Trouble-shooting respondent bias: When data refuses to speak !
Social desirability bias, cognitive bias, recall bias, interviewer bias… we have all encountered these terms while designing data collection tools, and sometimes only fully understood them much later, during data cleaning or analysis, when faced with flat, contradictory, or overly polished responses that offer little analytical depth.
At that point, the questions inevitably arise: What went wrong? When did it go wrong? And what could have been done differently?
Respondent bias is often discussed as a technical flaw, something to be “controlled” or statistically adjusted. Yet, in practice, it is deeply human. It emerges at the intersection of memory, emotion, power, culture, fear, fatigue, and social norms. Ignoring this complexity risks turning bias into a moral failure of respondents, rather than a signal for methodological reflection[1].
- Bias rarely starts in the data, it starts in the process
One of the biggest challenges researchers face is tailoring data collection tools so they genuinely fit the populations they aim to study. This goes far beyond wording or translation. It requires sensitivity to cultural norms, gender dynamics, age, literacy levels, power relations, and the sensitivity of the topics themselves.
For example, gender bias in community perception surveys often shows up not as a lack of awareness, but as patterns in how respondents rate social issues that are deeply shaped by prevailing norms[2]. Probably one of our most fit examples is from the community perception survey work that we conducted in 2022 for the GESI analysis on Women’s Economic Empowerment and Leadership in Jordan[3]. Although we expected that formal responses to questions about gender inclusion and equality may trend toward socially acceptable positions, more underlying experiences of discrimination and exclusion appeared in other sources of secondary and primary data. No matter the time spent on tailoring tools and questions, raw survey percentages alone did not capture the complexity of community perceptions and power relations, a classic expression of social desirability bias layered with gender norms.
Similarly, during the Digital Ecosystem Country Assessment (DECA)[4], several interviewees highlighted how social media use among women and girls is shaped by family and community expectations. One university professor noted:
“Women in universities live in fear, because their families forbid them to have social media accounts. But this is very hard to identify in studies, because people have a tendency to provide biased information that doesn’t reflect their realities.”
This insight can not emerge neatly through direct structured questions about social media use. It surfaces through iterative conversations, probing during qualitative interviews, and crucially through daily debriefs, where enumerators reflected on hesitation, contradictions, and discomfort in respondents’ answers.
On paper, many respondents would report neutral or positive access to digital platforms. In practice, non-verbal cues and evasive phrasing would reveal a far more constrained reality shaped by fear and gendered social control. This gap between reported behavior and lived experience is a textbook example of social desirability and fear-based bias in gendered contexts.
- Staying close to the field: proximity as a methodological choice
One of our core approaches to navigating respondent bias is deliberately staying close to the field, not only through datasets, but through people and continuous interaction. In practice, this means research assistants work in close collaboration with enumerators on the ground. Enumerators are not treated as passive data collectors, but as critical observers of context. They flag emerging issues, respondent reactions, moments of discomfort or fatigue, and patterns that may not yet be visible in the dataset itself. These insights are shared in real time with the core research team.
This process is reinforced through daily debriefs, yes, daily. While intensive, these debriefs allow researchers to receive fresh, unfiltered feedback on what is happening beyond the questionnaire: non-verbal cues, hesitation, resistance, emotional responses, and the broader political, social, or cultural context shaping each interview.
This proximity feels a lot like watching a replay of a football match: you may not have been on the field, but you still get to see the turning points, the missed opportunities, and the dynamics that explain the final score. This kind of feedback loop allows researchers to interpret data not as isolated responses, but as part of a dynamic, unfolding interaction.
- Feedback loops and participatory approaches matter
Crucially, this approach relies on strong feedback loops across the entire research process, from tool design and piloting to data collection, analysis, and validation.
Feedback does not flow in one direction. Feedback loops are most effective when they extend beyond internal research teams and are embedded in consultative, participatory structures. In our work, this includes engaging co-researchers trained in action research or carefully selected consultative committees that reflect the diversity of the study population. These groups, often very diverse, are criteria-based and intentionally composed to ensure that marginalized perspectives are not lost and that representation is meaningful rather than symbolic.
