main purpose behind the intervention, which demotivates them. Also, management and policy makers are disconnected from the practices that are taking place in the field.

Moving Forward: Promoting Acceptance and Equality, Dismantling Hierarchies

Despite their differences, all the respondents shared similar aspirations towards promoting a culture of acceptance and equality in the humanitarian sector. They stressed the importance of adhering to participatory methods in the development of proposals. They insisted on the importance of monitoring humanitarian workers’ behaviour. They also expressed the need to shift organizational paradigms to focus on quality rather than quantity.

It is crucial to acknowledge the fact that humanitarians who experienced displacement have an indispensable role in providing humanitarian assistance. Their existence as part of the workforce of humanitarian organizations is vital for the provision of humanitarian services. Their roles, voices, experiences of humanitarianism, systems of knowledge and agencies need to be acknowledged and respected. These shifts in culture and in practice are important to dismantle the widespread hierarchies in humanitarian responses.

Figure 1 Zaatari Camp Jordan 2013 ŠNada

Figure 2 Road Somaliland 2017 ŠNada

Figure 3 IDP Camp Myitkyina Myanmar 2018 ŠNada

[1] Reem Farah, 2020 “Expat, Local, and Refugee: ‘Studying Up’ the Global Division of Labor and Mobility in the Humanitarian Industry in Jordan”. Migration and Society.

[2] Gloria Haddad and Soha BouChabke, 2022. “The impact of workplace exclusion on the humanitarian response to the refugee crisis in Lebanon”. Disasters 46 (1): 246−270. Overseas Development Institute.

[3] Anne-Marie Fechter, 2012. “The Personal and the Professional: Aid Workers’ Relationships and Values in the Development Process”. Third World Quarterly 33 (8): 1387–1404.

Nada Yehia

Ph.D. researcher at University College Dublin, sociology teacher and humanitarian practitioner

Email: yehia.nada@gmail.com

LERRN Blog Series: Knowledge, Voice and Power

This blog series continues the conversation from the recently launched Forced Migration Review , which was supported by LERRN. In this blog series we feature authors from around the world reflecting on questions about involving people with lived experiences of displacement in multiple contexts, as well as scholars based in the Global South, from research to policy discussions.

Dr Prithvi Hirani and Robert Trigwell

Please find the on the IOM website

The expansion of digital technology and activities in recent years has led to an exponential growth in forced migration data. However, this increase in available data does not always result in more inclusivity nor representation of marginalised individuals/groups. Collecting data in the forced migration field often relies on focus group discussions and key informant interviews. While such methods have proven to be effective, they are susceptible to reproducing existing power-dynamics and systemic biases which undermine diversity, representation, and inclusion. Often such ways to collect data represent the perspectives of those who already have a voice such as community and/or religious leaders, resulting in the inclusion of displaced populations with similar profiles and low participation of demographics like youth or women. and have pointed towards the limited participation of affected populations as data sources. practices which target forcibly displaced populations have been criticised for being ‘performative’, unidirectional and extractive. Poor representation within datasets can lead to biased analysis and may detrimentally impact decision-making. At the humanitarian sector level, the Grand Bargain in 2016 promoted localisation, participation, and inclusion as key priorities, however these priorities have mostly remained abstract with limited progress towards implementation. Even though there is momentum towards evidence-based decision-making, and tackled.

In this blog post, we report on a pilot project by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) leveraging Collective Intelligence to achieve greater representation and diversity in data collection. This pilot project was conducted in Iraq in May 2021. The pilot sought to test ways in which the knowledge, voices and participation of affected populations can be better included through all stages of the data cycle (collection, validation and analysis).

This blog piece illustrates how affected populations can be successfully involved in processes around analysis and validation of data, in a way that is complementary to conventional data collection.

Geo-located results were presented to the affected populations via an interactive platform based on their location, to allow them to vet, validate and comment on the results. Quantitative data and qualitative feedback were used in the next iteration of the analysis. This piece contributes to two ongoing discussions in the forced migration field. First, it explores the challenges of existing data collection tools related to power and voice. Second, it contributes to the growing discussion around improving accountability to affected populations and advancing localisation using new and innovative processes for data collection in forced displacement contexts.

