Featured Post from Aston University

Experts explore the gap between research and practice in disaster management

Jul 7, 2021

5 min



The COVID-19 pandemic has attracted public attention to crisis management globally, writes Aston University's Oscar Rodriguez-Espindola.


Although authorities and international organisations are still actively and diligently trying to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, some of the attention is shifting towards understanding the decisions made and learning from our experience. Indeed, this experience has inadvertently shown different areas for improvement for emergency management systems.


The experience gained during the pandemic should lead governments and organisations to refine crisis management processes to prepare for challenges ahead. Leveraging research and specialist groups have been essential to support and inform decisions, as these can provide key insights guiding policy decisions.


However, the integration of research and practice should not take place at the response stage only, but as part of the core crisis management system at every stage.


It is crucial to maintain and strengthen the relationships between research and practice forged during the pandemic for different emergencies in the future. With the increasing number of different disasters happening and the threats stemming from climate change, it is not surprising that between 1994 and 2013 around 1.35 million lives have been claimed annually by natural disasters. Therefore, the value of partnerships between research and practice needs to be strengthened and implemented globally.


Academics from Aston University in the UK and the Universidad Autónoma de Occidente in Mexico have investigated the current status of the integration of research and practice for crisis management. A systematic literature review of decision models for humanitarian logistics has been used to understand the way these models have reflected the real conditions experienced by decision-makers and catered to their priorities.


Afterwards, interviews with two civil protection authorities of the state of Sinaloa, Mexico, have been undertaken to understand the conditions faced by them for crisis management, their processes and their view of decision models to support crisis management in the country. Next, a multicriteria decision analysis was used to capture their preferences regarding the objectives set for humanitarian operations to develop an analysis of their priorities.


Practice needs to be informed by research, but for that guidance to be impactful, research needs to have a thorough understanding of the conditions and challenges faced by practice. The literature focused on models for humanitarian logistics has shown that the engagement of academics with practitioners in the design of solutions to support decision-making has been declared in less than a quarter of the contributions, as shown in Table 1.


That means the design of solutions is based on prior secondary information or founded on a theoretical basis, which is not necessarily reflecting the current reality faced by authorities. It is noteworthy that there is an increasing trend in the number of articles involving practitioners in recent years, with more than half of them published in the previous three years. Despite that growth, however, the relative percentage of contributions incorporating practitioners has never been beyond 40% of all the models published in any year, which highlights that there is still a long way to go to support research development.


Table 1: Involvement of practitioners in the design of models for humanitarian logistics


Our interviews highlighted that authorities perceive the potential of systems to improve information management forecasting and decision-making, but they also unveiled the concerns about these systems providing unrealistic or unfeasible solutions.


Optimisation models are formulations in which a metric is maximised or minimised subject to a series of constraints. If the objective does not reflect the objectives and priorities of decision-makers, then results can be less relevant for decision-makers.


For instance, models solely aiming to minimise cost would struggle to give useful solutions to authorities focused primarily on providing support to all the victims equally. Therefore, the lack of involvement from decision-makers can lead practitioners to be cautious about using decision-making models.


To examine the link between contributions in the literature and the objectives and priorities of authorities, data about them was gathered and analysed using a technique known as Fuzzy-TOPSIS. The purpose was to identify the importance given to different objectives by authorities for different activities in order to rank them based on importance as shown in Table 2.


Although humanitarian logistics are characterised by a focus on the overarching ideas of saving lives and reducing suffering, it is still surprising to note that cost was the least important objective for authorities.


Conversely, more than three-quarters of the models surveyed are using cost as the main objective function, which makes it the most prominent objective in humanitarian logistics. As preferences from authorities seem considerably more focused on maintaining a reliable flow of support, with high levels of service and ensuring to reach the most affected population, our findings suggest a misalignment between research and practice.


Hence, neglecting to incorporate practitioners in decision-making models for humanitarian logistics can lead to omitting their needs and priorities, rendering the models less effective to provide workable solutions.


Table 2: Ranking of objectives from civil protection authorities


Additionally, it is important that research guides and influences practice in relevant aspects for further development. For instance, understandably, the chaotic and urgent conditions faced by authorities in humanitarian logistics force them to prioritise response over any other considerations.


Our interviews confirmed this, as they mentioned that even though sustainability is becoming a crucial element in regular times, it is undermined by the urgency of the response and only included in recovery activities.


This is an aspect worth looking into because research has shown that sustainability can be integrated into crisis management, even with the potential to provide improvements in terms of efficiency. Hence, a more thorough integration between research and practice would allow to positively influence activities on the field based on findings and results proposed and tested by cutting-edge investigations.


Overall, our findings suggest that despite the increasing remarks about the intention of joining research and practice, there is still a significant divide between them. Reducing that divide can be beneficial for both sides. More practice-informed research can allow to development of feasible solutions that can enhance the support provided to disaster victims in practice, whereas more research-informed practice can provide stronger foundations for effective decision-making and guide research to focus on key aspects to make it more impactful.


