Write about the Australia Humanitarian Assistance to Myanmar Evaluation Report.
This report is about an evaluation of Australia’s humanitarian support to Myanmar. The evaluation was done by a team that comprises individuals from the Humanitarian Advisory Group, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), DFAT’s gender and social development strategist from South East Asia, and NGO’s and Partnerships Division. The purpose of the evaluation report was to determine whether the humanitarian aid given by the Australian government to Myanmar is effective, relevant, and efficient in the framework of DFAT’s priorities and strategies. The rationale for the evaluation was to provide comprehensive findings and recommendations to Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Indeed, the title of this report precisely stated the subject of the paper. The authors endeavored to explicitly evaluate Australia’s humanitarian assistance to Myanmar throughout the paper by use of different effective methodologies. The introduction of the report is very explicit and gives adequate details on the purposes of the evaluation, gives a background information on why the evaluation was to be done, and explains why the evaluation was conducted specifically to assist towards protracted areas and not to areas affected by other natural disasters such as flooding (Thomas, Boucher & Pulliam, 2015).
On the other hand, in the course of writing the introduction of the paper, the authors did not write the statements in a sequential manner. In other words, the information in the introductory part of the report did not lead coherently to the objective of the study. Instead of placing the research done within a context, the authors decided to report on a research that was not done. They reported on South East and Thai-Myanmar boarder which was not part of the evaluation. Introductory part of a report should be very precise and only give specific details on the purpose of the evaluation, the reason why the research was conducted in that specific way, and the importance of the research. (Cals & Kotz, 2013).
Due to the fieldwork nature of the report, the research methods employed in the research were qualitative. The qualitative methods used were desk reviews, key informant interviews and focus group discussions. According to Donovan (2018), this kind of research method was very important in this evaluation in that the feelings and the emotions of the respondents were able to be expressed, first hand data was obtained and analysis of all relevant documents including reports and proposals were done.
During the compilation of the report, the authors summarized a well and detailed process undertaken in conducting the research. An explanation of the materials used such as reports, what procedures were done and how they were done, were well documented. The sample size of each qualitative method of was equally documented properly. However, while reporting concerning the focus groups, essential information was left out. The report did not state or name the six communities that the people consulted came from assuming there may be more than six communities since the total number of communities in both Kachin and Rakhine states was not written in the report as well. Therefore, because of the above reasons, this particular research methodology of focus groups cannot be duplicated and same results achieved (Kotz & Cals, 2013).
All the methods used as indicated in the report had flaws. The purposive sample selection was very inadequate since it could lead to a bias. The report states that only selected partner sites could be visited. What was the rationale for selecting the partner sites? What about the other partner sites? What informed the decision undertaken of not visiting them? Could it be because of safety reasons, inaccessibility reasons? These are some of the questions that could arise in cases of perceived biasness. The report indicates that the purposive sampling strategy was employed due to scarcity of resources such as time constrains without stating satisfactory reasons why only three months was allocated for the evaluation. Why couldn’t proper planning with the relevant authorities be done to prevent such avoidable limitations? (Wilson, 2016).
With refence to humanitarian values and principles, the report only indicates that the Australian government complies with the humanitarian principles. According to OCHA, the humanitarian guiding principles are four and they include; neutrality, humanity, impatience and independence. The principles ensure establishment and maintenance of access to affected people whether in a complex emergency or a natural disaster (Gordon & Donini, 2015).
Inasmuch as the recommendations that the Australian government should increase its engagements with relevant ministries within the government of Myanmar, caution should be taken since this is direct involvement with the political affairs of the country which is against the humanitarian principles of independence. According to Van Engeland (2016), the principle of independence requires that humanitarian activities be independent from the political activities that may be showing any interest to areas where the humanitarian aid is being implemented.
The findings of the report indicated that the government of Myanmar representatives who were engaged in the evaluation process were not well conversant with the humanitarian assistance of Australia. Additionally, the report indicates that the government of Australia shares both spending and funding information to the government of Myanmar and that funding to national organizations are done indirectly through Myanmar Humanitarian Fund. Essentially, sharing the information with the government is enough and so it is upon the government to decide which relevant ministries need to be engaged with the humanitarian funds.