Applying Collective Intelligence and the ‘Have Your Say’ platform

combines data, people, and technology. It can be understood as the enhanced capacity of groups, using technology, to mobilise a wider range of information, ideas and insights which can then inform innovation, learning or decision-making. Some well-known examples of Collective Intelligence are Wikipedia and Waze, a navigation app which crowdsources information on traffic to inform other drivers. In the humanitarian sector, the platform shows how Collective Intelligence is used to gather ‘wisdom of the crowds’ in a crisis context by focusing on implementing a crowdsourced public response to crucial decision-making processes. This new branch of Collective Intelligence has been gaining more traction among the COVID-19 response mechanisms.

IOM’s Return Index is a key interview-based tool designed to measure the severity of conditions in locations of return across Iraq. The pilot study sought to engage a broad subset of the affected population in Iraq to explore whether and why their assessment of their neighbourhood or village differed from that of the interviews, as captured in the . Collective Intelligence was employed in tandem with IOM’s existing Iraq Return Index to test and validate the findings. The online ‘Have Your Say’ Collective Intelligence platform was built by selecting five out of the sixteen Return Index indicators for validation by the community. They covered the main thematic areas of housing destruction, employment, business recovery, community reconciliation and security which reflect conditions of returns and could be easily cross-referenced. Given the high level of mobile phone and Internet use in Iraq, it is a fertile context for a Collective Intelligence pilot. The survey was disseminated for a seven-week period in English, Arabic and Kurdish via the existing social network of the IOM Iraq Facebook page, with over 93,038 followers. Of these, 25 per cent of users were female and 51 per cent were between the ages of 25-35, a demographic less traditionally surveyed in key informant interviews or focus group discussions. The quantitative analysis tested the indicator results. For the qualitative data, an open feedback platform allowed participants to express their sentiments.

Making room for disagreement: voices of affected populations

While most quantitative findings from the Collective Intelligence platform supported the Iraq Return Index, this section will focus on three out of the six indicators where there was notable disagreement between the traditional interview method and the Collective Intelligence platform. Most participant answers focused on housing (21%) and security (18%), while the smallest proportion of answers related to reconciliation (13%). Interestingly, most respondents who disagreed with the Return Index’s assessment of employment opportunities in their area believed that the situation was worse than previously identified by interviews. are very few because of the lack of support for agricultural and industrial projects. Participants highlighted underinvestment, agriculture and rural issues, social marginalisation, and COVID-19 as sources of unemployment. For example, a female respondent between 18 to 34 years from Ninewa cited ‘favouritism and corruption’ as obstacles to employment. Meanwhile, a male from the same age bracket from Kirkuk quoted that a ‘lack of job opportunities and employers’ failure to appoint people with academic degrees are the reasons behind why they do not have work’.

In terms of business recovery, respondents to the Collective Intelligence platform identified a lack of investment, the scale of destruction and slow returns as important factors influencing business opportunities. Comparatively, the key informant interviews had a much more positive understanding of the business environment. Collective Intelligence respondents noted that cycles of violence and displacement had severely weakened the recovery of businesses in many areas of return. Business owners lacked the financial means to repair premises, infrastructure was damaged, and the fragmented security situation limited the movement of people, capital, and goods.

The inputs and voices of affected populations, as observed through the online platform, have created room for disagreement with the results of traditional data collection.

The third indicator where the Return Index and the Collective Intelligence platform differed was community reconciliation. Many Collective Intelligence respondents noted that peaceful coexistence was possible because of a lack of sources of tension within their community, such as tribal disputes. Many also stated that ethno-religious homogeneity in their area was the crucial determinant of peace within the community. This perception may be threatened by the return of marginalised communities and may also increase the vulnerability of displaced minorities that are currently hosted in those areas. For example, a male in Baghdad between 35 and 59 years noted that ‘All the people of the area are from one ethnic group and get along with the tribes and all other groups in the sub-district. The tribes have an obligation to fight terrorism in the district, and this is what happened after retaking the areas from ISIS’. These findings are valuable to unpack underlying barriers to sustainable returns which go beyond those identified by the Return Index.