Therefore, it is essential to put more emphasis on integrating research and practice from the roots, to make their interaction more fruitful. Current trends seem to be going towards that direction, especially with the current focus on the impact on research, but further efforts are required to motivate researchers and practitioners to work together to improve crisis management.


This article was co-written by Oscar Rodriguez-Espindola, Pavel Albores, Hossein Ahmadi, Soumyadeb Chowdhury, Prasanta Dey from Aston University and Diego Chavira and Omar Ahumanda from the Universidad Autónoma de Occidente.


This work was supported by an Institutional Links grant, ID 527666998, under the Newton UK-Mexico partnership. The grant is funded by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and delivered by the British Council. For further information, please visit www.newtonfund.ac.uk


You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

4 min

People still trust scientists: Aston University psychologists contribute to largest post-pandemic study on public trust

Researchers looked at trust in scientists in 68 countries and found relatively high levels of trust everywhere The TISP Many Labs study of 71,922 people included those living in under-researched nations of the Global South The majority of survey participants believe that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. Public trust in scientists is still high, according to a survey carried out in 68 countries by an international team of 241 researchers, led by Dr Viktoria Cologna (Harvard University, ETH Zurich) and Dr Niels Mede (University of Zurich). The study found no evidence of the oft-repeated claim of a crisis of trust in science. The team, which included Aston University School of Psychology’s Dr James Reynolds and Dr Charlotte Pennington, also found that the majority of survey participants believed that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. This study is the result of the Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism (TISP) Many Labs study, a collaborative effort that allowed the authors to survey 71,922 people in 68 countries, including many under-researched countries in the ‘Global South’. For the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic, the study provides global, representative survey data on the populations and regions of the world in which researchers are perceived to be most trustworthy, the extent to which they should engage with the public and whether science is prioritising important research issues. Dr Mede said: “The study is the most comprehensive post-pandemic snapshot of trust in scientists, societal expectations of their involvement in society and policymaking and public views on research priorities.” Across 68 countries, the study finds that the majority of the public has a relatively high level of trust in scientists (mean trust level = 3.62, on a scale of 1 = very low trust to 5 = very high trust). The majority of respondents also perceive scientists as qualified (78%), honest (57%) and concerned about people’s wellbeing (56%). However, the results also reveal some areas of concern. Globally, less than half of respondents (42%) believe that scientists pay attention to the views of others. Additionally, many people felt that the priorities of science are not always well-aligned with their own priorities. The researchers call upon scientists to take the results seriously and find ways to be more receptive to feedback and more open to dialogue. The findings confirm the results of previous studies that show significant differences between countries and population groups. In particular, people with right-wing political views in Western countries tend to have less trust in scientists than those with left-wing views. This suggests that attitudes toward science tend to polarise along political lines. In most countries, however, political orientation and trust in scientists were not related. A majority of respondents want science to play an active role in society and policymaking. Globally, 83% of respondents believe that scientists should communicate with the public about science, providing an impetus for increased science communication efforts. Only a minority (23%) believe that scientists should not actively advocate for specific policies. 52% believe that scientists should be more involved in the policymaking process. Participants gave high priority to research to improve public health, solve energy problems and reduce poverty. On the other hand, research to develop defence and military technology was given a lower priority. In fact, participants explicitly believe that science is prioritising the development of defence and military technology more than they would like, highlighting a potential misalignment between public and scientific priorities. Dr Cologna said: “Our results show that most people in most countries have relatively high trust in scientists and want them to play an active role in society and policymaking”. Dr Reynolds, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This research demonstrates that people from all around the globe still have high trust in science and want scientists involved in policymaking. When we face great challenges, such as threats to public health or energy crises, the public recognise the importance that scientists can play and want us involved. This is also true of the UK where levels of public trust in science is one of the highest globally.” Dr Pennington, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This project showcases the importance and power of big team science to answer fundamental questions about human behaviour. By pooling our expertise and resources, we were able to reach over 70,000 people and improve sample diversity and representation by recruiting from 68 countries. Overall, the study resulted in an optimistic finding – that people generally trust scientists and agree that they should engage more in society and policymaking. Such trust is important because it allows people to make research-informed decisions about their own lives.” Find out more about the research in Nature Human Behaviour by visiting https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02090-5.