The consultative teams play a critical role in testing assumptions, interpreting ambiguous findings, and explaining apparent inconsistencies or overly positive responses. By involving them throughout the research process, bias is approached not as an error to be fixed at the end, but as a signal to be understood in context. Treating community members as “experts of their own lives” allows them to reflect on, name, and challenge their own biases, ensuring that findings are grounded in lived experience rather than external interpretation.
- From controlling bias to learning from it !
Trouble-shooting respondent bias is not about eliminating it entirely, that is neither realistic nor desirable. It is about recognizing bias as part of the research encounter and building systems that allow us to learn from it.
Staying close to the field, investing in feedback loops, and adopting participatory approaches do not remove uncertainty, but they do ensure that our interpretations are grounded, reflexive, and ethically sound. Ultimately, respondent bias reminds us that research is not just about collecting answers, it is about understanding the conditions under which those answers are produced.
[1] Hammersley, M. (2013). What Is Qualitative Research? Bloomsbury Academic.
[2] CSSF Women, Peace and Security Helpdesk (2022) Good Practice for Gender Equality Perception Surveys. London: CSSF Women, Peace and Security Helpdesk, funded by UK Aid.
[3] Integrated International (2022). Gender Equqlity and Social Inclusion Analysis, USAID Makanati:
Women’s Economic Empowerment and Leadership Activity, Jordan. Available at: Women’s Economic Empowerment and Leadership Activity
[4] Integrated International (2024). USAID/Jordan “Digital Ecosystem Country Assessment (DECA)”, Jordan. Available at: Digital Ecosystem Country Assessment (DECA) in Jordan
Feminist Methodology: Benefits Beyond Gender
Despite one’s best efforts at objectivity, there can be no firm “separation of knower and known” and a researcher's own experience necessarily influences the project. While a researcher's individual experience can introduce bias, it can also prove a great asset.
Researchers operating in different frames tend to “ask very different questions… and consider very different interventions” (Kiguwa, 2019). Recognizing this fact is crucial to understanding the power dynamics that shape our relationships with participants, as well as the potential effects and unintended consequences of our research findings (DeVault, 1996; Kiguwa, 2019).
What is Feminist Methodology?
Despite the title of this piece, there is no singular unified “Feminist Methodology". Instead, feminist methodology can be thought of as a cluster of different methodologies "rooted in feminist activism and in feminists' critiques of the standard procedures of social science” that share a commitment “to include women's lives and concerns in accounts of society, to minimize the harms of research, and to support changes that will improve women's status” (DeVault, 1996). Feminist methodology should be imagined as a framework one can adopt to conduct research that encompasses many diverse individual approaches unified by an emphasis on positionality and intentionality.
Feminist approaches to research consider both the subject’s and researcher’s positionality within structural power hierarchies. While at first glance these theoretical claims may seem overly abstracted and conceptual, they are not. It is important to remember that research happens in the real world. Despite our best attempts to reach objectivity, researchers will always be enmeshed within local social contexts and subject to the same organizing principles of power hierarchies. On this same note, another key component of feminist approaches is intentional grounding of research in the real-world (Kiguwa, 2019).
Benefits of Feminist Methodology
Beyond an emphasis on practical application, the key benefit of feminist research is its ability to create space for subjectivity as a valuable source of knowledge. Traditional approaches which exclude marginalized voices and forms of knowledge from mainstream research are not only ethically problematic but also lead to incomplete research and blind spots which limit the utility of any findings (Beetham & Demetriades, 2007). These blind spots extend beyond gender analysis to also include any groups made invisible by racial, class, national or colonial power-dynamics. Neither positionality nor intentionality as methodological approaches are limited to gender.
Applications Beyond Gender
At its core, feminist methodology is about conducting research with a full view of the social context within which that research occurs. This is a valuable lens which can be meaningfully applied to enhance all kinds of research, particularly any that involves marginalized groups. For instance, in donor-sponsored research practice the dynamic between the researcher, subjects and donors is a particularly poignant nexus for structural power to come to bear. Donors wield significant monetary power, which often comes from broader social and economic inequalities. This frequantly leads to earmarked funding that limits the independence and subjectivity of the research. Once monetary considerations are introduced, the aims of a project shift from seeking to deliver the highest impact or greatest insight to aiming for the highest value (Lokot, 2019). This shift creates several adverse effects on the research process:
Firstly, the pressure to create deliverables transforms research to become increasingly extractive as the project begins to require “the right kinds” of data to supply donors (Lokot, 2019). Secondly, the same pressure to generate results often leads to focusing too much on simple, easy-to-measure indicators, perpetuating the invisibilization of marginalized forms of knowledge (Lokot, 2019). Thirdly, in pursuit of greatest efficiency, project designs are at risk of becoming overly standardized and prescriptive as they seek to reuse as many resources as possible to (Lokot, 2019). Finally, monetary concerns often exacerbate both physical and figurative distance between researcher and subjects. Due to logistical and cost concerns, oftentimes even when researchers are “in-the-field” they do not actually have direct contact with affected groups, reinforcing extractive power structures (Lokot, 2019).