These disagreements between the traditional key informant interviews and Collective Intelligence respondents are important for several reasons. Issues around returns, displacement and forced migration are complex and multi-layered. To fundamentally transform how we confront these issues necessitates newer approaches and perspectives which include voices and knowledge beyond the current rubric. Community feedback on sensitive topics such as perceptions of corruption are particularly relevant for understanding obstacles to employment, while insights on community dynamics are important to inform programming.

The success of creating a digital anonymous ‘safe space’ to encourage, aggregate and better understand such perspectives leads us to discuss some of the key methodological takeaways from this pilot. Even though COVID-19 related restrictions in Iraq impeded outreach capabilities to disseminate the platform, it led to the creation of an entirely digital feedback mechanism. This facilitated an opportunity to gain critical feedback in situations where respondents may feel more comfortable being anonymous and are not exposed to the risks associated with identification. Anonymity lent a feeling of protection and a chance for affected populations to voice their concerns without the power dynamics between humanitarian actors and affected populations. The qualitative responses attest to a willingness to provide non-personal information, which also eliminated data protection concerns.

Participatory modes of data collection are ethical and enable affected populations to assert agency over decisions affecting their lives.

Forced migration data is richer when there is disagreement and variance because it contributes towards a more holistic and representative understanding of the situation on the ground.

Limitations and areas for future development

This pilot demonstrates new opportunities for broadening the scope of participation and representation in displacement data, but equally, it poses some barriers. Due to the small number of locations (192 locations) and respondents in the Collective Intelligence process versus in the Iraq Return Index (2,706 locations), the qualitative differences cannot be generalised to the whole population. The digital platform can be seen as a double-edged sword. While participation of newer demographics catalysed critical feedback and disagreement, participation was limited to digitally connected individuals (mostly younger males). It is vital to find the balance between using new technology while recognising other structural asymmetries that may arise due to digital divides and associated disparities. While digital technologies contribute to diversifying participants, the need to involve marginalised groups persists. Overall, even though social media platforms enabled us to improve participation, engage with new demographics, and create a ‘safe space’ for affected populations to participate in analysis, there is scope to improve and to scale up to involve more people. For example, engaging a larger sample of citizens would make it possible to draw statistically significant conclusions and to strengthen the comparison between the two methods.

Potential responses to ongoing challenges

This pilot provided humanitarian and development practitioners one example of how to develop low-tech modalities to engage diverse groups of affected populations.

• The Collective Intelligence methodology or ‘crowdsourcing component’ can be integrated into data collection processes to provide validation and feedback in a regular but sustainable manner.
• Simultaneously collecting data using different methods can help engage affected populations to validate analysis, to identify gaps, and to mitigate assessment fatigue.
• Processes which combine qualitative and quantitative methods can be used to confirm the situation on the ground.
• Tools designed for Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning can benefit from adopting a complementary Collective Intelligence approach to data collection to collect anonymized feedback from affected populations to improve programming.

Overall, with global trends of increasing phone ownership and Internet use, there is emerging need to explore digital participation methods that complement existing processes. For policy actors, the strong participation in the pilot suggests a good appetite for using similar methods in contexts with high mobile phone use. New methods for data collection need to connect with more “marginal” or less traditionally engaged groups who are often excluded from current data collection tools. Finally, this pilot showed a case where macro-level challenges around power, participation and local knowledges of displaced populations were tackled in a local context using technology to complement if not entirely shift data collection methods. Valuing participatory processes is an important step towards promoting inclusivity and shifting power dynamics.

Trigwell, R., J. Phillippo-Holmes, E. Zambrano, J. Bahn, P. Hirani and E. Griesmer, 2022. “Validating Humanitarian Data Analysis Through Collective Intelligence: A Pilot Study”. International Organization for Migration, Geneva. .

Dr Prithvi Hirani

Phirani@iom.int

Programme Officer, International Organization for Migration

Robert Trigwell

Rtrigwell@iom.int

Senior DTM Coordination Officer, International Organization for Migration

LERRN Blog Series: Knowledge, Voice and Power

This blog series continues the conversation from the recently launched Forced Migration Review , which was supported by LERRN. In this blog series we feature authors from around the world reflecting on questions about involving people with lived experiences of displacement in multiple contexts, as well as scholars based in the Global South, from research to policy discussions.

Saleh Aljadeeah

Why are refugees often not involved in research that directly pertains to them?