4 min

Aston University-led project finds simple ways to improve the wellbeing of paediatric critical care staff

The Staff Wellbeing (SWell) project was carried out in conjunction with Birmingham Children’s Hospital and NHS England Paediatric critical care (PCC) staff experience high levels of moral distress, post-traumatic stress disorder and burnout Two simple, low-resource wellbeing sessions can be delivered by staff for staff without specialist training. The Staff Wellbeing (SWell) project, led by Aston University researchers in collaboration with Birmingham Children’s Hospital and NHS England, has developed two simple, easy-to-deliver sessions to improve the wellbeing of staff in paediatric critical care (PCC) units in UK hospitals. PCC staff are known to experience high levels of moral distress, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and burnout, but often feel little is offered to help them with their mental health. The SWell team at Aston University, led by Professor Rachel Shaw from the Institute of Health and Neurodevelopment, realised following a literature review that there are no existing, evidence-based interventions specifically designed to improve PCC staff wellbeing. Initial work by SWell identified the ‘active ingredients’ likely to create successful intervention designs. Together with a team from NHS England, the Aston University researchers set up the SWell Collaborative Project: Interventions for Staff Wellbeing in Paediatric Critical Care, in PCC units across England and Scotland. The aim of the project was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing wellbeing interventions for staff working in PCC in UK hospitals. In total, 14 of the 28 UK PCC units were involved. One hundred and four intervention sessions were run, attended by 573 individuals. Professor Shaw said: “The significance of healthcare staff wellbeing was brought to the surface during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it’s a problem that has existed far longer than that. As far as we could see researchers had focused on measuring the extent of the problem rather than coming up with possible solutions. The SWell project was initiated to understand the challenges to wellbeing when working in paediatric critical care, to determine what staff in that high-pressure environment need, and what could actually work day-to-day to make a difference. Seeing PCC staff across half the paediatric critical care units in the UK show such enthusiasm and commitment to make the SWell interventions a success has been one of the proudest experiences in my academic career to date.” The two wellbeing sessions tested are low-resource and low-intensity, and can be delivered by staff for staff without any specialist qualifications. In the session ‘Wellbeing Images’, a small group of staff is shown images representing wellbeing, with a facilitated discussion using appreciative inquiry - a way of structuring discussions to create positive change in a system or situation by focusing on what works well, rather than what is wrong. In the ‘Mad-Sad-Glad’ session, another small group reflective session, participants explore what makes them feel mad, sad and glad, and identify positive actions to resolve any issues raised. The key ingredients in both sessions are social support – providing a psychologically safe space where staff can share their sensitive experiences and emotions without judgement, providing support for each other; self-belief – boosting staff’s self-confidence and ability to identify and express their emotions in response to work; and feedback and monitoring – encouraging staff to monitor what increases their stress, when they experience challenging emotions, and what might help boost their wellbeing in those scenarios. Feedback from staff both running and participating in the SWell interventions was very positive, with high satisfaction and feasibility ratings. Participants like that the session facilitated open and honest discussions, provided opportunities to connect with colleagues and offered opportunities for generating solutions and support. One hospital staff member responsible for delivering the sessions said: “Our staff engaged really well, and it created a buzz around the unit with members of the team asking if they could be ‘swelled' on shift. A really positive experience and we are keeping it as part of our staff wellbeing package.” The team concluded that even on busy PCC units, it is feasible to deliver SWell sessions. In addition, following the sessions, staff wellbeing and depression scores improved, indicating their likely positive impact on staff. Further evaluations are needed to determine whether positive changes can be sustained over time following the SWell sessions. The work was funded by Aston University Proof of Concept Fund and NHS England. Donna Austin, an advanced critical care practitioner at University Hospital Southampton paediatric intensive care unit, said: “We were relatively new to implementing wellbeing initiatives, but we recognised the need for measures to be put in place for an improvement in staff wellbeing, as staff had described burnout, stress and poor mood. SWell has enabled our unit to become more acutely aware of the needs of the workforce and adapt what we deliver to suit the needs of the staff where possible. Staff morale and retention has been the greatest outcomes from us participating in the SWell study and ongoing SWell related interventions.” Read the paper about the SWell interventions in the journal Nursing in Critical Care at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nicc.13228. For more information about SWell, visit the website.

2 min

Expert comment available - the Government's announcement for the AI Opportunities Action Plan

Expert comment is available on the the Government's announcement for the AI Opportunities Action Plan in which it is aims to roll out AI across the UK. In a speech setting out the government's plans to use AI across the UK to boost growth and deliver services more efficiently, the Prime Minister said the government had a responsibility to make AI "work for working people". The government claims that the AI Opportunities Action Plan is backed by leading tech firms, some of which have committed £14bn towards various projects, creating 13,250 jobs. It includes plans for growth zones where development will be focused, and the technology will be used to help tackle issues such as potholes. Expert comment: "The plan is a necessary step in the right direction with appropriate investment. It should be coupled with a major training programme at business and public levels to bridge the skill gap and develop essential capabilities. "It is important to specify the role that the higher education sector will play in the delivery of such a plan particularly with regards to innovation and knowledge transfer partnerships. "The government used stated that the technology will be used to help tackle issues such as potholes, however AI should be used not only in the detection of potholes, but also in their prediction. Using predictive analytics would significantly reduce the number of cameras that must be deployed to monitor road surface conditions up and down the country." Professor Abdul Hamid Sadka, Professor of Visual Media Technologies, Director, The Sir Peter Rigby Digital Futures Institute, Aston University For further details contact Nicola Jones, Head of Press & Communications (interim) on (+44) 7825 342091 or email: n.jones6@aston.ac.uk

View all posts
Powered by