While feminist methodologies cannot solely resolve any of these issues, emphasis of positionality and intentionality can provide a framework for addressing concerns. Feminist emphasis on positionality of researchers' own incentive structures and power within research relationships invites increased openness within the project. This can manifest as allowing space for the actual concerns of the interest group to emerge, for example by actively bringing research subjects into the knowledge generation process. Increased proximity with participants through active engagement can also serve to minimize the extractive nature of research relations by shifting to a partnership and relationship building model which provides agency and skill acquisition for research participants (particularly when compelled with more common forms of material compensation).
2030 Pledge for Change
Ultimately, feminist methodology offers a guiding ethos focused on centering marginalized voices, interrogating power dynamics, and addressing inequity. Through its focus on positionality and intentionality, feminist methodology challenges extractive practices and creates opportunities for more inclusive, nuanced, and impactful research. Particularly in donor-funded fields like humanitarian and development work, it offers a vital corrective to dominant approaches, opening space for more equitable and locally grounded methods of knowledge generation.
At INTEGRATED, we are strongly committed to the values of feminist research and to addressing the unequal power dynamics in the development and aid sectors. As evidence of our dedication, we are proud to announce our recently formalized support for the 2030 Pledge for Change, reinforcing our commitment to more equitable, locally led, and feminist humanitarian and development practices.
References:
- Beetham, G. and Demetriades, J., 2007. Feminist research methodologies and development: Overview and practical application. Gender and Development, 15(2), pp.199–216. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20461201.
- DeVault, M.L., 1996. Talking back to sociology: Distinctive contributions of feminist methodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, pp.29–50. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083423.
- Kiguwa, P., 2019. Feminist approaches: An exploration of women’s gendered experiences. In: S. Laher et al., eds. Transforming research methods in the social sciences: Case studies from South Africa. Johannesburg: Wits University Press, pp.220–235. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.18772/22019032750.19.
- Lokot, M., 2019. The space between us: Feminist values and humanitarian power dynamics in research with refugees. Gender & Development, 27(3), pp.467–484. doi:10.1080/13552074.2019.1664046.
The Transformative Power of Ed-Tech in the MENA Region
15 million children in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region do not attend school.
This wasn’t always the case—approximately two decades ago, the region had almost reached universal education and literacy, but armed conflicts over the last 15 years have disrupted this accomplishment across multiple countries, including Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Libya, and Sudan.
Refugee flows in MENA have strained national education systems by adversely affecting education quality and existing infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic compounded this, with the region experiencing amongst the highest school closures recorded globally. The outcome is concerning: foundational skills are not being adequately learned.
The Power of Technology
To tackle these challenges, innovative solutions like education technology and digital game-based learning have emerged. These tools alleviate the need for physical learning environments while providing opportunities for iterative and differentiated learning, essential in disrupted education settings.
The global evidence is clear: a recent meta-analysis of 77 randomized experiments evaluating the effects of school-based interventions on learning in primary schools across developing countries found that those involving computers or instructional technology had the largest mean effect sizes.
Putting Ed-Tech to the Test
At INTEGRATED, we’ve seen firsthand how ed-tech is transforming learning in the MENA region, especially for early learners in refugee and public-school settings. Through our research—such as randomized control trials and experimental studies—we found that ed-tech can generate improved literacy results significantly beyond “business as usual.”
Digital game-based learning, when used regularly, has the potential to boost basic literacy skills and provide access to digital libraries—allowing early learners to read up to 150 books per school year. This is a huge jump from the regional average of one book per year. These results are particularly clear in low-income and under-resourced settings, where access to leveled and engaging reading materials has sparked exponential growth in reading skills.