Therefore, the recommendation that the Australian government should increase engagement with relevant ministries in the government in relation to the humanitarian response provided is against the humanitarian principles and values (Büthe, Major & Souza, 2012). Engagements with relevant ministries within the government of Myanmar should be left entirely to the decision of Myanmar.
Cuschieri (2018), explains that in report writing, a result or data section should be included in the research paper. In this particular evaluation report, results have not been given specific focus. After outlining all the methods used in conducting the evaluation, there was need to indicate the data collected (Cuschieri, 2018). The report does not give the data collected during the desk reviews, the key informant interviews and the focus group discussions. What was the essence of conducting the evaluation if data collected is not well documented? Additionally, no statistical test was performed in the evaluation as there is no evidence of it indicated in the report.
My attention was particularly drawn to some data contained in the finding section of the report. This particular data provided very scanty information and was inappropriately placed. How did the researchers come to the conclusion that protection and education were the sectors that could form the focus of the Australian aid to the Myanmar? Where is the quantitative data to support the conclusion? How many respondents supported protection and education to be the main focus of Australian aid and how many were of the contrary opinion? What was the percentage of both opinions? The information on the data collected was mixed up with the findings section. Therefore, anybody who needs to read only the data collected section would be disadvantaged (Pushparajah & Qureshi, 2013).
Due to the inconsistencies indicated above, there was little or no data collected and so no evaluation can be done. The validity of the findings and the recommendations given in the report may as well be questioned since no evidence of the same is documented (Rhodes, 2012).
According to the report, NGOs a and other organizations were involved in the evaluation. Australian humanitarian aid works with implementing partners who are the NGO’s to achieve their strategic goals. The report indicates that nine implementing partners work with Australia and these include the World Food Program (WFP), International Community of the Red Cross (ICRC), UN Refugee Council(UNHRC), Save the Children, Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (managed by UNOCHA), United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA), Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), Danish Refugee Council (DRC), and the Oxfam. Under the subsection of key informant interviews, the report indicates that 21 representatives were interviewed. This was probably a good number to enable the evaluation conducted to achieve substantial results.
However, the data or the responses of the implementing partners were not documented. The data only appears insufficiently under the findings section. This report did not indicate any responses by the partners in a logical manner, but the report only discussed in the findings section what the partners had recommended. How do we understand the recommendation without first understanding the challenges posed by the partners? Furthermore, the data does not give responses obtained from the interviews of all the implementing partners assuming that all the partners were involved in the key informant interviews (Hogue, 2012). Incase not all the partners were interviewed, then it is only appropriate that the information be written down with viable reasons to avoid any cases of bias misconception.
With reference to the above, it is possible to conclude that not all partners of the humanitarian assistance provided by Australia were involved in the evaluation since no data is available to substantiate it. The report would have also documented the fact that not all the partners were involved in the evaluation in order to avoid any conclusions and recommendations that may appear biased (Cook, Hart, Kinney & Oler, 2014).
The report evaluated the actions of the humanitarian aid by focusing on the thematic areas which involve the strategic focus, policy priority, and national and local leadership while an overview of the range of sectors that are supported by the humanitarian program was used to evaluate the achievements. The report showed all the achievements gained by the humanitarian support across a variety of sectors which included; WASH, protection, food security, shelter, education, livelihoods, and health. Numerical values and percentages were also used to determine the exact proportion of individuals reached by the Australian Humanitarian Assistance program (Knottnerus & Tugwell, 2013).
However, this data given may not be validated since there are no evidences to show it. How was the conclusion arrived at? Where was the investigations done? Who or what provided the values? The report does not indicate or discuss any available data to show that there were any achievements to be documented. This leads us to question ourselves whether evaluation of the achievements was really done.
With regards to the actions by the humanitarian assistance, the report clearly states the actions in reference to each thematic area. This was a very well organization which was simple to follow through. Inasmuch as the report was discussing the findings in each theme, there was a mix up of information. Instead of the report focusing on discussing the data collected, the report also included the data collected in this section. This interrupted the logical flow of the discussions and was confusing. In other words, the information on the data collected needs to be documented separately and appropriately, and discussions of the results documented coherently without interruption of the flow (Saper, 2014).
