 So, in terms of questions, you can pose questions on the Twitter hashtag that we have been using for the entire series, are for numerical 4D series, are for D series on Twitter, or by emailing us directly at research at source.ac.uk, research at source.ac.uk. And Alex will be noting down all the questions and the comments to make sure we don't miss any. So today's webinar is part of the series Research for Development that was set up by Oxford and Suez late last year to more systematically interrogate ethical and practical questions that emerge in development oriented research, by the colonial reflexivity and primarily motivated by the emergence of funds such as the Global Challenges Research Fund and the Newton Fund that seem to have bridged, you know, development practice with development research. And, you know, we recognize the hierarchies that have existed in knowledge production and the material asymmetries in research development and funding. So we wanted to set up this session in particular and have a more critical and reflective discussion on the concept of safeguarding, but what it means to deploy it and use it internationally. And, you know, what would be the most appropriate approaches to safeguarding internationally and especially in low and middle income countries who have tended to be at the receiving end of international development theory. Safeguarding usually refers to provisions for the protection of children and groups who are considered vulnerable to sexual abuse and other forms of exploitation. And it is undoubtedly the product of, you know, issues sexual abuse and exploitation problems that have faced the NGO humanitarian and peace building sector in particular. And it became especially salient in 2018 with the with the Oxfam Haiti scandal, and it triggered I believe a sector wide sort of response to revamp or rethink the way in which the sector deals with allegations of sexual abuse. As such, it's not a concept that has been used in most low and middle income countries that are targeted, you know, in these development programs. But it is increasingly becoming a standard criterion for international development ethics and good practice. You know, it is being used by funding bodies NGOs academic institutions, different in particular the international development department in the UK has been particularly influential in promoting safeguarding. There was a summit in 2018 when commitments were made by these different groups and sectors to really promote safeguarding objectives within organizations. And I think the, the penetration of safeguarding in academic and higher education institutions has been accelerated again by the GCF fund and the Newton fund, and other audio related funding. So obviously there are multiple ethical questions that we're having at this point, which is I believe is an important point of how we use this concept and and how we move forward. You know, given its historical roots, one might fear that again transposing it internationally as a standard could replicate unintentionally you know the existing historical top down colonial tendencies in this field whereby western countries again tell other mighty countries how they should do things. And so I think it is an imperative at this time to ensure that local researchers stakeholders and communities to the extent possible are involved in discussing safeguarding what it means and how what it should translate into practice in their local context. And I've also observed that the current definitions of safeguarding have increasingly subsumed ethical issues and issues of, you know, material inequalities and research practice which we have tried to address as part of our research reflexivity work, which again seems to raise a question of, you know, where do we draw the line between safeguarding and ethical issues, and how, without reducing the one into the other and losing, you know, the importance of each. And, you know, how should universities in particular deal with safeguarding without ending up taking a checklist approach which oftentimes happens when we respond to fund the requirements. So in this vein, you know, we wanted to apply critical lens to the conversation by taking a closer look at what harm means what vulnerability means how we can conceptualize those and explore how researchers working internationally. I can better protect children and other groups in the context they work in and then look at the implications of the pandemic for these discussions. We have a highly informed and diverse panel to pursue these objectives today. We have with us, Dr. Kweku Akon, a human development advisor at DFID. His portfolio includes looking into safeguarding issues, primarily in the health sector of international development. He previously worked as a senior health advisor with international medical course UK as health advisor for Merlin UK and held various international positions with MSF. He has extensive knowledge and experience in international development and global health through his work, which funds more than 20 countries, mainly in the global south, and over 18 years experience in the eighth sector so Kweku, it is lovely to have you today and hear your thoughts. Thank you very much, Romina, and very, very glad to be part of this important discussion. Thank you so much. I'm going to introduce the other speakers and then I'll return to you quick. Is that okay? All right, that's fine. Lovely. Thank you so much. We also have Dr. Leona Von. Leona, did I pronounce that well? Yes, great. Hello, under the slavery and unfree labor research theme at the University of Liverpool, her work focuses on anti-colonial methods and methodologies which center minoritized groups in research, including safeguarding in research practice. She's also research director and co-author of the UK collaborative development research or UK CDR, safeguarding guidance in international research and report. Leona, it's a pleasure to have you. Thank you for