Untapped Potential
Where ed-tech solutions have been proven to generate statistically significant learning outcomes in Arabic, their scalability has significant potential. Modern Standard Arabic, the fifth most spoken language in the world, is standardized and taught similarly across 21 Arabic speaking-countries. Additionally, the high rates of smart phone penetration and extensive GSM mobile network coverage in the MENA region offer significant potential for widespread access to digital technologies. In MENA, parents place a high value on education. When families can access interactive, appropriately leveled learning content with regular use, it has been proven to augment literacy.
So, why aren’t these solutions more widespread?
The Challenges at Hand
Despite high smart phone penetration, data credit is expensive, and accessing educational resources is not always the top priority for each family. While each family may have a smartphone, it is often shared among multiple people, causing children to have intermittent use at most. Additionally, awareness of proven ed-tech solutions is exceptionally low, with endorsement from trusted educational bodies necessary for wider acceptance.
Second, while Ministries of Education in MENA have experimented with education technology —and even endorsed successful programs —there are limited means to scale these solutions. A lack of hardware and consistent internet bandwidth in classrooms limit the degree to which ed-tech can be integrated into curriculums, while teachers lack the necessary training to manage onboarding, navigation, and integration. Moreover, ed-tech's student-centered, self-paced model is a departure from teacher-centered education delivery—a significant cultural shift within MENA educational systems.
However, with future shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic or new conflicts looming in the region, many ministries have instituted blended learning strategies, relying on ed-tech to deliver a part of the curriculum. Some have even partnered with private sector ed-tech companies to support this approach. Ministries also recognize the potential of ed-tech to be more inclusive of students with disabilities and track student performance within dashboards that can be aggregated nationally.
While the aspiration to integrate ed-tech exists among both donors and Ministries of Education, there is still a need to tackle the key obstacles that prevent its scaling: hardware and internet connectivity in the classroom, continuity of learning from home, and upskilling of teachers to effectively integrate ed-tech into the curriculum. This requires ed-tech developers and ministries to work hand-in-hand- to develop curriculum-aligned and leveled content, while testing this content for efficacy in generating significant learning outcomes.
Despite obstacles, the MENA region holds significant untapped potential to solve its educational challenges through technology. With key strategic investments and partnerships across sectors, there is a clear path forward for the widespread adoption of ed-tech in classrooms throughout the region, transforming learning for millions of children.
Read more about Integrated’s critical findings on ed-tech:
- Revolutionizing Arabic Literacy with Antura and the Letters – Integrated
- Testing Learning Outcomes with Feed the Monster, an Arabic Literacy Game – Integrated
- Exploring Digital Game-Based Learning to Enhance Education in MENA – Integrated
Public Participation in Climate Action: Examples from Jordan
Public participation is a cornerstone of the UN climate goals – as societies reshape themselves in the face of climate change, it’s imperative that these transformations are responsive to the needs of everyone, and that means including everyone in the process of creating them. But what does good public participation really look like? Authentically widening the scope of participation can be challenging, especially for groups who are already excluded from decision making. At INTEGRATED, we’re researching ways that broad public participation can drive meaningful change in the climate space.
This happens at a wide range of levels. Sometimes it’s as simple as exchanging knowledge on climate issues or consulting citizen groups on policy decisions. Other times it involves putting citizens in the driver’s seat to lead climate action. In many cases, citizens not directly involved in policymaking institutions have valuable knowledge and perspectives that are crucial to efficient and just climate transitions, and organizations need to take active steps to make sure those voices are heard.
Many systems exist for classifying public participation, with the most famous being Arnstein’s Ladder, first published by Sherry Arnstein in 1969. The ladder describes sequential levels of participation, from the total exclusion or manipulation of citizens at the bottom, to limited forms of engagement like consultation in the middle, to true citizen power at the top. The relevance of different methods and the ways they interact depend on context – what follows are some examples of public participation in action in Jordan from INTEGRATED’s recent research.
Education
The most basic form of public engagement, and one commonly used by climate and environmental projects, is education. This involves raising general awareness of climate change and the human forces that drive it, particularly among groups that might be excluded from educational systems. An equally important component of education goes the other way, helping institutional actors recognize and understand forms of climate knowledge that sit outside the scientific mainstream.
