Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe growing prominence of disaster research has also prompted vibrant discussions about the motivation and ethical conduct of disaster researchers. Yet, the individual researchers' aspirations and aims, together with the challenging and changing circumstances under which one undertakes disaster research have received relatively scant attention. Drawing on the author's personal experience of becoming a disaster researcher under the unexpected humanitarian crisis following the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, this paper seeks to contribute to the debates surrounding the role of reflexivity and ethical sensitivity in doing disaster research under the climate of uncertainty.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on the author's reflections and vignettes to highlight the author's experience of becoming a disaster researcher, and my trajectory of navigating the complex terrain of fieldwork.FindingsThe paper underscores how the process of becoming a disaster researcher was closely intertwined with and shaped by my concerns and care for the disaster-affected communities. The paper argues that doing contextually relevant and ethically sensitive research is not a static target. It demands constant reflexivity and improvisation, in response to the unpredictable real-world conditions of disasters. Instead of aiming to tame such uncertainty, disaster researchers may benefit from appreciating and embracing uncertainty as a major facet of its epistemological distinctiveness.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to the ongoing efforts in advancing methodological reflection and innovation in disaster research. In so doing, the paper is expected to aid early-career researchers who are often faced with ethical and practical dilemmas of doing fieldwork.

While accountability has gained significant traction within the contemporary discourse on disaster governance, what it means and takes to be 'doing accountability' in promoting democratic governance of disasters remain scantly understood.<em> </em>Using the concept of social accountability and drawing on an ethnographic case study of a civil society-led accountability campaign in post-earthquake Nepal (the Mobile Citizen Help Desk, or MCHD), this article shows how MCHD sought to amplify local voices regarding failures in aid delivery and expanded opportunities for dialogue between disaster-affected communities and local powerholders. It highlights the potential of such initiative in safeguarding and promoting the rights of disaster-affected communities, while also helping overcome the post-disaster environment of mistrust, unfounded allegations and power inequalities. The article also draws attention to the challenges facing such an initiative. It shows that the effectiveness of such efforts in translating citizens' voices into state response was undermined by: (i) its incorporation into a donor-driven humanitarian accountability initiative, in which generating and reporting feedback to donors proved more pressing than amplifying citizen voice; and (ii) unclear structures of governance at the local level of service delivery, which impeded the civil society actors' aim to engage with 'the right authority.' The article draws attention to the political potential of social accountability in a post-disaster context, while also raising caution that such activism is unlikely to succeed in holding powerholders to account in the absence of supportive national bureaucratic and international aid structures.

While accountability has gained significant traction within the contemporary discourse on disaster governance, what it means and takes to be 'doing accountability' in promoting democratic governance of disasters remain scantly understood. Using the concept of social accountability and drawing on an ethnographic case study of a civil society-led accountability campaign in post-earthquake Nepal (the Mobile Citizen Help Desk, or MCHD), this article shows how MCHD sought to amplify local voices regarding failures in aid delivery and expanded opportunities for dialogue between disaster-affected communities and local powerholders. It highlights the potential of such initiative in safeguarding and promoting the rights of disaster-affected communities, while also helping overcome the post-disaster environment of mistrust, unfounded allegations and power inequalities. The article also draws attention to the challenges facing such an initiative. It shows that the effectiveness of such efforts in translating citizens' voices into state response was undermined by: (i) its incorporation into a donor-driven humanitarian accountability initiative, in which generating and reporting feedback to donors proved more pressing than amplifying citizen voice; and (ii) unclear structures of governance at the local level of service delivery, which impeded the civil society actors' aim to engage with 'the right authority.' The article draws attention to the political potential of social accountability in a post-disaster context, while also raising caution that such activism is unlikely to succeed in holding powerholders to account in the absence of supportive national bureaucratic and international aid structures.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, and the resultant lock-downs and cross-border travel restrictions have reinvigorated public debates about the vulnerability of the global migrants, together with the responsibility of the States to ensure dignified treatment of migrants. Situating within the debates on capability-based development and human dignity and drawing on emerging evidence from Nepal, this opinion piece seeks to explore how returnee Nepali labour migrants from India are subject to dignity violation within the government's response to the COVID-19. The paper tentatively concludes that the Nepali government's decision to seal its border with India, and its subsequent interventions to curtail the flow of outbreak, have undermined the human dignity of Nepali migrants. In so doing, the paper raises a normative question as to whether, to what extent and for how long, poor and marginalised populations such as labour migrants should be expected to endure suffering and dignity violation in the interests of protecting the health of the population at large. The role of contextual politics in shaping the response to the intersecting nature of cross-border and public health crisis is highlighted. Attention is also drawn to the potential of political response against dignity violation, in exposing the ineptitude of the State to safeguard the well-being of its returnee migrants.

