Search results
representations are united in constructing the refugee women as a homogenous ‘other’ whose latent entrepreneurial abilities need to be activated to become closer to a hegemonic model of emancipated womanhood, namely a woman who works and can independently support herself and her family. Such constructions, we argue, reinforce a saviour/saved humanitarian logic while also obscuring the gender divisions of responsibilities and precarious nature of artisanal labour
-cultural context, the third is a consequence of the decentralised milieu in which the gacaca courts were inserted, the fourth is the result of the overall political context in which the gacaca activities took place. The following sections will focus on the nature of these expressive forms – styles of truth – in the gacaca assemblage and the nature of their interaction. These dimensions of the truth were not all equally important in the actual gacaca practice. A concluding section aims to identify what style of truth dominated most and why. The Forensic Truth
South Sudan ( Sorbo et al. , 2016 ). Given the wide range of humanitarian and development activity in the country, at the outset of this study it was assumed that many more evaluations have been published, but innovative methods would be required to identify them. Due to the challenges of identifying and tracking evaluation reports, this article presents methodological reflection and learning regarding how systematic reviews and syntheses of this nature can be conducted. The article begins with a detailed outline of the methods, specifying which approaches worked
questions. How does the policy and practice of ‘civilian protection’ differ from that of ‘staff security’? Why do they differ in this way? What are the consequences of this distinction? In addressing these questions, I draw on and contribute to a range of literature, not only on staff security and civilian protection but also on the nature and evolution of the humanitarian project more broadly. The literature outlined above on best practices and institutional
Humanitarian innovation has rapidly emerged to become central to discussions about the future of humanitarianism. Innovation practices are framed as a means by which the humanitarian community can identify the paradigm shift that it needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. However, this framing is based on a misunderstanding of economic theories of innovation and particularly of the nature of humanitarian economics. The lack of both a true market and a profit mechanism in the humanitarian industry means that innovations can be generated but will never be sustained. Unless this obstacle is addressed – perhaps through emerging networked approaches to economic activity – humanitarian innovation will continue to be a dead end.
While issues of ‘gender’, notably ‘gender programming’ and ‘gender mainstreaming’ have been prominent in the humanitarian sector for some time, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the ways in which the sector itself is gendered. Gender is often seen as an operational problem and much of the humanitarian literature which deals with this is, thus, problem-solving in nature. Critical approaches which interrogate and question the ways in which gendered logics structure the
per year – has very likely been made worse by attempts to treat COVID-19 patients with precious antimicrobial medicines ( Rodríguez-Baño et al. , 2021 ). Countless millions more people have died during that time due to non-communicable diseases, with the role of NCDs as risk factors for severe illness and death from COVID-19 a grim reminder of the overlapping nature of disease and a stark example of what a syndemic can look like at a global scale ( Horton, 2020 ). As we
to all registered participants in advance, with the aim of stimulating debate and providing the parameters to focus the reflective process. A Model for Reflective Practice Feedback from workshop participants and in subsequent meetings and correspondence suggests that this model was productive. Nonetheless, it was not without its challenges. The open-ended nature of the discussions was enjoyed by many but uncomfortable for those who
reproducing hierarchical power structures between those working in academia and their artistic collaborators. According to Pfoser and de Jong, this is so because of the nature of current neoliberal university apparatuses that these partnerships must work within. They argue that overly celebratory accounts render tensions invisible and, instead, propose more comprehensive systemic change, rather than focusing on the challenges and opportunities of individual projects and
constitute what can be termed comparables , in reference to the work of the French historian Marcel Détienne (2002 , 2009 ). They are emblematic of the interactions at play during emergency encounters. They speak to each other as they highlight the contested nature of legitimacy, its roots both in the longue durée and in contemporary issues. They shed light on the important role played during epidemics by the too often ignored intermediaries of the