In Jordan, a country on the front lines of climate-driven drought and desertification, this understanding takes many forms. Many people are already well-informed about climate issues – one 2022 survey from the European Investment Bank found 81% of respondents recognized the effects of human-caused climate change in their daily lives. But other research has found that there are significant generational gaps. In rural areas, older generations had a deep concern for changing weather patterns that they observed over the last few decades but were unfamiliar with the concept of global climate change. Effective climate education goes both ways, giving citizens the tools and vocabulary to express their concerns to institutions, and institutions the awareness to listen.
Consultation
When authorities make key decisions on climate projects, such as the development of water treatment plants or renewable energy infrastructure, it is imperative that they seek out and carefully consider the input of as many different citizen stakeholders as possible. This can come in the form of consultation workshops or meetings with key representative organizations, helping to ensure that projects are effective and equitable.
Consultations were a key part of Jordan’s 2022 Voluntary National Review, in which the Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (MoPIC) met with diverse groups, including local governments, private industry, and civil society, to better understand how to meet its development goals, particularly in the climate sector. Getting a broad range of inputs is critical for effective policymaking but can also be challenging. Consultations might be passed over as too costly or time consuming, and it can be difficult to connect with groups that are not formally organized, despite them having valuable insights. One study, for example, reported that women in home-based caregiver roles had critical knowledge of household-level water usage, but lacked the formal modes to express it. These important insights into the effects of water policies then go on to be overlooked by institutions.
Enlisting Local Knowledge
Often, citizens who live their daily lives with the effects of climate change have the most relevant knowledge about how the environment is changing, and how to best to adapt. This knowledge may sit outside the scientific mainstream but should not be discounted by development projects aiming to address the same issues. Furthermore, many communities hold deep traditional knowledge of their environments, passed down through generations, which may hold the key to effective, locally relevant climate adaptations.
Jordan is rich in traditional knowledge that can inform environmental policy, from medicinal wild plants to ancient agricultural techniques. The climate pressures already facing many Jordanians are also driving grassroots innovation, such as the recently documented grazing preserves established by farmers in Northeast Jordan that foster biodiverse wild pasture for livestock within planted fields. These techniques offer locally adapted climate solutions but can be overlooked when local knowledge holders lack access to systems of power. It is incumbent on development organizations to start with local observations, knowledge, and priorities, and co-develop projects with citizen stakeholders.
Citizens as Drivers of Climate Action
The truest form of public participation occurs when citizens have the power to lead development initiatives themselves, directing resources to most effectively address urgent needs. Authentic collaboration at this level can be elusive – sometimes organizations aim to include citizen groups in decision making, but systemic barriers prevent citizens from taking on true leadership roles. When it does work, though, it creates enduring solutions that communities can sustain and benefit from long after project activities cease.
Calls for citizen climate action in Jordan are increasing, particularly among the younger generation. The Local Youth Climate Change Conference held in Amman last fall showcased this interest, highlighting young social entrepreneurs working in smart agriculture, solar energy, and recycling. As these projects garner more attention and support, it can be the starting point of a self-sustaining cycle where public engagement becomes the norm, empowering more people to employ their unique skills and expertise in locally led climate action.
Data Collection Done Right: Ethics and Suggested Practices
Imagine participating in a survey, only to later realize that your responses were used in ways you never agreed to. In the rush to collect data, ethical considerations are often overlooked—but they shouldn’t be.
A key part of all research and evaluation work is data collection. While we spend a lot of time thinking about methodologies and sampling, we often treat the ethics of our data collection like it is an after-thought. However, it should be a priority, starting in the planning phase of a project, especially in development and humanitarian spaces. The ethics of data collection is a vast field in and of itself, but this blog offers some suggested practices:
Don’t take informed consent lightly.
Informed consent is the cornerstone of ethical data collection. When creating informed consent forms, ensure that they are simplified and not overwhelming. This ensures that the respondent fully understands what is expected of them and gives truly informed consent. An INTEGRATED team member shared that in contexts where respondents might distrust data collectors, complicated informed consents can further fuel nervousness. Relatedly, ensure compliance with child safeguarding rules when collecting data from minors. This usually entails seeking parental consent for data collection.
Only ask for information that you need, not information that you “would like to know."
