Implications of COVID-19 for safeguarding in international development research: learning, action and reflection from a research hub

Abstract

COVID-19 brings uncertainties and new precarities for communities and researchers, altering and amplifying relational vulnerabilities (vulnerabilities which emerge from relationships of unequal power and place those less powerful at risk of abuse and violence). Research approaches have changed too, with increasing use of remote data collection methods. These multiple changes necessitate new or adapted safeguarding responses. This practice piece shares practical learnings and resources on safeguarding from the Accountability for Informal Urban Equity hub, which uses participatory action research, aiming to catalyse change in approaches to enhancing accountability and improving the health and well-being of marginalised people living and working in informal urban spaces in Bangladesh, India, Kenya and Sierra Leone. We outline three new challenges that emerged in the context of the pandemic (1): exacerbated relational vulnerabilities and dilemmas for researchers in responding to increased reports of different forms of violence coupled with support services that were limited prior to the pandemic becoming barely functional or non-existent in some research sites, (2) the increased use of virtual and remote research methods, with implications for safeguarding and (3) new stress, anxiety and vulnerabilities experienced by researchers. We then outline our learning and recommended action points for addressing emerging challenges, linking practice to the mnemonic ‘the four Rs: recognise, respond, report, refer’. COVID-19 has intensified safeguarding risks. We stress the importance of communities, researchers and co-researchers engaging in dialogue and ongoing discussions of power and positionality, which are important to foster co-learning and co-production of safeguarding processes.

Safeguarding in practice: anticipating, minimising and mitigating risk in teenage pregnancy research in urban informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya

“…5 Safeguarding risks also need constant re-evaluation and these guidelines were further adapted in response to COVID-19. 6 Safeguarding is a new and emerging field not fully addressed by research ethics, which focuses on protecting research participants during data collection. We draw on principles of ethical behaviour and specifically beneficence and non-maleficence 7 as a strategy for researchers to address emerging safeguarding risks occurring during the study where no clear guidance is available and judgement calls are required.…”

“…This work describes how intersections between poverty and power and existing high rates of structural violence in urban informal settlements shape safeguarding considerations, such as intimate partner violence (IPV) 5. Safeguarding risks also need constant re-evaluation and these guidelines were further adapted in response to COVID-19 6…”

“… 5 Safeguarding risks also need constant re-evaluation and these guidelines were further adapted in response to COVID-19. 6 …”

How are Research for Development Programmes Implementing and Evaluating Equitable Partnerships to Address Power Asymmetries?

“…In the cases of the ARISE, Living Deltas (LD), Gender Justice and Security (GJS) and OneOcean (OOH) Hubs this intent is operationalised through prioritising transdisciplinarity (the integration of methods and knowledges from different disciplines and stakeholders outside of academia developed with local stakeholders to work on locally identified challenges) and employing a decolonial ethics of care and decolonial approach to safeguarding. The ARISE hub have documented their approach, highlighting reflective practice and critical thinking about power, judgement and positionality and the ownership of the global narrative surrounding safeguarding (Aktar et al 2020 ; Mansaray et al 2022 ). Examples of specific practices of transdisciplinary in the cases include combining arts, humanities, natural and social sciences in one team that moves away from prioritising one over the other (LD) or having local partners leading discussions on how to shape the work of the Hub (OOH).…”