With reference to the above, it is possible to conclude that the criteria for evaluating the report was in line with the Australia’s Humanitarian Assistance themes and the range of the sectors funded. However, the report was not well organized because the data collected only appeared in the findings and discussion section and interrupted the logical flow of information. The data collected required to be documented separately after the methodology section (Sen, 2014).
How evaluation approach differed from that suggested by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies framework and any concerns
According to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies framework, the evaluation reporting should follow the procedure outlined in the framework. The reporting need to logically flow and be structured coherently. The data ought to be presented and analyzed and interpreted systematically with evidence supporting the recommendations and conclusions. The framework also explains that the evaluation reporting should explain the methods used in the evaluation as well as the techniques used for data collection, analysis and management. Any assumptions made in the course of the evaluation should also be included in the report (Vande veegaete, Borra, De Buck & Vandekerckhove, 2016).
Some aspects in the approach undertaken to report the evaluation differed with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies framework. The presentation of the data collected was not logically shown and no or minimum analysis was done. The data presentation was mixed up with the findings sections and hence disrupted the logical flow of the discussion. The report evaluation did not indicate any evidence used to support the conclusions and the recommendations hence the validity and adequacy of the statements is questionable. The approach also differed in that the requirement to explain all techniques used in data collection and data analysis was not documented (“International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies”, 2010).
Due to the differences in the approaches contained in the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies framework, serious concerns are unavoidable. Of much concern is the validity of the evaluation because there are not evidences and sources documented to support the conclusions and the recommendations. The absence of the data collection techniques also poses serious concerns as to whether the research was really undertaken. Therefore, absence of evidences and resources, and data collection techniques may form a basis to reject the paper as inadequate and invalid.
According to the report, health is not a focus to Australia’s Humanitarian Assistance to Myanmar. The report only indicates that Australia has supported 15 hospitals and has contributed to reaching more than 180,000 individuals through mobile clinics. This was an applaudable achievement by the government of Australia in response to protracted crisis. However, the report does not indicate where the information was retrieved. There cannot be assumption that the audience knows the source of the information if it has not been documented. Writing down a concluding statement in a research with authenticity but without proper evidence is considered null and void. The report also indicates that 12% of the funding was directed to the health sector. How true is the figure? Where is the evidence? Where is the data collected concerning the amount of funding channeled to the health sector? The report ought to have supported the figures with proper evidence (Lee, Johnson, Newhouse & Warren, 2013).
Throughout the report, the issue of health has not been mentioned while the achievements indicate a significant number of people reached by the mobile clinics and the hospitals supported by the humanitarian aid. This in turn rises many questions and concerns and confusions. If achievements of the humanitarian help were part of the evaluation, then proper documentation and evidence of the same needed to be included in the report (Salmond, 2013).
Evidence is very crucial in writing a research or evaluation report. Evidence gives the report authenticity and prevents any doubts concerning the conclusions drawn. In this report, almost all the findings were not based on evidence. Right from the introduction section, the report gives a background information of the humanitarian assistance, and the background of the areas being evaluated. However, there is no evidence attached to both the background information (Beech, 2014). How is the audience to be sure and verify whether that all the information is valid?
Moving on to the findings, the information given was not based on any evidence. There was no mention of data collected after carrying out the desk reviews, the interviews and the focus group discussions. The report indicates the findings by showing the achievements of the humanitarian funding without any supporting evidence. How does the audience verify the validity of the achievements? Which documents were used to arrive at such conclusions? Is there any written source collected to validate the relevance of the achievements? In such instances where evidence to support a claim is absent, the report or the evaluation may be considered as not true.
In the findings concerning the policy themes of strategic focus, geographical and sectoral focus, and the national and local leadership focus, the report gives information too without any evidence. The only evidence that report refers to is the interviews. How was the recommendation arrived at? Has that recommendation ever been tested elsewhere and has it worked? Is there any written document to support the findings? From the entire evaluation report, there is no evidence noted down to support the arguments. The report has relied entirely on the desk reviews, key informant interviews, and focus groups interviews. The evaluation needed to have validated all their findings with scholarly materials as evidence as this would put more weight in the recommendations. To conclude, the findings of the report are not appropriate since there is no evidence shown to support the findings (Florczak, 2016).