finding the time. We look forward to hearing your presentation. Thank you for having me. Thank you, Leona. And next we have, we're delighted to have Professor Alex Canimba, who is joining us from Namibia currently. He's associate professor and deputy director at the Center for Research and Publications at the University of Namibia. He recently visited us, in fact, as a storm fellow, which aimed to promote mutual learning and capacity building and research development across institutions internationally. And he also was a speaker at our event last year, which applied to the colonial lens to research practice and funding. So Alex, it's great to reunite with you almost a year later. Yes, thanks. Thank you so much for the invitation to the event and thanks for having me. I tried to reconnect with you at a previous event and it didn't work. I was just a little bit later. Yes, actually it was just, I don't know, maybe some of these errors of internet connections and so forth, but I could, I could, I would, I could see you that time, just that you didn't recognize that I was there. Oh, I'm so sorry. It's the technicalities. We're still trying to navigate the virtual world. And I'm not very good at it. Thank you. So good to have you Alex. And last but certainly not least, we have our dedicated governance and ethics officer who has been advising us also on issues of safeguarding Khalid Hassan. Khalid has supported so as some research ethics and issues of governance since August 2018. He previously had a decade, a decade accumulated experience working at the civil servants in the legal aid agency of the Ministry of Justice. He's a truly informative interlocutor in the more legal aspects of safeguarding. I'm truly pleased to have Khalid join us with us. Khalid, thank you for being here today. We've tried to get you many times before. Most welcome. Very kind. So good. Lovely. So I'll jump into the conversation and I'll start with quick with that's okay. So quick, who did it has been key in promoting safeguarding protocols, you know, with the summit in 2018 and the commitments that different and other organizations made. So I'll give you a bit of how different understands, you know, vulnerable groups and harm, and what preventing harm means in the sector. And what how has different engaged with existing legal frameworks in the countries you work with because obviously there are diverse policies in place and and you know that alignment hasn't happened necessarily. Yes, thank you, Romina. And once again, thanks for having me and yeah, good afternoon to everyone listening online, wherever you are or good morning or good evening. Now, a couple of remarks with with with different and safeguarding. So as most of you may be aware. There was this if you like attention drawn to the issue of safeguarding and I'll come to what safeguarding means in a minute. In true report that we had in beginning of 2018 of what happened in Haiti and other locations. However, it must be said that issues of if you like sexual abuse and exploitation in the a sector has been going on for years and years now. And there have been like various attempt to try to address it. 2018 when it came out in the press, it's it was quite difficult because the some of the key actors involved where if you like dietly being funded by different and if you like key partners to different so it was quite a big issue in the press. So at a time different made a conscious F on that. Okay, this is that thing if you like a time to really look at this. If you look at the issues in the sector and try to stop it out because of course, if you have this issues it affects everybody. It affects everybody right from the survivor through to the committee in general that we are trying to support through to the, if you like the credibility of the of the a sector as a whole. So it's something that as a sector, I think at that time everybody agreed that yes, I think we need to do something very concrete and specific in addressing the times. The difference in investment into it and then some of the things you alluded to about the about the if you like the summit that we we undertook and then if you like others making commitment, etc. So, at the back of that different, we took the if you like the word safeguarding. Now, safeguarding means a lot of things to a lot of people. Okay, here in the UK safeguarding started as if you like safeguarding children as part of protecting the children, children's protected to this art, etc. So, but in the in the broader sense for David, it's mainly if you like, as you mentioned Romina, preventing harm from happening. And that harm could be if you like to to people or also to the environment. Okay, now the safeguarding here we are talking about for David at the back of what happened 2018 begin of 2018 David form what we call the safeguarding unit. And then that you need our main remit is addressing safeguarding around sexual exploitation and sexual abuse and harassment. So, every time you hear different when this topic comes up, or even me right now if you hear me use the safeguarding is primarily referring to sexual exploitation and sexual harassment. Okay, so, but then of course, even that is quite different for different organizations. You use different terms like misconduct or issues as you rightly put Romina. So, sometimes there's a little bit of if you like on clarity around some of the terms and some of the definitions. And how does that this, how do distance relate to if you like the populations and communities that we try to help. So, I've been in places whereby you talk about safeguarding and sexual harassment and it sounds like it's like a foreign definition. But then when you sit with communities and you talk about it, and then you put it in a language that they understand said of course it's a problem. Because nobody wants to be touched, if they don't want to be touched, whether the person is sitting in, in, in the UK or sitting in South Sudan. But