Learning, reflection and adaptation in humanitarian research

In complex, multi-country research programmes, the ability to pause, reflect and adapt is often as important as the initial design. Yet in practice, creating space for structured reflection can be challenging due to limited resources and competing operational priorities.

In complex humanitarian research, carefully designed methodologies are often seen as the foundation of robust data collection. However, in practice, realities rarely align neatly with initial plans. Social norms, power dynamics and community structures can significantly shape both participation and outcomes. This raises an important question for practitioners: how can research approaches balance rigour with the flexibility needed to respond to local contexts?

These questions emerged during a mid-term review of a global participatory research programme exploring the welfare and role of working equids in disaster risk management in five countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Nicaragua, Pakistan and Senegal).

The review provided an opportunity to reflect on how approaches were being applied in practice, and what adaptations were required to ensure meaningful and inclusive participation and research outcomes that would be useful to inform real-world change.

Co-producing learning through a participatory review

The mid-term review was conducted by an independent consultant. This co-produced review assessed the progress and implementation of the global research programme and identified recommendations for its next phase. It followed a participatory approach, bringing together Brooke Action for Working Horses and Donkeys staff from country offices and the United Kingdom, an academic partner from University College London, and community partners involved in piloting the research methods in Senegal. The review process emphasised co-production, with both researchers and end users collaboratively shaping the focus of the review and co-creating recommendations through a series of online workshops and validation meetings. This participatory approach was intentionally adopted to reflect the programme’s overarching participatory action research methodology, while also fostering ownership and buy-in among participants to help shape the next phase of the research programme.

Key insights

Adaptation to local context

One of the most significant learnings from the review was the importance of adapting research approaches to the local context. While participatory methods are often designed with inclusivity in mind, their application must take into account local norms, language and social organisation. In practice, this meant adjusting how methods were implemented rather than applying them rigidly. This highlights a broader lesson: standardised methodologies can provide a strong starting point, but their effectiveness ultimately depends on how well they are adapted to the realities of the communities in which they are used.

The review highlighted that community power dynamics can shape both participation and the data generated in complex ways, with both negative and, at times, positive effects. Hierarchies linked to age, gender and social status often influenced who felt able to speak and whose perspectives were prioritised. As a result, participation could become uneven, with research findings reflecting the views of more powerful individuals rather than the full diversity of community experiences. Recognising and actively addressing these dynamics is therefore critical to ensuring both inclusion and data quality.

At the same time, the findings also suggest that power dynamics do not always operate in restrictive ways. In Senegal, for example, local hierarchies were sometimes used constructively to support the research process. Community elders, rather than dominating discussions, took on a facilitative role, encouraging younger or less confident participants to speak and share their views. This highlights that, when carefully engaged, existing social structures can help create space for quieter voices rather than silence them.

Overall, these observations highlight the importance of critically engaging with, rather than simply attempting to bypass, community power dynamics in research design and facilitation.

Ensuring the inclusion of different groups, particularly women and marginalised voices, proved to be a challenge. Cultural norms and roles influenced who was able to participate, and in what capacity. In response, adaptations were made to better align with community structures, while still creating space for a wider range of voices. These experiences demonstrate that inclusion is not simply about inviting diverse participants, but about actively creating conditions in which they can contribute meaningfully.

Co-production

Co-production was particularly strong between Brooke and academic partners, reflecting a high level of collaboration and shared ownership. However, those involved in the review felt there were further opportunities to involve community members and local partners more meaningfully as co-researchers. Expanding participation in this way could strengthen both the design and quality of research outputs.

At present, communities and other key actors, such as policymakers, were not routinely involved in co-design or co-production processes. This was attributed to a range of factors, including varying literacy levels within communities, limited time and resources, competing priorities, and in some cases limited stakeholder engagement or unclear barriers.

Involving communities is widely recognised as essential to ensuring research relevance and sustainability. As one co-researcher reflected, ‘local problems have local solutions’. Communities should be seen as active agents and experts in their own contexts, rather than as passive sources of data. By integrating community perspectives and aligning these with organisational priorities, research has the potential to achieve greater relevance, ownership and overall impact.

Knowledge accessibility

The review found that research outputs from the programme are strong and widely accessible to academic and professional audiences through academic and grey literature; however, accessibility for community audiences remains more limited. It also highlighted that producing outputs tailored to different audiences requires considerable time, resources and specialised expertise, which can be challenging to sustain. Looking ahead, there is an opportunity to strengthen impact by more intentionally co-developing communication approaches with communities. This could include using local languages and accessible formats such as visuals, alongside simple, clear and repeated messaging. Communicating key recommendations in ways that also clarify the roles of both communities and other stakeholders will be important for supporting understanding and encouraging collaboration. Strengthening this approach can help build shared ownership, enabling communities and other key stakeholders to actively engage with and apply the research.

Conclusion

The mid-term review itself played a critical role in identifying these challenges and enabling adaptation. By creating space for structured reflection with operational teams and end users of the research, it was possible to surface practical insights that may otherwise have gone unaddressed. This process highlighted that adaptation should not be seen as a deviation from research design, but as a necessary component of ensuring relevance and quality.

Looking forward, these reflections point to the potential value of involving participants more actively in the research process as co-researchers. Greater community involvement could help address some of the power dynamics observed, while strengthening local ownership and relevance.

Recommendations for researchers and practitioners

• Build flexibility into research design from the outset.
• Allow sufficient time within project design for co-production within your organisation, with partners, and with communities and other stakeholders, including policymakers.
• Actively assess and respond to power dynamics within communities.
• Ensure the meaningful inclusion of women and vulnerable groups, focusing not on meeting participation targets or percentages, but on enabling genuine voice, influence and equitable participation in decision-making processes.
• Move beyond participation towards meaningful inclusion, for example by involving community members as co-researchers where there is interest and capacity.
• Create structured opportunities for reflection and learning throughout implementation.
• Co-produce communication outputs with research participants to strengthen relevance, ownership and uptake of findings.

Gemma Carder is Senior Manager for Global Research at Brooke Action for Working Horses and Donkeys. She leads global research programmes that generate evidence to support animal welfare and international development initiatives, with a particular focus on translating research into practical policy, advocacy and programme impact. With extensive experience in animal welfare science, applied research and research management, she has led and supported interdisciplinary studies across a range of countries and contexts, and is passionate about ensuring that evidence informs effective policy and practice.

Marta Bonsi is a One Health researcher and humanitarian programme manager working in fragile settings across Africa and the Middle East. She designs and delivers humanitarian research and evidence-based multisectoral programmes to support sustainable and locally relevant solutions. She has particular interests in participatory methods and the integration of gender, age and disability inclusion across research design and the programme cycle.

Mihaiela Swift is a veterinary surgeon whose work spans clinical practice and research. Alongside more than 12 years of experience in emergency and general clinical practice, her research has focused on animal-inclusive Disaster Risk Management (DRM), including previous work exploring the intersections between human-animal relationships and disaster policy and practice in Mexico. She is currently a Global Research Adviser at Brooke, contributing to a global research project examining the roles of working equids in DRM and their integration into policy and practice, with a particular focus on community resilience.