In other words, collect the minimum information needed to answer a question. When designing data collection tools, it can be tempting to ask for information that “might be useful at some point in the future” or “would be interesting to know.” Burdening the respondents with a longer survey and having to share more data than necessary is not ethical. Go through each of your survey questions and ask yourself the following two questions:
- What information is this question giving me that the other questions are not?
- How does this information contribute to answering my research questions?
If you find that you already have a question that provides this information or that the data you would collect from this question are not directly relevant to your research questions, you should get rid of it.
Relatedly, be very careful when asking for sensitive data.
The work we do sometimes requires us to ask about information that could be considered to be sensitive. Therefore, enumerators and data collectors should be trained on how to appropriately support the respondent if sensitive data questions lead to feeling overwhelmed or upset. In some cases, the respondents run the risk of re-traumatization. The data collectors should be appreciative of the respondents’ emotional labor when they are answering sensitive questions.
Furthermore, it is essential that data protection is prioritized.
Data should be stored securely. When possible, anonymize and de-identify data to protect respondents’ identities. Also, make sure the storage and transfer methods are secure. If the data are stored physically, ensure that the storage is locked and inaccessible to anyone who enters the office. If it travels with you, keep it on your person and not in a checked bag, for example. If it is on the cloud, choose a platform with appropriate security features, such as encryption and password protection. Set clear guidelines for who can access the data you collect: access should be minimized to just those who need it.
Prioritize the comfort of the respondents.
Think about how to make the data collection process as comfortable as possible for respondents. For example, if a respondent would prefer to speak to a data collector or enumerator of the same gender, ensure you respect those requests. When applicable you should consider hiring local enumerators who would understand the local culture best. Another INTEGRATED team member cautioned that, based on their experience, we should not ask for pictures in communities where respondents might not feel comfortable – especially if photography is unnecessary. People might consent to pictures out of politeness even if they are uncomfortable.
Similarly, be respectful of respondents’ time and effort.
The choice of time and place for data collection should be culturally appropriate and not require too much effort from the respondents. You should accommodate them rather than expecting them to accommodate you. Convey appreciation for them coming in and giving you time—this can be in the form of monetary compensation, refreshments, and/or transportation support, especially if respondents have traveled a significant distance. Offer fair compensation for their work.
Finally, consider power dynamics.
Think about how power dynamics might make the respondents feel, as this can influence the quality of your data. Consider your own positionality. For example, if you are collecting data on service quality on behalf of the organization providing that service, respondents may hesitate to give negative feedback out of concern that it could affect their future access to services.
These are just a few of the many ethical considerations in data collection. Prioritizing ethics not only upholds the integrity of your work but also fosters trust, ensures participant safety, and ultimately results in more reliable and meaningful data.
Breaking the Imbalance: Participatory Action Research as a Decolonial Practice
In 2022, approximately 86% of research articles published worldwide originated from high-income and upper-middle-income countries. Similarly, most international development research is funded by bilateral and multilateral agencies based in the West, reinforcing existing power dynamics in knowledge production.
There has long been a power imbalance between the Global North and Majority World, with the former controlling research funding, resources, narratives, and discourse. These asymmetries limit the research potential of the Global South and allow the Global North to perpetuate false or reductive narratives about the South and its people.
Decolonizing Research
To challenge this imbalance, the concept of “decolonizing research” has gained traction. Decolonial research prioritizes the needs, beliefs, cultures, and contexts of local communities, positioning them as equal partners rather than passive subjects—an approach that combats exploitation.
While there is no singular framework defining decolonial research, several core themes emerge in practice, such as adopting a participatory and engaged approach. This is where Participatory Action Research (PAR) enters the equation.
What is PAR?
PAR is a methodology that empowers local communities by actively involving them in the research process. Rather than being subjects of study, community members are trained in research skills and become co-researchers. This inclusive approach ensures that voices historically excluded from research are centered in the narrative.
At INTEGRATED, we conducted a PAR study across Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Tunisia to amplify the voices of women experiencing economic gender-based violence (GBV). Each country team collaborated with a group of co-researchers who were trained in research methodologies and then conducted data collection within their own communities. In total, we worked with 18 local co-researchers across the 4 countries.
As a member of the research team, I participated in an introductory workshop on PAR with country researchers. We shared our personal experiences with economic GBV and reflected on how these shaped our roles in the project. A key focus of our training was shifting our perception of participants from “subjects” to “collaborators.”