References
Beech, B. (2014). Answering the Call. Family & Community Health, 37(2), 102-103. doi: 10.1097/fch.0000000000000023
Büthe, T., Major, S., & Souza, A. (2012). The Politics of Private Foreign Aid: Humanitarian Principles, Economic Development Objectives, and Organizational Interests in NGO Private Aid Allocation. International Organization, 66(04), 571-607. doi: 10.1017/s0020818312000252
Cals, J., & Kotz, D. (2013). Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part III: introduction. Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(7), 702. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.004
Cook, K., Hart, M., Kinney, M., & Oler, D. (2014). How to Discuss a Paper. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2388922
Cuschieri, S. (2018). WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Understanding research metrics. Early Human Development, 118, 67-71. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.01.015
Donovan, S. (2018). Reflective Practice: Eight Stages of Publishing a Scientific Research Paper. Publications, 6(1), 8. doi: 10.3390/publications6010008
Florczak, K. (2016). Evidence-Based Practice. Nursing Science Quarterly, 29(2), 108-112. doi: 10.1177/0894318416630096
Gordon, S., & Donini, A. (2015). Romancing principles and human rights: Are humanitarian principles salvageable?. International Review Of The Red Cross, 97(897-898), 77-109. doi: 10.1017/s1816383115000727
Hogue, C. (2012). Results. How To Write A Paper, 22-28. doi: 10.1002/9781118488713.ch4
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2010). Choice Reviews Online, 47(11), 47-6330-47-6330. doi: 10.5860/choice.47-6330
Knottnerus, J., & Tugwell, P. (2013). How to write a research paper. Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(4), 353-354. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.007
Kotz, D., & Cals, J. (2013). Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part IV: methods. Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8), 817. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.003
Lee, M., Johnson, K., Newhouse, R., & Warren, J. (2013). Evidence-Based Practice Process Quality Assessment: EPQA Guidelines. Worldviews On Evidence-Based Nursing, 10(3), 140-149. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00264.x
Pushparajah, K., & Qureshi, S. (2013). How to write a good scientific research paper and get it published. Indian Journal Of Thoracic And Cardiovascular Surgery, 29(1), 10-13. doi: 10.1007/s12055-013-0194-4
Rhodes, M. (2012). How to undertake a research project and write a scientific paper. The Annals Of The Royal College Of Surgeons Of England, 94(5), 297-299. doi: 10.1308/003588412×13171221590331
Salmond, S. (2013). Finding the Evidence to Support Evidence-Based Practice. Orthopaedic Nursing, 32(1), 16-22. doi: 10.1097/nor.0b013e31827d960b
Saper, C. (2014). Academic publishing, part III: How to write a research paper (so that it will be accepted) in a high-quality journal. Annals Of Neurology, 77(1), 8-12. doi: 10.1002/ana.24317
Sen, G. (2014). Clues for writing a good research paper. Journal Of Oral And Maxillofacial Radiology, 2(2), 39. doi: 10.4103/2321-3841.138629
Thomas, A., Boucher, M., & Pulliam, C. (2015). Qualitative to Quantitative and Spectrum to Report: An Instrument-Focused Research Methods Course for First-Year Students. Journal Of Chemical Education, 92(3), 439-443. doi: 10.1021/ed5007019
Van Engeland, A. (2016). Contextualisation of Humanitarian Assistance and its Shortcomings in International Human Rights Law. Israel Law Review, 49(02), 169-195. doi: 10.1017/s0021223716000054
Vande veegaete, A., Borra, V., De Buck, E., & Vandekerckhove, P. (2016). Guidelines of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies: an overview and quality appraisal using AGREE II. BMJ Open, 6(9), e011744. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011744
Wilson, V. (2016). Research Methods: Scoping Studies. Evidence Based Library And Information Practice, 11(1(S), 75. doi: 10.18438/b8tk83
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download