Academic Partner - WASH Gap Analysis

The Global WASH Cluster (GWC), Oxfam and Elrha, would like to carry out a study to provide an updated WASH Gap Analysis for 2020. This is a follow-on study from the 2013 Emergency WASH Gap Analysis. An experienced academic partner is sought to support the overall study design, methodology and analysis. The full background and ToR for the academic partner is available here

An accountability partnership is also being advertised to work with the academic partner and is available here

Terms of Reference for the Study Academic Partner

Purpose of the Academic Partner

The Management Team is looking to the academic partner to lead on the design of an appropriate, ethical and sufficiently robust methodology and analysis framework, that will deliver results that will be useful, credible and independent.

There is a need for an overall approach that recognises and mitigates for strong biases. We need approaches that are ‘good enough’ and reconcile the ideals of academic rigour of researchers and the demands of practical data collection within humanitarian WASH contexts.

It is envisaged that:

· The academic partner will provide the overall study design and analysis framework with support from the accountability partner and the Implementation Lead

· The Implementation Lead will coordinate the overall data collection at global and country levels

· Data will be collected in-country by a range of actors, including the accountability partner, with the WASH Sector/Cluster Coordinators acting as in-country focal points.

· Data collected globally will be supported by the Implementation Lead

Whilst ToRs are being advertised for both academic and accountability partners, it is possible for one organisation/institution to submit an application for tasks of both partnerships. Terms of Reference (ToR) for the accountability partner are available separately.

The linkages and roles of the different key stakeholders are proposals and the Management Team is open to different proposals of the configuration of roles.

The key tasks below are indicative of how the Management Team envisages the academic component of the study to be implemented. The Management Team is also open to proposals for different tasks according to the interpretation by the academic partner of how the objective of the study can be met.

Key Tasks

In collaboration with the Accountability Partner and the Implementation Lead:

Gap Analysis of Other Humanitarian Response Sectors

1. With sector/cluster coordinators, briefly review how other humanitarian response sectors – Health, Nutrition, Education, Shelter, etc – have assessed gaps in their sector, including with crisis-affected people, to use any applicable learning and approaches.

Desk Review of WASH Gaps

1. Carry out a review of literature related to WASH gaps since 2013.

2. Include in the review, lessons learned and evaluations of WASH responses of the last five years that include WASH to identify any trends in gaps identified in WASH responses – eg Inter-Agency Response Reviews, Operational Peer Reviews.

Analysis of collated secondary data on WASH gaps identified by affected people.

1. Analyse secondary data on response feedback, perceptions and needs assessments of affected populations at country level to inform the approach of primary data collection from people affected by crises and field WASH practitioners. The data will be identified and collated by the accountability partner. The way in which the data will be collated will be agreed by the academic and accountability partners.

Analyse the available data to:

a. Characterise the type of data available through these mechanisms

b. Identify any discernible trends from this data

c. Assess how useful the type and quality of data available from these sources is in identifying WASH gaps

Study Design

1. With the Implementation Lead and inputs from the Accountability Partner (on engagement with affected people):

a. Define the study design and analysis framework. After review and inputs by the Management Team and Review Group, to the extent possible, provide a final overall study design and analysis framework. Update as necessary. Including:

o Develop the specific means to be employed to enable the effective collection and analysis of data. Work with the accountability partner in data collection for affected communities

o Design the sampling frame for the study

o Provide methodology options and suggested tools for data collection and analysis; consider how data collection integrity can be best supported given a range of data collection partners

We expect research study design to consider the inclusivity and intersectionality[1] of the research design and analysis with respect to affected populations and WASH/WASH-related practitioners.**

Enabling stratification of results will be critical to allow analysis of the inclusivity of the research as well asintersectionality. A person’s access to and participation in humanitarian programming and wider society is shaped by these interacting factors and these interacting factors may result in very distinct perspectives. At a minimum, we expect the research to collect disaggregated data on gender, age and disability or demonstrate why this is not possible or relevant, with the implications of this clearly stated.

b. Case studies. As part of the study design, case studies are to be incorporated to give context and a depth of understanding of some key issues. Design a methodological approach for the development of 2–3 country/context case studies, to allow further exploration and interrogation of key issues to ground truth and contextualise field responses. Field visits and write-up for case studies would likely be carried out by the Implementation Lead, following the design given by the academic partner.

c. Research and accountability protocol. The academic partner, in collaboration with the accountability partner and Implementation Lead, must consider the range of ethical implications of their proposed research design and how to mitigate any risks in the context of 30-50 ongoing humanitarian responses. Proposals will be expected to consider the ethical issues that may arise during all phases of the research, including during research design, implementation and dissemination/feedback of results to participants[2].

d. Data collection guidance/instruction. Develop guidance and instructions for those interacting with different study population groups to collect data. This will include, for example, guidance on carrying out field-based or globally-based data collection with WASH practitioners and those whose work integrates with WASH. Work closely with the Accountability Partner when developing guidance for those collecting data from affected populations.