In this blog post, I will answer this question by reflecting on my experience with refugee involvement in research, particularly in the healthcare field.

Refugees are a heterogeneous group in terms of country of origin, reasons for flight, socio-economic status, and educational background. Before, during and after their flight, refugees are exposed to diverse risk factors for mental illness, infectious diseases, and chronic diseases. It is important for governments of high-income countries to be equipped to respond to the healthcare needs of this population, including with reliable data. Such data is critical for planning needs-based healthcare services for refugee populations. However, refugees are not included in or in many other European countries. Therefore, researchers who are interested in conducting health research studies among refugees need to collect primary data.

Despite the growing emphasis on community involvement, there remains a lack of refugee involvement in research about their health, including defining research questions, designing the methods, and analyzing research outcomes. This situation has resulted in the underrepresentation of refugees’ voices in the research that impacts their lives. In this blog post, I reflect on my experience with refugee involvement in research from two angles: as a researcher who conducted research with refugees about their access to and use of medicines, and as a participant in studies focusing on refugee populations.

Why do we need to involve refugees in research?

First, involving refugees in research projects can help to overcome challenges such as language barriers and cultural issues to avoid including questions that seem offensive, discriminatory, or irrelevant to the target population. Researchers from the Robert Koch Institute, the leading national health institute in Germany, . While participants of two nationalities considered questions regarding religion as offensive, other participants of different nationalities considered some sociodemographic questions irrelevant to the health topic of this research study. This example explains why some migrants and refugees may be hesitant to participate in health research studies. It also emphasises the need for active and meaningful involvement of migrants and refugees at all stages of research studies targeting their communities to avoid such problems that discourage them from taking part in the research. Some refugees I interviewed mentioned that they were asked to participate in surveys where they could not understand the purpose of some questions, or how some research projects would help to improve their health or living situation.

Involving refugees in designing survey questionnaires enhances the possibility of creating questions that make sense to the participants and addressing issues that interest participants.

Researchers should not cut their contact with refugees after data collection. Some refugees I interviewed complained that the outcomes of the surveys in which they took part were not shared with them later. The researchers ‘disappeared’ after collecting the data. If researchers believe that the outcomes of their studies are beneficial for refugees, they should share these outcomes with them. This behaviour of some researchers has been also . Beyond sharing results, refugees can help interpret and explain research outcomes at the stage of data analysis and interpretation, especially in quantitative research.

Moreover, involving refugees in health research can enhance the sustainability of these projects as refugee populations can implement or benefit from the study outcomes beyond the duration of the projects. This involvement can also help disseminate the outcomes and information resulting from the research to reach a wider public. Involving refugees in research shows refugees that their experiences are appreciated and their voices are heard by researchers. In addition, involvement in research can encourage refugees to be more vocal in their advocacy for the rights of refugees.

Why are refugees often not involved in research?

Some researchers focus on their expertise in their research topic and are not prepared or open to considering the opinions or perspectives of refugees. The common misconception that refugees have lower levels of education contributes to this issue. The group of refugees that I consulted as part of my research was diverse in terms of educational attainment, and some provided me with valuable advice that I had not found elsewhere. For example, as I shared my questionnaire with them, one of the members of this group commented on the first part of my questionnaire, which included questions about the participants’ demographics: ‘These questions remind me of the questions the migration authorities asked me during the interview for my asylum application’. This participant suggested changing some terms and the order of these questions so that the questionnaire did not seem so much like the asylum interview. This simple yet relevant advice gives an example of a reason behind the common hesitancy of refugees to take part in survey studies and it emphasizes the need to involve refugees in research.

Some researchers are too busy to take part in data collection and hire others to collect data from target populations. These data collection teams are usually provided with training only about asking questions and recording participants’ answers. As a result, those who collect the data often cannot adjust the survey strategy or questionnaire based on feedback from participants, which creates a gap between researchers and refugees, while silencing the refugees’ voices in the research. For example, I was invited to participate in a survey about the integration of refugees into the university system in Germany. Some questions in this survey were unclear to me. I also had questions about the suggested multiple-choice answers to some close-ended questions and their relevance to the research topic. The data collection team members could not provide an answer to my questions, they stated that they were just ‘master students’ who were hired ‘only’ to collect the data. I was advised to contact the Principal Investigator and discuss my questions with that person instead. This experience is an example of a common disconnect between researchers and refugees, as researchers determine the questions that refugees should answer, then third-party data collectors interact directly with refugees to collect the data and bring the data back to the researchers for analysis. This one-directional flow of information leaves no place for refugees’ input or opinions outside the frame that researchers have already set. In order to address this disparity, researchers interested in doing research with refugees should conduct pilot testing of their data collection tools and dedicate part of their time to going to the field and interacting with members of the refugee community to address their concerns or questions related to the questions they are asked to answer.