then the technology around this might be different. So therefore looking at it from that angle. Those in the position of if you like working in these communities like different and other organizations in trying to address this problem in the sector, we need to be very, very mindful of what it means for the local people look up or places. And what it means for somebody sitting here in London and try to bridge that, if you like, many language, I will not say knowledge, because it's not about knowledge because if you sit with the communities and you describe what we mean by safeguarding or misconduct then it becomes very clear what, what it is about. And of course, we also have to take into account the social environment in these communities. Okay. So for example, you have communities whereby let's say you have early child marriages whereby children as young as 14 are married off to two men as old as their grandfather, for example. And in such environment addressing just your exploitation becomes difficult because where do you draw the line. And then in that, in that sense, as you rightly put it, the environment in that community becomes very difficult for organizations like David or others working to try to address this problem. Where do you address this problem. And if you like engaging local authorities, local communities is quite important in that process. And as you said, in your opening remarks Romina, we have a completed bridge that gap yet. However, for organizations like David, we, as much as we would like to break that space between, if you like, international standards and look at what is happening locally, we still need to plan on, we still need to make the effort to try to resolve the issue. Therefore, David, we did approach of using international standards and using international definitions. Okay. So for example, age of consent. Okay. We are different. We use the international definition of age of consent, which is 18 years or below, or anybody below 18 years. If we have to do it. According to the local standard, it's cool work, but not to take a lot of work, which we are still continuing to do, etc. Even in the UK here, the age of consent is 16 years, but still different. We still maintain that we are using the international definition from the UN, which is the United Nations to try to work our way through this complex issues. So in as much as you could say that for some of the communities, some of the discussion may sound like Western. Once you bridge the language and try to bring it down to the local way of looking at this, then it becomes very clear that yeah, nobody wants to be taught whether they are in a camping Lebanon, or they are in Namibia, or they are in Norway. No one wants to be touched if they are not ready to be touched. It's as simple as that. And we in the age sector, we should try as much as possible. Taking into account if you like the international standards and look dynamics, we should try to avoid distance happening in the age sector. And then my last point I'll touch on before I'll hand over you touch on vulnerabilities. Okay, so who is vulnerable. Okay. And this this little debate, but for me, it's more like a discussion that's been going on for some time now. So, in some circles you hear that all women are vulnerable. And then I will have any discussions whereby the women then they say why do you say I'm vulnerable. I'm not vulnerable. Who say a woman is vulnerable. Yes, exactly. So, the fact that you are a woman doesn't make it as vulnerable. However, the environment you find yourself in that may put you at a disadvantage. And then that disadvantage becomes a vulnerability. So, therefore, we need to be very, if you like, cognizant or some of the ways we use and who decide who is vulnerable. As some of your point, I'm sure other panellists will touch on this who decide who is vulnerable. So, for example, internationally is a greater for example, children in court are vulnerable. Why? Because children have no agency. They are just children so they need protection. But then when it comes to adults, for example, if you say that in some circumstances, someone who is displaced is vulnerable. Why are they vulnerable? Because they are in the position of disadvantage and that disadvantage is vulnerable. So who decides that well, you could argue that, okay, those of us working in the age sector trying to help these groups may want to define and then through that definition, try to channel where the scarce resources should go. But once again, it is a process, in my opinion, which will be done together with the local authorities. In the age sector, we hear a lot of assessment, assessment, assessment. That assessment should also look at what, if you like, where the most, the most need is, and then through that kind of equitable distribution or distribution of the resources, that will be fair. Now, if in that process, we come to a conclusion that, for example, people with disabilities who are displaced are the most indeed and therefore in court get the label as the most vulnerable. Then for me, as far as they get the support they need, then I wouldn't be bogged down about the term vulnerable or vulnerable. You know what I mean. So as long as the process of getting to that point is done in the right way and the resources for those that are in that needy position are getting to that, to those people. For me, that is all it is about. It's about we are trying to support people who are in, if you like, less fortunate position than us. Thank you. Thank you so much. We have to be conscious of time but you know we were listening so carefully to all your points because I think you contextualize the matter very well. I just pointed to a very important issue that it's not about not being committed to protecting well-being and people's integrity wherever they are, whoever they are. It's how we do it is the process right and I think you spoke about the translation process not in terms of linguistic