Following this, we led multiple workshops to train co-researchers on how to document women’s stories of economic GBV with accuracy and sensitivity. They were also given the opportunity to share their own experiences as part of the research process.
Through these workshops, we formed connections, sharing our personal and professional experiences. In our final session, we played a game called “String Web.” One person started with a ball of string, threw it to another participant, and shared something they had learned from them. The process continued until a web of string stretched across the room—a representation of our collaboration, shared learning, and storytelling.
Shifting the Narrative
By utilizing the PAR methodology, our study presented Arab women’s experiences with economic GBV through a decolonial lens, countering the dominant Western narrative that attributes GBV in Arab and Muslim communities to “backward” cultural or religious beliefs. This stereotype—often framed as the "savage-victim-savior" complex—portrays Arab and Muslim women as victims of their own culture who need saving by the West. Our research challenged this narrative by centering local voices and experiences. It allowed for women to tell their stories of resilience and transformation, a narrative that is rarely captured by the Global North, despite being critical to addressing GBV and finding a way forward.
In the last decade, research publication output from lower-income countries has nearly doubled. Yet, the West continues to dominate funding and knowledge production. Now is the time for researchers in the Majority World to actively embrace decolonial practices and reimagine research production in a way that amplifies historically-silenced voices—ensuring that the “researched” becomes the “researcher.” Voice and agency are indeed heard and activated within the institutions and structures that shape knowledge production.
Check out Hidden Voices: Arabic Women's Stories of Economic Survival.
From Intent to Impact: How Businesses Can Measure Their Contributions to Sustainable Development Goals
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) financing gaps are estimated to be between 2.5 and 4 trillion US dollars per year. Over the past decade, my work in the development sector has focused on designing and evaluating projects across various sectors to identify what works, what does not, and where successful practices can be scaled for greater socio-economic impact. While much of this work has been donor funded and implemented by development actors, the private sector is increasingly stepping into the spotlight, with investment flows—both public and private—being redirected toward global development challenges framed around the SDGs.
This shift has revealed an emerging collaboration between development practitioners and the private sector, as both share a common goal of addressing global challenges through sustainable and impactful approaches. However, an obstacle remains: while many businesses are increasingly aware of the importance of contributing to social good, they often struggle to measure and demonstrate how their efforts are directly contributing to global development outcomes.
The Challenge of Measuring Impact
As SDG practices gain momentum, one question consistently arises: If we have a strategy that clearly articulates the type of change we seek to elicit, how can we accurately attribute SDG-related outcomes to our specific interventions and work?
This is no small task. In fact, it is a challenge made even more daunting by the rise of "impact washing," a phenomenon gaining prominence in the West. Many companies have mastered the art of crafting polished Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) strategies and SDG goals, often using metrics that prioritize optics over substance. These efforts can make environmentally, or socially harmful practices appear palatable, rather than driving real, measurable change.
While this trend has already taken root in Western markets, the MENA region is at a unique inflection point. ESG and SDG-focused alignment are only beginning to gain traction here, presenting a rare opportunity. Unlike their Western counterparts, MENA countries have a chance to sidestep the pitfalls of superficial metrics and impact washing. Instead, they can leapfrog directly to developing frameworks that prioritize tangible, measurable impact.
The Power of Evidence-Based Methods and Impact Measurement
This is where we bring in Impact Measurement and Management (IMM): a structured approach that helps organizations not only track their contributions to social and environmental outcomes but integrate these insights into decision-making to maximize impact. At INTEGRATED, we have seen how IMM has the potential to provide businesses with the frameworks and tools they need to move beyond broad ESG narratives and toward concrete, evidence-based outcomes tied to the SDGs.
Moving beyond IMM frameworks, to what extent can its principles credibly attribute outcomes to specific interventions, while accurately capturing the true effects of corporate decisions, operations, and investments on communities and the environment?
Credibly linking an intervention to observed changes normally requires rigorous, evidence-based methodologies, with Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) standing out as a gold standard in the development sector. In the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) world we frequently use RCTs in impact evaluations when organizations seek concrete proof that their programs are making a measurable difference. But there are simpler approaches to demonstrate impact, such as benchmarks, which enable measurement of real change vis a vis a “business as usual” approach.
How would this work in practice?
