The Reality of Evidence-based Decision Making in Humanitarian Programming: An Exploratory Study of WASH Programs in Uganda

Milan Khanpour, Kenny Meesters, D. Paulus
{"title":"The Reality of Evidence-based Decision Making in Humanitarian Programming: An Exploratory Study of WASH Programs in Uganda","authors":"Milan Khanpour, Kenny Meesters, D. Paulus","doi":"10.1109/GHTC46280.2020.9342885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With ongoing research, increased information sharing and knowledge exchange, humanitarian organizations have an increasing amount of evidence at their disposal to support their decisions. Nevertheless, effectively building decisions on the increasing amount of insights and information remains challenging. At the individual, organizational, and environmental levels, various factors influence the use of evidence in the decision-making process. This research examined these factors and specifically their influence in a case-study on humanitarian organizations and their WASH interventions in Uganda. Interviewees reported several factors that impede the implementation of evidence-based decision making. Revealing that, despite advancements in the past years, evidence-based information itself is relatively small, contradictory, and non-repeatable. Moreover, the information is often not connected or in a format that can be acted upon. Most importantly, however, are the human aspects and organizational settings that limit access to and use of supporting data, information, and evidence. This research shows the importance of considering these factors, in addition to invest in creating knowledge and technologies to support evidence-based decision-making.","PeriodicalId":314837,"journal":{"name":"2020 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2020 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC46280.2020.9342885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

With ongoing research, increased information sharing and knowledge exchange, humanitarian organizations have an increasing amount of evidence at their disposal to support their decisions. Nevertheless, effectively building decisions on the increasing amount of insights and information remains challenging. At the individual, organizational, and environmental levels, various factors influence the use of evidence in the decision-making process. This research examined these factors and specifically their influence in a case-study on humanitarian organizations and their WASH interventions in Uganda. Interviewees reported several factors that impede the implementation of evidence-based decision making. Revealing that, despite advancements in the past years, evidence-based information itself is relatively small, contradictory, and non-repeatable. Moreover, the information is often not connected or in a format that can be acted upon. Most importantly, however, are the human aspects and organizational settings that limit access to and use of supporting data, information, and evidence. This research shows the importance of considering these factors, in addition to invest in creating knowledge and technologies to support evidence-based decision-making.
人道主义规划中循证决策的现实:乌干达WASH项目的探索性研究
随着研究的不断进行,信息共享和知识交流的增加,人道主义组织拥有越来越多的证据来支持他们的决定。然而,基于不断增加的洞察力和信息有效地制定决策仍然具有挑战性。在个人、组织和环境层面上,各种因素影响着决策过程中证据的使用。这项研究在一项关于人道主义组织及其在乌干达的讲卫生活动的个案研究中审查了这些因素,特别是它们的影响。受访者报告了阻碍循证决策实施的几个因素。这表明,尽管过去几年取得了进步,但基于证据的信息本身相对较少,相互矛盾,不可重复。此外,这些信息通常没有联系,也没有一种可以采取行动的格式。然而,最重要的是人的方面和组织设置限制了对支持数据、信息和证据的访问和使用。这项研究表明,除了投资于创造知识和技术以支持基于证据的决策之外,考虑这些因素也很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信