Critical reflections on the production and use of humanitarian numbers, such as the September 2023 Special Issue of the Journal of Humanitarian Affairs (5.1), are a welcome counterweight to the hype of data and numbers-driven decision-making. The introduction from the issue editors enumerates critiques of datafication, ironically granting their ‘Ten Things’ the same power and deliberately simplified allure as the numbers they critique (Glasman and Lawson, 2023). Fortunately, neither the Ten Things nor the overview of the ontological approaches in the critical literature suggest that any one representation of the world is complete. This is appreciated considering their goal to open pathways for further scholarly exploration. I add another point of consideration towards this same pursuit.
The editors reference humanitarian decision-makers’ heavy reliance on data (Glasman and Lawson, 2023: 3) and suggest that humanitarian indicators ‘may have a decisive impact’ in terms of triage, classification and prioritisation (7). Indeed, this is the explicit objective of major information systems throughout the humanitarian landscape. This logic is also implicit in calls for improving knowledge production practices such as advocating for more integration of ‘local’ knowledge and promoting information sharing. Together, these framings imply that data, heavily and decisively, drives humanitarian decision-making and that if we only had better data, we would make better decisions.
But does better data lead to better decisions? Indeed, many of the Ten Things can be expanded upon to suggest otherwise and certainly this assumption is challenged elsewhere in the Special Issue (notably in Enten, 2023 and Beaumais, 2023). Still, given its pervasiveness in evidence-based humanitarianism, this logic of humanitarian numbers warrants its own place on the list of Things We Know. I therefore propose:
11. Decisions Are Driven by More than Numbers
In the context of humanitarian responses, numbers most often serve to quantify needs with the ostensible function of informing responses. However, there have long been questions about the extent to which such information actually leads to appropriate responses or funding allocations (Buchanan-Smith and Davies, 1995; Darcy and Hofmann, 2003). Even with recent advances in humanitarian information systems, such critiques persist (Lentz et al., 2020; Olin and von Schreeb, 2014). Explanations for this disconnect between numbers and response are not dissimilar to the points raised in the Ten Things. Some point to structural issues, conceptual confusion (notably, what constitutes ‘needs’), the influence of political narratives, and, as Beaumais (2023) shows, the role of trust. Overall, the core critique of supposed data-driven decision-making is simple: humanitarian decisions do not occur in a vacuum.
Even famine declarations, where technical precision constructs the most serious of humanitarian numbers, are no exception. Today, the use of the ‘f-word’ is thought to be so consequential for triggering funding and action that its usage is cautiously governed by food security and nutrition communities. However, if we use funding increases as a proxy for response, official famine declarations do not automatically translate to action (Maxwell et al., 2023). Enten’s (2023) careful dissection of the differing trajectories of famine declarations reiterates the point that numbers alone, even those surpassing a technical famine threshold, do not prompt responses.
Therefore, in the decision-making machine, numbers are passengers, not autonomous drivers. Perhaps this is a good thing given the concerns about humanitarian numbers described in the Ten Things. Nonetheless, we cannot assume that the increased availability of numbers, information or analysis, even that of ‘good’ quality, ‘will in itself result in better informed decisions’ (Darcy et al., 2013: 6, emphasis in original). A better orientation for practitioners is to support ‘well-informed’ decision-making: one that considers data and information in combination with experience-based knowledge and awareness of political and social constraints. Meanwhile, given that some of the most protracted crises also have the highest amounts of humanitarian data production, there is significant scope for scholarship exploring the implications of our data practices: If numbers are not driving decisions, what is this data frenzy actually doing for affected populations?
Works Cited
Beaumais, L., (2023), “Do Humanitarian Workers Really Trust Numbers? An Assessment of the Use of Quantitative Data in the Humanitarian Field’, Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, 5:1, 24–36, doi:10.7227/JHA.100.
Buchanan-Smith, M. and Davies, S. (1995), Famine Early Warning and Response: The Missing Link (London: Intermediate Technology Publications / Practical Action Publishing).
Darcy, J. and Hofmann, C-A. (2003), According to Need? Needs Assessment and Decision-Making in the Humanitarian Sector, HPG Report 15 (London: ODI Humanitarian Policy Group).
Darcy, J., Stobaugh, H., Walker, P. and Maxwell, D. (2013), ‘The Use of Evidence in Humanitarian Decision Making’, ACAPS Operational Learning Paper (Boston: Feinstein International Center, Tufts University).
Enten, F. (2023), ‘Famines and “Poor Numbers”: How IPC Data Is Communicated through the Media to Trigger Emergency Responses’, Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, 5:1, 37–51, doi:10.7227/JHA.101.
Glasman, J. and Lawson, B. (2023), ‘Ten Things We Know about Humanitarian Numbers’, Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, 5:1, 1–10, doi:10.7227/JHA.098.
Lentz, E., Gottlieb, G., Simmons, C. and Maxwell, D. (2020), ‘2020 Hindsight? The Ecosystem of Humanitarian Diagnostics and Its Application to Anticipatory Action’, Discussion Paper (Boston: Feinstein International Center, Tufts University).
Maxwell, D., Day, M. and Hailey, P. (2023), ‘Do Famine Declarations Really Lead to Increased Funding?’, Briefing Paper (Boston: Feinstein International Center, Tufts University).
Olin, E. and von Schreeb, J. (2014), ‘Funding Based on Needs? A Study on the Use of Needs Assessment Data by a Major Humanitarian Health Assistance Donor in Its Decisions to Allocate Funds’, PLoS Currents, 6, doi:10.1371/current.dis.d05f908b179343c8b4705cf44c15dbe9.