Collaborative research process for humanitarian supply chain research
| Collaborative project phases | Collaborative research features/elements | Contributionsa |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Forming a collaborative research team of humanitarian logistics practitioners and academics 2. Understanding the context and purpose of humanitarian logistics research problem | Forming a research project team with membership inclusive of different involved humanitarian stakeholders | Coughlan and Coghlan, (2002) , Canterino et al. (2016) , Sabri (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Sundel (1999), Chang et al. (2010), Jahre et al. (2015), Rutta et al. (2005), Tanabe et al. (2015), Lykes and Scheib (2016), Manikas et al. (2017) |
| Co-identification of the rationale and scope of the research project | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Shani et al. (2004) , Canterino et al. (2016) , Sabri (2018), Jahre et al. (2012, 2015), Sohn (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Refstie and Brun (2011), Manikas et al. (2017) | |
| Co-identification of a preliminary research question and deciding on the unit of analysis | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Shani et al. (2004) , Sabri (2018), Jahre et al. (2012, 2015) | |
| Researchers are immersed, embedded in the humanitarian field, and they have access to the practitioner’s system | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Shani et al. (2004) , Sabri (2018), Jahre et al. (2012, 2015), Sohn (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Sundel (1999), Refstie and Brun (2011), Chang et al. (2010), Prasad et al. (2017), Chandes and Paché (2010), Rutta et al. (2005), Tanabe et al. (2015), Lykes (2013), Lykes and Scheib (2016) | |
| To ensure rigour, involving a non-participatory researcher to monitor and observe the rigour of the entire research process | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) | |
| Understanding what are the economic/political/social/technical motivations behind this research | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Canterino et al. (2016) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Shani et al. (2004) , Sabri (2018) | |
| Understanding the context of the humanitarian “field” (e.g. geo-political dynamics, infrastructure state, safety and security situation, level of remoteness and rurality, and linguistic requirements), so as to prepare the needed practical accommodations | Sohn (2018), Jahre et al. (2012, 2015), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Refstie and Brun (2011), Sundel (1999) | |
| 3. Data collection (by humanitarian logistics and supply chain researchers) | Triangulation of research methods (e.g. combining interviews, focus groups and questionnaire/survey) | Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018) |
| Triangulation of data collection from multiple sources (e.g. practitioners documents and website, respondents from the affected communities, archival data, legal proceedings and court report) | Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018), Jahre et al. (2012, 2015), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Sundel (1999), Chang et al. (2010), Chandes and Paché (2010), Rutta et al. (2005), Nelson et al. (2010), Lykes (2013), Lykes and Scheib (2016) | |
| Collecting qualitative (e.g. observations, focus group discussions) and/or quantitative (e.g. surveys) data | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002), Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Sundel (1999), Rutta et al. (2005), Nelson et al. (2010) | |
| Collecting data in formal (meetings, interviews, questionnaires) and informal settings (coffee breaks, lunch) | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018), Sohn (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Sundel (1999), Chandes and Paché (2010), Lykes (2013), Lykes and Scheib (2016) | |
| Potential reflective sessions to discuss and update data collection techniques | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Canterino et al. (2016) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Shani et al. (2004) , Sabri (2018), Sohn (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Refstie and Brun (2011), Chang et al. (2010), Tanabe et al. (2015, 2018) | |
| Although most of the studies data were collected by the entire team, but we still recommend data to be mainly collected by researchers to ensure integrity and rigour | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Canterino et al. (2016) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Shani et al. (2004) , Sabri (2018), Sohn (2018), Jahre et al. (2012, 2015), Chandes and Paché (2010), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Sundel (1999) | |
| Obtaining informant consent in the case data are directly collected from affected population respondents | Tanabe et al. (2018), van den Muijsenbergh et al. (2016), Lykes and Scheib (2016) | |
| 4. Practitioner orientation | Practitioners to be briefed on research tools and methods | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018), Sohn (2018), Jahre et al. (2012, 2015), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Sundel (1999) |
| Researchers to prepare and present preliminary analyses (preliminary coding, technical reports and synthesising of group discussions) | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018), Sohn (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Sundel (1999), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Chang et al. (2010), Tanabe et al. (2018) | |
| The structured data are communicated to the research team and to the practitioner’s personnel | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018), Sohn (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Sundel (1999), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Chang et al. (2010), Tanabe et al. (2018) | |
| 5. Collaborative data analysis | Identifying analysis tools and techniques by researchers | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018) |
| Data are collaboratively analysed by researchers and practitioners (and other involved stakeholders) | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018), Jahre et al. (2012), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Sundel (1999), Refstie and Brun (2011), Tanabe et al. (2015, 2018), Lykes and Scheib (2016) | |
| Triangulation of researchers in the analysis phase | All | |
| Establishing a logical chain of evidence by researchers | All | |
| 6. Joint planning for action | Co-identification of what needs to change, and strategies and practices for change management | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018), Jahre et al. (2012), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Sundel (1999), Chandes and Paché (2010) |