translation only but conceptual translation. So how can we convey to our interlocutors in LMIC in any context that is not necessarily our context, what we mean, and then how do we ensure that we get to a definition that everyone resonates with. So it's not our definition, but it's also the different. It's something that everyone contributes to I guess. Nice segue to Leona, who is our next speaker. Quick, would you stay on the line because we do have a Q&A at the end. So Leona, obviously you were part of the UTCDR guidance which has has been very influential. I think people have been using it very, very useful in this conversation. So I think I should just briefly mention that this was a co-authored and co-produced right. It was the result of an international consultation led by the delivery team at the University of Liverpool and I would like to acknowledge the of course, Professor Alex Bolch, Dr. Sureka Garimella, Dr. Bintu Mansaray, Linnea Renton, MPH, Adriana Smith MPH, and of course you Leona. And you know I'd like to acknowledge everyone because I wish we could have everyone here, but here today's spokesperson. So Leona, you know I put some questions to you earlier of you know how the sort of the insights of the guidance in having those consultations and again about the concept and how people understand it, especially around the concept of harm. And I know you have slides. So do you want me to put up the slide? Not just yet. I think what I'll just do is just give everyone a brief background as well to myself and the actual consultation if that's okay, Romina. So I think it's important for me to outline sort of my researcher positionality in terms of how I approach safeguarding and risk. And you know echo in what Quaker has said you know safeguarding is primarily a Western concept, a Western term. Although it's not in terms of the practice, but the terminology the language is very much Western. And in the UK in particular which my background, my research background has been in, it's very much focused on compliance and his policy and process driven. So rather than a way of working, which is what the UK CDR guidance and report really advocates for safeguarding within the UK context is very much a different thing. And I think the other problematic aspect to safeguarding is that quite often it tries to prioritize risk prevention as if it can be guaranteed rather than risk mitigation and anticipation and trying to address risk. And sometimes that can come across as quite pathologizing because from my perspective in terms of risk and the power to define risk, it is riddled with preconceptions and it is racialized and it is gendered and it is classed and it is all of those things. So I think the other aspect as well to flag up is that victims and survivors of safeguarding problems are very often not centralized in the frameworks to address them. So that was something that was uppermost in my mind. And like I said before there is the colonial logic to risk in terms of it's a way of other in and controlling and imposing our own standards on others. So with all of those things in mind, when I put together the proposal to UK CDR to undertake that work, it was very much on the basis of the way that we did the research would be would also be as just as important as what we found. And that's why the collaboration and the partnerships with co researchers within the global south was really, really important and really central to the work that we did. So that just sort of gives context and I think the first slide for me that really is talking about harm. And like as already being said you know safeguarding is not just about protecting children and those thoughts are both assumed to be vulnerable. It's actually about the avoidance of harm. And again, you know, sort of it's not a guaranteed thing we cannot avoid all harm, but we can certainly consider it anticipate it plan for it and put in things in place to respond to it appropriately, but also to try and mitigate harms that maybe we have no control over. So it should, in this circumstance, I don't know whether you want to share the screen that it should consider the rights of participants of researchers and wider communities to not be harmed by research or through the research process. And that very much is that is what we centered on in terms of making sure that people understood that when we talked about harm, we weren't just talking about sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment, which had been the priority that we were also talking about the broader forms of violence, exploitation and abuse, which can include many things including bullying and physical violence, but also structural and symbolic harm and violence, including financial exploitation. So that was a very important aspect of the work. So, but even with the things that maybe seem more, more direct, more, more sort of clear course like sexual exploitation and abuse and harassment. There is obviously still nuance to this in terms of consensual sexual relationship dynamics between junior and senior researchers or researchers and participants once research is over. So the point is it's about the power dynamic within these situations. So, like I say, in terms of structural and symbolic violence, we very much wanted to make sure that that was within our understanding of safeguarding. And so that the actions that can cause harm, but can't always be personalized in terms of responsibility or can't always be seen. Just as important as things that can be personalized and responsible within the research process. And just to sort of, as a reminder, the guidance that we rose for the research councils and research institutions based in the UK but operation internationally. So if I just move on to the next screen. We deconstructed the draft principles that UK CDR has originally put together through David or and his team in 2018 for the survey for the very reasons that we talked about in terms of safeguarding