Having direct contact with refugees during data collection is necessary. However, this contact should be initiated at earlier stages of research projects. At the data collection stage, researchers have already defined their research questions and developed their data collection tools or instruments. It may be too late then to consider new perspectives on the fundamental direction of the research project. Researchers should, instead, try to engage with refugees at earlier stages of planning and implementing their research. There are other factors that contribute to the lack of refugee involvement in health research, including a lack of training for researchers to involve refugee populations in their research. Moreover, refugees are not used to being asked about their opinion regarding research projects.

Recommendations

1. Involving a Refugee Advisory Group in Designing the Research

Without involving refugees in their research, researchers dismiss important perspectives that could help improve research planning and implementation and overcome challenges related to different stages of their research process. I want to emphasise that the involvement of refugees in research should be a cornerstone of each research project that targets refugees in order to capture the diversity of refugee perspectives and experiences. I encourage researchers who are interested in refugee research but who have no previous professional experience working with refugees to engage with refugees and learn about their experiences before starting their research that targets this population. Research institutions that provide courses on research methods should provide researchers with the needed training about community involvement in health research and address any particular issues that need to be considered while involving refugees in research.

Researchers should contact members of the target refugee population at an early stage of planning for their research projects and ask them to be part of a group that the researchers will consult throughout the planning and implementation of the research project. This group should be diverse in terms of nationality, age, sex, and level of education to cover different perspectives of the target population. Researchers should discuss their research questions with this group and ask them to suggest any additional aspects or issues which should be addressed in the research. Researchers should also discuss the methods they want to apply in their research, including the instruments used for data collection, the translation of these instruments, the sampling methods, the recruitment strategies, and the data analysis methods.

Moreover, research funding agencies should include in their funding guidelines a requirement that researchers involve their target population while developing their research proposals. In funding applications, researchers should include a plan for involving their target population in their proposed research projects. Institutional review boards should invite members of refugee communities to discuss the potential effects of the proposed research projects on the target communities.

2. Compensating Refugee Participants

Another concern is the compensation of refugees. Researchers should compensate the members of this group for their research involvement. The considers offering to pay ‘public contributors’ for their involvement in research a ‘good practice’. Why should refugees be excluded from this ‘good practice’? Providing material compensation to participants in research has been , but Omata suggests that it might be a way to ensure some level of reciprocity and benefit to participants, even if the research findings do not end up changing policy. This issue needs to be reconsidered and discussed further. Researchers , such as the costs of travelling to meeting sites.

3. Analysing the Data & Sharing Results

Finally, when analysing data, researchers should return to the Refugee Advisory Group that helped design the study. Researchers should discuss the results of their studies with this group and ask them for an explanation of these results. Researchers should also discuss with this group the dissemination strategies of their results to improve the possibility that these results or outcomes of research would be considered in the discussion about refugees’ health.

Academic journals that share research can also play a role in promoting refugee involvement. For example, several journals of the British Medical Journal portfolio require authors of research articles to add a patient and public involvement statement in their submitted manuscripts. Journals that focus on research in forced migration issues should encourage community involvement in research by requesting that authors provide community involvement statements in their submitted manuscripts.

Saleh Aljadeeah

Postdoctoral researcher, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.

Twitter:

Acknowledgment: I thank Professor Sarah Phillips (University of Sydney) for her suggestions and comments on earlier drafts of this blog.

LERRN Blog Series: Knowledge, Voice and Power

This blog series continues the conversation from the recently launched Forced Migration Review , which was supported by LERRN. In this blog series we feature authors from around the world reflecting on questions about involving people with lived experiences of displacement in multiple contexts, as well as scholars based in the Global South, from research to policy discussions.