While accountability has gained significant traction within the contemporary discourse on disaster governance, what it means and takes to be 'doing accountability' in promoting democratic governance of disasters remain scantly understood. Using the concept of social accountability and drawing on an ethnographic case study of a civil society-led accountability campaign in post-earthquake Nepal (the Mobile Citizen Help Desk, or MCHD), this article shows how MCHD sought to amplify local voices regarding failures in aid delivery and expanded opportunities for dialogue between disaster-affected communities and local powerholders. It highlights the potential of such initiative in safeguarding and promoting the rights of disaster-affected communities, while also helping overcome the post-disaster environment of mistrust, unfounded allegations and power inequalities. The article also draws attention to the challenges facing such an initiative. It shows that the effectiveness of such efforts in translating citizens' voices into state response was undermined by: (i) its incorporation into a donor-driven humanitarian accountability initiative, in which generating and reporting feedback to donors proved more pressing than amplifying citizen voice; and (ii) unclear structures of governance at the local level of service delivery, which impeded the civil society actors' aim to engage with 'the right authority.' The article draws attention to the political potential of social accountability in a post-disaster context, while also raising caution that such activism is unlikely to succeed in holding powerholders to account in the absence of supportive national bureaucratic and international aid structures.

How does everyday politics of participation manifest in post-disaster contexts? Can disaster prompt a political system to shift to more inclusive, open, and participatory governance of disaster? In this article, we draw on our ethnographic work in the Philippines in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan in 2013 and Nepal after the Gorkha Earthquake in 2015 to explore these questions. Our comparative ethnographic analysis shows that attempts at institutionalising participation served to further entrench authoritarian practices rather than promote citizen voice and government accountability. Post-disaster policies that invoke people's participation, we argue, tend to (a) control rather than democratise information; (b) silence rather than promote citizen voice; (c) distort rather than respond to grievances. Our findings call for a reorientation of understanding of participation and accountability in post-disaster governance. Decision-makers, not merely disaster-affected communities, deserve to be the focus area of scholarly attention and policy reform, if community-led reconstruction agenda is to be realised in practice. Our conclusion has implications for the study and practice of democratic governance of disasters in unequal societies prone to disasters.

Abstract
Debates about global international relations (IR) have been ongoing for over a decade, yet academic practice in meaningfully cooperating with Global Southern scholars has changed little. Against the backdrop of growing scholarly concerns about global inequality in knowledge production, this forum takes stock of the search for global IR and examines the academic practices and structures that hinder its progress. The contributions highlight numerous obstacles, including structural and material inequalities between researchers and institutions, visible hierarchies in funding, and seemingly mundane issues such as language barriers, stigma, stereotypes, and data ownership. Written by both Global Southern and Global Northern scholars, this forum aims to provide a balanced contribution to the growing debate about what truly global IR scholarship could look like. We argue that the search for global IR is not merely a debate about theoretical and epistemological plurality in the discipline but one with real-world ramifications. Global order at multiple levels is shaped by policies and actions underpinned by various types of data. The data collected, its agents, and the resulting knowledge are foundational components of decision-making in global politics.