being a term, a form of language that isn't widely understood. But we also wanted to drill down in terms of what were the issues about praxis. So we undertook a survey of researchers internationally. We interviewed we surveyed 555 respondents from all over the world and that that diagram there gives an idea of where people were from we were really pleased that we got quite a really, you know, a decent response from the global south. And I think that part of that was the fact that we undertook the survey in English, Spanish and French. So that that survey was was really important in terms of we got a good volume of feedback and feedback from people who were operating in a variety of settings. So not only civil society and organizations who often research partners or research gatekeepers and NGOs research institutions, but across a wide variety of locations of lower and middle income countries. So in addition to that survey we undertook 15 key informant interviews in West Africa, South Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. And they were undertaken by our research partners in those regions. And we also undertook some group discussions at events in Ghana, in Kenya, Tanzania and the UK. And I think it's important as well to acknowledge here that we adapted the phrase preventing and addressing harm in international research, rather than safeguarding to reflect the fact that, you know, safeguarding has little meaning in other languages and contexts. And just as an example, in the next slide. This was born out by what we found. So this is just a quote from one of the respondents that the term doesn't translate well into Arabic. It means something like providing a financial guarantee. And so in their practice, they talk more about respecting and taking care of each other rather than listing the various types of harm that it's possible to inflict. And this word clouds as well just shows how many different terms that people said that they used instead of safeguarding. So we can see that safeguarding encompasses a huge variety of practice. So it's not that it's not happening within lower and middle income countries. It's just that the term was not one that was being used. And if we just move on to the next slide as well, I think that. So I think that sorry, what I wanted to say there is also about how risk can be ethnocentrically imagined. So, you know, it's not always from the perspective of the people who could be harmed. It's usually from the perspective of the people who are trying to impose something to stop harm from happening. And when that's a UK and an international dynamic, then that is obviously riddled with power dynamics and particular standpoint issues. So these were some of the things that researchers came up with as alternatives for safeguarding. And the most popular was participant protection. But again, you know, it just speaks to the fact that there's a lot of different terminologies that are being used right across. Not only the global north, but also the global south in terms of actions to prevent and address harm. So our position was very much that risk, harm and vulnerability should be self-identified. It should be self-determined right throughout the process of anticipating, mitigating and addressing real and potential harm in research and not imposed from the outside or through a Western lens. And the four guiding principles that we developed, which is on the next slide, Romina, capture the feedback from participants in terms of how they think safeguarding should be done. So it should be underpinned by the right of survivors and whistleblowers and victims. It should be underpinned by equity and fairness, transparency, accountability and good governance. But what we also did within the guidance was that we broke down safeguarding into three main areas for action. So that's okay, Romina, as the previous slide, that's fine. And within that advocating for a victim-survivor-centres approach, is that researchers, participants and wider communities were perceived as all of them as potential victims. So there was no idea or hierarchy about vulnerability. It is thinking about the potentiality of harm. And we tasked everyone within the research process to be proactive. And I think that just the little quote that is next to that in terms of preventing means avoiding. And in order to avoid, you have to be able to anticipate and you can't see something that you don't have the mindset for. That was someone within the Latin American region who was talking about, actually, if you don't understand the risks that we face, how can you even possibly try to prevent them? Is that okay? Oh, yes. Is this the end? Yeah, this is just for the length of part of the discussion. Lovely. Okay. I can put it aside. Lovely. So we're back to our speakers. That was fascinating. I was nodding all throughout. Thank you so much, Leona, for really taking us through that journey. And I truly appreciate that because I've had this debate with myself. You know, you don't, you don't want to promote a narrative and you don't want to be, you don't want to work for organizations that you know are implicated in these hierarchies. But if you don't work with these organizations, you can't change practice. You can't, you know, I've been in this sector, so I have the same sort of struggles within myself. So thank you so much for doing that because I think it was well done, inclusive to the extent possible, given the circumstances. And we'll go back to that. I'm, I think, I'm actually, I think you raised some really interesting points again about these different definitions and understandings. And evidently there are, people are taking measures to protect and to prevent harm. And I'd like to invite Alex Canimba, who is joining us from Namibia, to tell us a bit, Alex, you know, you're obviously involved with the university and I wonder if you have something in place in the university for foreign researchers and local researchers when