e. Analysis framework. Provide an analysis framework that supports an independent analysis and collation of responses. A framework that is able to provide sufficient breakdown for a range of key interest groups as well as understanding key differences in gaps between contexts and the lens that different respondent types bring, as well as the underlying commonalities between the groups. It is understood that this may need to be adapted during the study.

o Classification of gaps. Provide a taxonomy of potential gaps in humanitarian WASH response to support a classification of gaps that are sufficiently granular and comprehensive to capture the breadth of challenges in different contexts and phases of an emergency

o Prioritisation of gaps. Set out a range of different methodologies and categories by which humanitarian WASH gaps could be categorised/ prioritised, and provide an overall recommendation

Analysis of Results and Reporting

1. Overall analysis of findings including:

a. Context/respondents. What might be the reasons for some of the differences and similarities in gaps according to context and respondent types?

b. Common denominators. Indicate, where possible, the gaps with the highest potential impacts (can be different types of impact) and those gaps that are most common across contexts and respondents.

c. Identifying different types of gap. Reflecting, for example, on gaps that are more easily filled (quick wins), those which are the most challenging to address, and those which have the greatest public health consequences. Identification of gaps considered as potentially having solutions – gaps identified perhaps by practitioners through a lack of knowledge which could then be potentially addressed by the GWC and its partners, eg Knowledge Point or GWC Help Desk. Where possible, distinguish between areas that need more work but still have promise, and others where lots of work has been done but progress is not very good. It is not expected that the academic partner identify gaps that can be addressed by innovation, as a separate process will follow the gap analysis study.

d. 2013 and 2020 WASH Gaps. To the extent possible, include a discussion of similarities and differences between the 2013 and 2020 study findings.

e. Replication. Provide recommendations for if and how often it would be most useful to carry out a replication of the WASH gap analysis study and the importance of maintaining the methodology.

Study Reporting

It is important that the results of the study are easily accessible to humanitarian WASH Practitioners.

1. Create a report communicating the findings and summary of data analysis of no more than 20 pages (supported by annexes) including an executive summary
2. Develop a 30-minute presentation that can be used to disseminate key results at global and country levels
3. Be available for short interviews to support the production of communication materials to disseminate the study findings

Communication and Engagement with Humanitarian WASH Community on the Study

1. Contribute to communication materials from which to promote awareness of the study and enable two-way communication with the humanitarian WASH community, eg online blogs, e-discussions, updates and social media.

Publication

1. If the research allows, it is expected that the study would be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Experience and Capacities of Academic Partner

1. An academic institution with experience in research – and ideally innovation – in the WASH sector and engagement with sector stakeholders in data collection.

2. Strong understanding of the methods and constraints of innovation/research/data collection in humanitarian response contexts.

3. Ability to draw upon a multidisciplinary team to support the study. Expertise in research design and analysis in development/humanitarian contexts is essential, ideally in the context of WASH programming.

4. Ideally an ability to integrate an academic institute from a country that experiences humanitarian crises. This cost should be indicated separately.

5. Ability to provide reference details of three clients of similar innovation/research.

6. Ability and ideally experience of integrating communities in data collection.

7. Experience of working with multiple stakeholders in similar research.

8. Interest and openness in WASH innovation.

9. High standards in the production of practical field-oriented reports.

10. Ability to support awareness-building of the study in the academic and humanitarian community.

11. Travel only to meet the Implementation Lead and the Accountability Partner would be foreseen.

[1] The interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage

[2] https://www.elrha.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ELRHA-Interactive-Flipcards-F3.pdf

Submission of Applications

1. Reflections of study requirements and applicants’ approach to the study, including any identifiable risks (max 4 pages).

2. Budget: It is understood that an exact budget can only be determined once a final
   methodology is determined. Therefore applications should include costs for any optional ways of engaging with the study design and analysis, to enable the Management Team to consider increases/decreases in activities. It is proposed that applicants consider activities that could be done for two budget scenarios (i) up to £20,000 and(ii) up to £40,000, indicating:

a. Different methods and approaches that may be undertaken according to available budget

b. Costs for each potential activity

c. Involvement of different team profiles in different types of activities

1. Indicate experience of involvement in similar research work (max 2 pages).

2. Details of integration of another partner institution from a crisis-affected country if appropriate.

3. Overview of the individual team profiles – who would be working on the project (max 2 pages).

4. Description of how the partner would be able to support awareness building of the study (max ½ page).

5. Study activities and timeline (description of diversions from ToR proposed activity/timeline (max 1 page).

6. Please send applications to Andy Bastable abastable@oxfam.org and Jean McCluskey jmccluskey@oxfam.org.uk (please note differences in email domain)

7. Closing date for applications is 23.59 on 22 January 2020.

8. Shortlisted institutions will be contacted in the week of 27 January.

Questions

Questions on the study can be directed to Andy Bastable abastable@oxfam.org and Jean McCluskey jmccluskey@oxfam.org.uk. Questions and their responses will then be available for all applicants at http://washcluster.net/WASH-Gap-Analysis-Project.