Introduction
The significance of high-quality evidence and evaluation in disaster or humanitarian crises becomes increasingly acknowledged (Blanchet et al., 2017; Gerdin et al., 2014). However, the research on the topic of disaster and humanitarian crises is not very extensive, has significant gaps, and is connected to some methodological issues that limit the quality of produced evidence (Blanchet et al., 2017; Smith, Roberts, Knight, Gosselin, & Blanchet, 2015).
Similarly, non-research evaluations are also plagued with issues (National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre [NCCTRC], 2011). This fact may be connected to the barriers that prevent the improvement of the quality of evidence and evaluation, and the present paper will consider some of these barriers, as well as solutions to them. While the obstacles are admittedly numerous, solutions to them are available and need to be implemented for disaster and crisis management to be evidence-based and high-quality.
The Quality of Evidence and Evaluations in Disaster or Humanitarian Crises
Research is considered to be one of the best sources of the highest-quality evidence (Gerdin et al., 2014). However, research in disaster settings is problematic. A major barrier is a methodology that is available and employed during evidence collection. As pointed out by Blanchet et al. (2017), who developed a systematic review of the literature on the topic of public health interventions in humanitarian crises, many of the existing studies have significant methodological weaknesses. Some of the shortcomings include the lack of attention to cofounders, inaccuracy in defining outcomes, insufficient description of limitations, and other problems. Overall, the lack of focus on the methodology in the field seems to be problematic.
Still, the primary methodological issue is the choice of non-experimental designs, which, according to Blanchet et al. (2017), some researchers use to infer causation; as pointed out by Blanchet et al. (2017), non-experimental research cannot be used to prove causation. Therefore, the lack of an understanding of the available methodology may be a barrier to the improvement of the quality of disaster-related evidence. However, Blanchet et al. (2017) also acknowledge the fact that quasi-experimental and experimental designs may be unavailable or ethically questionable for some interventions meant for disaster management. The fact that this option is not always available is also indicative of a barrier: the nature of disaster-related knowledge may prevent professionals from collecting the highest-quality (experimental) data.
Indeed, disaster-related knowledge is typically extracted from insecure settings in the situation, which is characterised by the lack of crucial resources, including time; equipment may also be difficult to obtain in crisis-stricken environments (Blanchet et al., 2017). The logistics of the procedures can be problematic, and funding can be a major barrier (Blanchet et al., 2017; Gerdin et al., 2014), as well as structural deficiencies that hinder research or information exchange (Spiekermann, Kienberger, Norton, Briones, & Weichselgartner, 2015). These issues can also be connected to the problem of corruption, which may result in incorrect evaluations and reports that aim to cover up power abuse (NCCTRC, 2011). In summary, the predicaments related to knowledge management in crisis settings are numerous.
Furthermore, a major barrier is concerned with information exchange in crisis settings. The specifics of the issues can vary in different regions, but issues like inaccessibility, inconsistency, unreliability, and problems with timeliness and relevance might be encountered (Altay & Labonte, 2014; Walle & Comes, 2015). Apart from that, in the case study of Altay and Labonte (2014), the information exchange was given low priority, which is a significant shortcoming of the studied structure.
Blanchet et al. (2017) also suggest that other barriers might be present. For example, according to the authors, the idea of evaluating the effectiveness of humanitarian efforts is relatively new; until the end of the previous century, it could be considered inappropriate. The remnants of this aspect of humanitarian culture might serve as a barrier, but nowadays, the importance of evaluation and evidence-based approach to humanitarianism are promoted (NCCTRC, 2011; Smith & Chan, 2017). Similarly, Gerdin et al. (2014) point out that the decision to carry out research immediately after a disaster can be viewed as inappropriate for multiple reasons, but depending on the situation, it may be most helpful. Thus, there are some cultural barriers to improved quality of evidence and evaluation.
The solutions to the barriers often mirror the issues. A major solution is an effective knowledge exchange with available research on the topic that should foster appropriate investigation and the use of suitable methodologies (Gerdin et al., 2014). As a more specific measure, the development of effective information exchange mechanisms is also a priority (Altay & Labonte, 2014; Walle & Comes, 2015). Funding is another solution that can assist researchers with resources; it can also help to make the results freely available, fostering knowledge exchange (Gerdin et al., 2014). Independent evaluation practices can aid in avoiding the negative impact of corruption and other power inequality issues (NCCTRC, 2011).