they go into communities. And also how you see this concept from your positionality, from where you're located. I'd like to hear your thoughts generally on everything we've said so far. Okay, you want me to put to. I can put the slides. Would you like me to? Yeah, it's actually ideal if I can go through my slides. Lovely. So I'll just send you the right ones. Yes, I have them. They are, they should be showing soon. Can you see them? Yeah, that's actually the right one. Yes. And that's actually me. I'm an associate professor of education for sustainable development at the University of Namibia and deputy director at the center for research and publication. We can go to the next one. This is actually what I'm going to talk about in there in my presentation, those points. And then we go to, we can go to the next one because, okay, this is the definition which I've actually borrowed from you because we don't have that definition in our research ethics policy. So of course I've just taken from you and then but somehow it's captured. If you go to the next slide, I'll show you that it's a new concept to us. But in one or another, it's captured in our research ethics policy. When I was going through my research ethics policy, I saw in guideline 11 where it says the investors together must must must secure safeguards of the confidentiality of participants research data. This is actually how it's just in passing, not actually in detail. And we actually, Namibia has got a one, we have got this special groups of people that is over him and also the son, who actually are refusing to change. And this has been the source of international attraction for researchers. And then the health wise, the okay, they are not westernized, but a lot of researchers have been coming to do a research in the study on the of a him by including the children, and they are relatively healthy compared to all the other, you know, and they live longer, or other and a median people. So this, this is actually one of the areas where we have been experiencing difficulties with the international researchers in Namibia. So we can we can move on to the next one. So why we put in place as self guarding in one or another, and we consider children as a vulnerable group and the needs of guiding because of the development developmental age, they may like ability to understand concepts. They are the authority of others, parents, guardians and teachers, they can be easily coerced, and they are not may not relatively, or absolutely incapable of protecting their own interest. So this is actually why we consider them to be a vulnerable group and they need our protections at the through research the invest of Namibia we let's move to the next one. So they are vulnerable. And we understand is that an ability to provide informed or for interconsent exposure to something which can cause injury or undesirable. We can be exposed to attack. They may in care, social, economic, legal, psychological and physical harm. So this will because of that we consider them to be vulnerable and they need a safeguarding. We will we can move to the next one. Next slide. This is our model that we use. We actually base our ethical review process through this concept called utilitarianism, which is a theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes is the type of consequentialism utilitarianism because that the most ethical study is the one that will produce the extreme good for the greatest number of the children simply stated, the benefits for the study must outweigh the risks. So this we base our ethical review on on that important concept and we can move on to the other slides. So when we our we do the research at the ethical review process we follow some of these international, you know, documents and guidelines. The medical record, the Helsinki development report, the National Institute of Health, you go on to the next one and I'm sure you are familiar with these ones. Then the World Health Organization's operational guidelines for ethics for ethics committees that review biomedical research, the cancer for international organization of medical sciences, international ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. These are the international documents that we look at when we undertake the review. The next slide. And so specifically to children. There are some of these regulations that we put in place. That is now the CFR-46 subparts A and D. And then the other one is CFR-50 and 56 as it relates to children. And there's also the NIH policy and guidelines on the inclusion of children as participants in research. The special protections for children as research subjects. So we brought some of the ideas from these regulations as we undertake the ethical review process for the researchers at the University of Namibia and those who participate, you know, involved in some kind of a, you know, bilateral partnership with the University of Namibia researchers. We move to the next one. In terms of the national guidelines at the University, we ensure that researchers that come in Namibia must register with the National Commission for Research Science and Technology. We ensure that there is a memorandum of understanding, specifying the patents, the IPs, the benefits sharing, etc. And then the material transfer agreement, because we've got this problem of, you know, taking saliva, blood samples to Europe, and, you know, in some other, even plant, plant material. So we, there must be these are the researchers need to comply to the material transfer agreements and also the access benefit agreements where the, you know, the members of the community, including the children should actually benefit from that particular study in one or another. And the committee system that we put in place at the University, we have these four, actually five, there's HREC-NH, which is a Human Research Ethics, Non-Health. So that is now high-risk studies involving children. And then we have Human Research