Are we talking about academic researchers with qualitifications in disaster
management/sustainable development or those hired by aid agencies or
employees of such agencies?  I believe Prof. Durgadas Mukhopadhyay was
talking about the latter.

I think we need specific examples of poor ethics in "agency" disaster
studies to
learn from, and as with ethics, we need feedback from those being researched
or where the research has an effect on people (regardless of who they are)
after the research has been done (policy changes? change in funds
allocation?).  Where/what exactly are UN organisations(which?)/Red Cross (as
named by Prof. Durgadas Mukhopadhyay) are doing wrong or perhaps improved?
Incidentally some of the organisations named by him are involved in the
Sphere Project.  Is the Sphere project satisfying everyone?

It is all very well having a code of conduct, especially for agencies, but
how would it be possible to check that a research(or relief) has been
carried out to the dotted i's and crossed t's?  Who decides the conduct is
acceptable everywhere/everytime on the planet?
I'm not saying we shouldn't have one but I don't think it's a total solution
(I admit I can't think of a
better one as yet).    One could write a proposal or report which distort
the intentions/reality of how a research was actually carried out and we'd
be none the wiser - especially when disaster studies sometimes involve
sensitive anonymous participants or people on the ground that cannot be
easily checked with.  Even with post-research checking - the damage of a
"bad" research has been made and difficult to put right (although the damage
could be limited after being revealed during post-research checks).

Just how widespread are disaster studies with poor ethics are?  Aid agencies
appears not to be bound by the general academic ethics standards - which
perhaps is where the problem lies?   Who does the checking (apart from the
rare peer reviewed articles)?...ie. Who would be a "quality assurance" body
where agencies can be checked against for its studies?    Would checking
further contributes to recipient fatigue?   Would Sphere be appropriate to
extend studies/research by agencies in addition to its standards on disaster
response?

Could it be that agencies are under pressure and cannot commit resources
(time/money) to find out what is needed (in-depth - not superficial event
summary), and assume a model/approach fits a certain place/event?  After
all, it is difficult to write up a vague project proposal on finding out
what people wants without perceived evidence of "doing something" or targets
to meet in a short time.  Capacity building, empowering people and other
long-term disaster management requires substantial resources that smaller
agencies cannot comit to (I assume - correct me if I'm wrong) and also
perhaps resisted by people/government in the area where "aid" is being
received.  Resistance could be a result of fear of external
influence/culture invasion/loss of control?  Aid (to me) defines a
temporary, quick fix, partial solution- if you're injured, you'll likely to
need first aid until someone can give you proper treatment (development).

A concern of mine whilst searching for a suitable job in disaster management
field is the enormous array of religious agencies posting vacancies here and
there (proving Ilan's point), with not much said about in terms of
sustainability or approach except "in accordance with our religious
beliefs...etc..".  The standards of entry generally appears to ignore anyone
with academic or vocational disaster management research or even with
sustainable development background but more  favoured to those with
experience in economics and project management, and very little is said of a
bottoms-up approach or combined approach.  This includes paid research for
the aid organisations by whoever happens to be doing it.   There appears to
be a gulf between academic and "professionals" (including agencies) on how
something be approached - nothing new, but how can this be closed?

Just my two pence's worth of thoughts.

Kyle Sterry
www.sterry.me.uk
Student in MSc Disaster Management & Sustainable Development, University of
Northumbria.
BSc (Hons) Geoscience, University of Aberdeen.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Wisner" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Recipient Fatigue for Disasters, Development, and
Sustainability?

> His final outburst about demolition on international institutions comes
after a long series of rhetorical questions about
> financial support and 'theft' of intellectual property.  To me it sounds
as though he's been 'burned' by an unscrupulous
> foreign researcher or consultant, or at least thinks he has.  I hazard a
guess that he has actually suffered some form of
> exploitation at the hands of an international researcher.  These things
do, of course, happen, and there is a great power

> Thus the problem that the professor rather explosively and starkly poses
is a real one.  Perhaps we need explicit ethical
> standards for foreign researchers, just like the SPHERE standards for
disaster relief provision.  I've never come across such
> an explicit statement of standards for collaboration with local
researchers and
> practitioners, only generic and generally unwritten codes of conduct
employed by anthropologists, development studies
> researchers, and others.

> > People are often fed up with international agencies waltzing in to
provide
> > development for communities, whether or not the communities want or need
it.
> >   Humanitarian aid and disaster mitigation, amongst other activities,
are
> > increasingly competitive and increasingly the sustainable livelihoods
for
> > many international organisations, consultants, and academics.  Perhaps
> > recipients are bewildered and frustrated by the array of development
> > programmes and agencies which exist and by the top-down approaches
seeking
> > to implement mandates, resolutions, declarations, and development plans
and
> > ideas which were produced far away and which inadequately account for
> > indigenous desires, competencies, knowledge, and skills.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG6 free antivirus.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 03/06/2004