Apart from that, cooperation is the primary solution that can assist with knowledge exchange, logistics, resources, and other important aspects that can foster research and other forms of evidence collection to improve the quality of the latter (Gerdin et al., 2014). As for the cultural aspect, the fact that knowledge is crucial for successful preparedness and other stages of disaster management is acknowledged nowadays (Altay & Labonte, 2014). By promoting this idea within professional communities and outside of them, professionals can promote a more positive attitude to data collection and evaluation.
Conclusion
As the present investigation shows, the barriers to the improvement of the quality of evidence and evaluation in disaster management are numerous. Some of them are connected to the specifics of working and researching in disaster settings, including the lack of resources; other ones are related to the problems with information exchange, structural issues, methodological flaws, and even cultural barriers. The primary solutions consist of cooperation and improved knowledge exchange; they need to be paired with more specific activities like improved funding and independent evaluations. Overall, given the significance of high-quality evidence for disaster management, the problems should be addressed.
References
Alston, M. (2014). Gender mainstreaming and climate change. Women’s Studies International Forum, 47, 287-294. Web.
Altay, N., & Labonte, M. (2014). Challenges in humanitarian information management and exchange: Evidence from Haiti. Disasters, 38(s1), S50-S72. Web.
Australian Council for International Development. (2017). ACFID code of conduct. Web.
Blanchet, K., Ramesh, A., Frison, S., Warren, E., Hossain, M., Smith, J.,… Dahab, M. (2017). Evidence on public health interventions in humanitarian crises. The Lancet, 390(10109), 2287-2296. Web.
Budhathoki, S., Bhattachan, M., Pokharel, P., Bhadra, M., & van Teijlingen, E. (2016). Reusable sanitary towels: Promoting menstrual hygiene in post-earthquake Nepal. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 43(2), 157-159. Web.
Gerdin, M., Clarke, M., Allen, C., Kayabu, B., Summerskill, W., Devane, D.,… Gupta, S. (2014). Optimal evidence in difficult settings: Improving health interventions and decision making in disasters. Plos Medicine, 11(4), e1001632. Web.
Mustafa, D., Gioli, G., Qazi, S., Waraich, R., Rehman, A., & Zahoor, R. (2015). Gendering flood early warning systems: The case of Pakistan. Environmental Hazards, 14(4), 312-328. Web.
National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre. (2011). Australian medical assistance team training. Web.
Noble, E., Ward, L., French, S., & Falb, K. (2017). State of the evidence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2017, 152483801769960. Web.
Robinson, J. (2015). Gender sensitivity in disaster management. Web.
Smith, A., & Chan, E. (2017). Disaster risk reduction in Myanmar: A need for focus on community preparedness and improved evaluation of initiatives. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 2017, 1-5. Web.
Smith, J., Roberts, B., Knight, A., Gosselin, R., & Blanchet, K. (2015). A systematic literature review of the quality of evidence for injury and rehabilitation interventions in humanitarian crises. International Journal of Public Health, 60(7), 865-872. Web.
Sohrabizadeh, S., Tourani, S., & Khankeh, H. (2014). The gender analysis tools applied in natural disasters management: A systematic literature review. Plos Currents, 6, 1-9. Web.
Spiekermann, R., Kienberger, S., Norton, J., Briones, F., & Weichselgartner, J. (2015). The disaster-knowledge matrix – reframing and evaluating the knowledge challenges in disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 13, 96-108. Web.
United Nations. (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030. Web.
Walle, B., & Comes, T. (2015). On the nature of information management in complex and natural disasters. Procedia Engineering, 107, 403-411. Web.
Wisner, B., Berger, G., & Gaillard, J. (2016). We’ve seen the future, and it’s very diverse: Beyond gender and disaster in West Hollywood, California. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(1), 27-36. Web.
Wong, S. (2016). Can Climate finance contribute to gender equity in developing countries?Journal of International Development, 28(3), 428-444. Web.