Consider a telecommunications company launching a digital literacy program aimed at improving employment opportunities in underserved communities. If job placements increase after the program, how can the company be certain that its intervention caused the improvement? By comparing outcomes between a control group (those not exposed to the program) and a treatment group (those who participated), an impact measurement reveals the counterfactual—what would have happened without the program.
This approach and others can be applied to the private sector, enabling businesses to confidently demonstrate their impact. It also adds a crucial layer of credibility, especially for investors who are focused on and care about measurable social and environmental returns. A simple tracer study and benchmarking against national standards can demonstrate an impact level change with clear evidence of causality.
What is to Come?
Many businesses lack the frameworks, tools, and expertise needed to measure and communicate their contributions effectively. This transition requires simple but effective tools in telling the story of impact and accountability. Businesses familiar with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) can easily transition to this mindset of impact measurement so that we are all able to engage in a private sector world that is able to focus on people, planet, and profit.
Shifting Power Dynamics In Localization Frameworks
Localization has increasingly become a buzz word, used by donor agencies aiming to collaborate more effectively with people, institutions and communities impacted by development efforts. But what does localization actually mean in practice, and how well are these efforts shifting power dynamics to truly empower local communities?
As Oheneba A Boateng writes, localization approaches have multiple goals:
- Rights-Based Approach: Aid recipients should be involved in setting their own priorities
- Efficiency: Localization should enable a quicker and more effective response to development challenges
- Addressing Power Imbalances: Localization seeks to shift the structural power dynamics between the Global North and South
While it’s easy to agree on why localization is necessary, the Global North has struggled to advance this agenda effectively. Here are some of the key challenges.
Challenges in Advancing Localization
- Funding Gaps: The 2016 Grand Bargain pledged to allocate at least 25% of humanitarian funding to local and national stakeholders by 2020. However, only 3.4% of assistance was channeled to local stakeholders in 2016, falling to 1.8% by 2022.
- Shortfall in Donor Commitments: USAID, for example, pledged that local organizations should receive 25% of eligible funding by 2025, with a goal of local communities leading 50% of programming by 2030. Yet, by 2022, USAID was directing only slightly over 10% of eligible funding to local organizations.
- Limited Representation of Global South Researchers: Studies indicate that Global South researchers only generate 16% of development research, and Global South universities account for just 9% of conference presenters.
The Role of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning in Localization
As a Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) practitioner representing a local MEL and Research firm, I’ve observed that traditional localization metrics fail to capture the shifts in power dynamics necessary for true localization. To make localization meaningful, we must consider three critical aspects: the process, the narrative, and the outcomes.
- Process of Localization: To avoid tokenism in both participation and partnership, key questions to ensure the desired shift in dynamics include: To what extent are the various practices instilled generating local ownership and agency? In which ways are local agency and ownership demonstrated? To what extent is this local agency and ownership impacting strategic decision-making?
- Reporting on Localization: To ensure that local voices are captured, authentic storytelling —as noted in encapsulated in the Pledge for Change 2030—critical to ensuring accountability to localization. The influence on and ownership of the localization narrative needs to be validated and owned by those actors who are experiencing the story, partnerships, and influence of localization.
- Outcomes of Localization: If localization is effective, we observe the outcomes of localization in sustained programming and a shift in the power dynamics where the local entity, through agency and ownership, is self-reliant programmatically andfinancially. These outcomes are rarely captured.
Towards a More Effective Localization Framework
Existing localization frameworks do not sufficiently capture the pathway to sustainability or self-reliance, and they rarely capture the intended shift in power dynamics. To make localization meaningful, frameworks need to:
- Clearly articulate the pathways to a balanced power dynamic.
- Continuously assess and refine metrics for agency, ownership, and the local narrative.
- Measure the ultimate aims of localization – relevance, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.
Where better to focus these efforts than in local monitoring, evaluation, research and learning? By enhancing MERL systems locally, we can better refine localization frameworks and genuinely capture the localization narrative, while being accountable to the process and the outcomes?
As practitioners, how can we ensure that the power dynamics in our localization efforts truly empower local communities? What steps can you take to promote authentic storytelling, agency, and ownership in your work? The path to meaningful localization requires a collective effort to shift mindsets, refine metrics, and hold ourselves accountable to the communities we serve.