| Co-developing of recommendations and intervention plans | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Refstie and Brun (2011), Chang et al. (2010), Jahre et al. (2015), Chandes and Paché (2010), Tanabe et al. (2015, 2018), Lykes and Scheib (2016), Manikas et al. (2017) | |
| 7. Implementation by humanitarian logistics practitioners with review and evaluation supported by researchers | Practitioners to execute the intervention plan (or to facilitate the implementation with local authorities in the humanitarian field) | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Jahre et al. (2012, 2015), Chang et al. (2010), Chandes and Paché (2010), Tanabe et al. (2015, 2018), Manikas et al. (2017) |
| Researchers to ensure that the applicability, re-applicability and transferability conditions are met | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Jahre et al. (2012, 2015), Chang et al. (2010), Chandes and Paché (2010) | |
| The impact of the implementation to be co-evaluated and co-reviewed by researchers and practitioners | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018) | |
| Joint reflective sessions and co-planning for future action cycles (if needed), which include continuous refinement of the proposed solutions | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Canterino et al. (2016) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Shani et al. (2004) , Sabri (2018), Sohn (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al. (2013), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Refstie and Brun (2011), Chang et al. (2010), Tanabe et al. (2015, 2018) | |
| 8. Monitoring of the research by the non-participatory researcher | Monitoring is a meta-step in this framework; it can be facilitated by recruiting a non-participatory researcher who accompanies the research team in all the phases and observes the consistency of the research process and the active participation of all the involved actors Part of the monitoring can be to ensure that rigour conditions are met for any methodology used (e.g. developing a protocol for data collection, ensuring ethical participation and informant consent, sharing interview protocol with respondents, developing case-study protocol) | Coughlan and Coghlan (2002) , Näslund et al. (2010) , Sabri (2018) |
| Collaborative project phases | Collaborative research features/elements | Contributionsa |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Forming a collaborative research team of humanitarian logistics practitioners and academics | Forming a research project team with membership inclusive of different involved humanitarian stakeholders | |
| Co-identification of the rationale and scope of the research project | ||
| Co-identification of a preliminary research question and deciding on the unit of analysis | ||
| Researchers are immersed, embedded in the humanitarian field, and they have access to the practitioner’s system | ||
| To ensure rigour, involving a non-participatory researcher to monitor and observe the rigour of the entire research process | ||
| Understanding what are the economic/political/social/technical motivations behind this research | ||
| Understanding the context of the humanitarian “field” (e.g. geo-political dynamics, infrastructure state, safety and security situation, level of remoteness and rurality, and linguistic requirements), so as to prepare the needed practical accommodations | ||
| 3. Data collection (by humanitarian logistics and supply chain researchers) | Triangulation of research methods (e.g. combining interviews, focus groups and questionnaire/survey) | |
| Triangulation of data collection from multiple sources (e.g. practitioners documents and website, respondents from the affected communities, archival data, legal proceedings and court report) | ||
| Collecting qualitative (e.g. observations, focus group discussions) and/or quantitative (e.g. surveys) data | ||
| Collecting data in formal (meetings, interviews, questionnaires) and informal settings (coffee breaks, lunch) | ||
| Potential reflective sessions to discuss and update data collection techniques | ||
| Although most of the studies data were collected by the entire team, but we still recommend data to be mainly collected by researchers to ensure integrity and rigour | ||
| Obtaining informant consent in the case data are directly collected from affected population respondents | ||
| 4. Practitioner orientation | Practitioners to be briefed on research tools and methods | |
| Researchers to prepare and present preliminary analyses (preliminary coding, technical reports and synthesising of group discussions) | ||
| The structured data are communicated to the research team and to the practitioner’s personnel | ||
| 5. Collaborative data analysis | Identifying analysis tools and techniques by researchers | |
| Data are collaboratively analysed by researchers and practitioners (and other involved stakeholders) | ||
| Triangulation of researchers in the analysis phase | All | |
| Establishing a logical chain of evidence by researchers | All | |
| 6. Joint planning for action | Co-identification of what needs to change, and strategies and practices for change management | |
| Co-developing of recommendations and intervention plans | ||
| 7. Implementation by humanitarian logistics practitioners with review and evaluation supported by researchers | Practitioners to execute the intervention plan (or to facilitate the implementation with local authorities in the humanitarian field) | |
| Researchers to ensure that the applicability, re-applicability and transferability conditions are met | ||
| The impact of the implementation to be co-evaluated and co-reviewed by researchers and practitioners | ||
| Joint reflective sessions and co-planning for future action cycles (if needed), which include continuous refinement of the proposed solutions | ||
| 8. Monitoring of the research by the non-participatory researcher | Monitoring is a meta-step in this framework; it can be facilitated by recruiting a non-participatory researcher who accompanies the research team in all the phases and observes the consistency of the research process and the active participation of all the involved actors |
Notes: We use the term “Humanitarian Field” to refer to the location where the collaborative research process takes place, which also includes the local premises of humanitarian organisations in the affected locations. The term “Researchers” in the framework mainly refers to university-based scholars or academic researchers. aSources in italic come from supply chain, operations management and organisational management domain. The others are from humanitarian domain