Quantification and Humanitarianism

Abstract

Over the past 25 years, the humanitarian sector has become increasingly dominated by numbers. This has been reflected in the growth of academic work that explores this relationship between humanitarianism and quantification. The most recent contribution to this literature is Joël Glasman’s Humanitarianism and the Quantification of Humanitarian Needs. Through his empirical and theoretical contributions, Glasman draws our attention to the different ways that academics approach this topic. These four strands structure the literature review: knowledge – the technical difficulties in quantifying phenomena; governance – how numbers help humanitarian organisations manage the sector; effects – the impact that quantification has had on the sector as a whole; meaning – the importance of rhetoric, discourse, representation and communication when it comes to understanding the quantitative. As part of the review, the essay also identifies how academics can better engage with each of the four strands.

Evidence as a Specific Knowledge to Inform Humanitarian Decision-Making in Migration Crisis Contexts: The Case of Syrian Refugees in Jordan

“…These variables are used to perform a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA). MCA is an inductive form of principal component analysis applied to categorical data (Le Roux and Rouanet 2010), whose purpose is to explore and summarize data to identify the reports’ similar or opposed characteristics and the dimensions of appropriateness structuring the sample. Hierarchical clustering using Ward's method 9 was then performed on the MCA results to identify different types of reports.…”

“…We highlight that evidence is produced by organizations so as to build their legitimacy in the humanitarian sector and enhance their credibility in decision-making (Boswell 2008, 471). Quantification practices by humanitarians are an essential part of this process (Glasman 2019;Lawson 2021). We also learn from our analysis the orientation of IOs and humanitarian organizations toward targets set by donors and supervising institutions (i.e., upward accountability), rather than toward refugees (i.e., downward accountability) (Burlin 2020).…”

Humanitarian ignorance: towards a new paradigm of non‐knowledge in digital humanitarianism

“…Digitalisation and datafication reflect how quantification has become an essential component of contemporary humanitarianism, as new technologies increase humanitarian actors' ability to collect, process, manage, represent, and interpret large amounts of data and information (Knox Clarke and Campbell, 2020; Lawson, 2021). However, knowledge is about more than the presence of discrete facts and vast quantities of data and information.…”

“…The unceasing dilemma here is that more information does not ‘lead to less uncertainty – in fact, it might lead to more uncertainty’ (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004, p. 6)—decisions do not automatically become easier or more certain, the more information you have (Knox Clarke and Campbell, 2020, p. 6). Humanitarian organisations have responded with budding standardisation and measurements systems, but the ideal of painting a full and accurate picture of humanitarian crisis is an illusion (Lawson, 2021). As Benini (1997) argues, uncertainty appears therefore as the nemesis of humanitarian agencies' information systems, created exactly to manage, mitigate, or reduce uncertainty (Benini 1997, p. 336).…”

The Powerful (Vagueness of) Numbers?

“…More fundamentally, how do accommodation quantifi cations produce (non)knowledge and link with humanitarian bureaucracies? Such numbers are neither new nor limited to accommodation statistics and generally refl ect a quantifi cation of social phenomena for humanitarian and political purposes (see Urla 1993;Desrosières 1998;Lawson 2021). By creating or referring to statistical data, political and humanitarian actors prove their awareness and expertise in decision-making.…”