Ethics Committee, Health Related Studies, that high-risk studies involving children. We've got ad hoc research ethics committee that's a low-risk studies. This committee is not allowed to review studies that involve children, because we consider that the level of training for that committee is not as very high compared to the phase two. Okay, the ARAC is about the animals, and then the ARAC is about the environment and the engineering research ethics committee. So we put these in place in order to ensure, you know, the principle of safeguarding, which is guideline 11 in our policy. If you go on to the next slide, some of the aspects that we consider is assent and the child's indications. Assent means that the child's legal representative or the guardian or the parent must actually understand what is going to happen to the child. I must understand whether the child can agree or not agree from the study and the language is appropriate, that is going to be used, and so forth. And of course, and then the child, the legal representative or the child must give an assent, might authorize that the child can participate in the study, and we refer to that concept of assent. Then inform the consent, that's where we have the child also signing, and of course, you know, the guardian also signing to ensure that the child is participating in the study and they should understand what is expected of the child, and whether the child has got the knowledge to participate in such kind of study. So with the child protection and well-being, that in one or another, the child must be protected during the study, what kind of assistance should be given to the child as he is participating in the study, whether the child can withdraw, or if the study is becoming too complicated, the study, the child must, the study should be suspended. Okay, and of course, the minimum risks or harm. Of course, the idea is that the study is how the speakers have mentioned that it should possess no more than minimal risks, of course there'll be risks for participating in the study. So, actually the researchers should ensure the researchers are charged with their responsibility to ensure that the risks to the child are minimal. And then, of course, the last point is that after the study, the issue of data processing the data, the data protection laws, and then information about research results, so that the issue of agreeing that maybe pseudonyms or false names should actually be published in the particular study. So that confidentiality aspect is very much important during the publication. Because it's required that at one point the researchers must come back to the research participants to share the actual results of the study so that what was promised during the data collection is actually adhered to. So in short, these are some of the important ethical considerations that we normally look at when a study is enacted through the University of Namibia in partnership with the other researchers from other countries. And my last slide is about the implications for UK discussions on self-guarding. It's always actually important to identify groups whose participation in the study may require additional protection. There is a need to develop and recommend mechanisms to ensure that vulnerable populations are appropriately included and protected in the research. The training requirements is very important for our reviewers so that they have to look at some of the things that the researchers should do, observe when they are collecting data. And we also recommend that the research officers, like I come from the office, our office is responsible for ethical clearance and part of the problem that we often encounter is that we often come at the end of the research cycle. You know, when the research is about to take off, that's when we are being approached to assist with the review. So we recommend that we should get involved as early as possible. In terms of the funders, the Euro American funders, sometimes, you know, researchers come, especially internationally from these advanced countries, and, you know, they will transfer genetic material. They will access the live bloods and plants without, you know, grimmings. So, of course, some of those who are in the funders, the funders need to take that into account because it's usually the source of confrontation. And the other issue is this one of, in terms of benefits, because, you know, the borders of Africa, you know, you just cut, you know, the Berlin conference is the one that cut the borders in Africa, and they were cutting people who are related. So for example, in Southern Africa, you find the Sun people in South Africa, in Botswana, in Namibia, but where there was a study that was done, but the Sun is only the Sun people in South Africa who is benefiting from the knowledge of the Sun people, because there's actually one of these plant material which helps prevent obesity. And there's huge amounts of money that is actually collecting internationally, but who is benefiting from that? It's only the Sun people in South Africa. So the Sun people in Botswana, they don't benefit, and those in Namibia are not benefiting. So actually this need to be ensured because it's actually a source of conflict. We need a moment, maybe it's still under discussion. So the last point is Euro-American funders to ensure adherence to national guidelines for research on vulnerable populations. And I think Leona mentioned it, that this financial exploitation, especially in our context, where some of the researchers just go directly to the study population and give them a small incentive, a small amount of money in exchange for information from them. So it's actually important that when researchers are coming to Africa, really national guidelines should be taken into account so that the conflicts are minimized, harm is minimized. Thank you so much. That was my last slide. Thank you so much, Alex Kaniba. And it's such a comprehensive presentation. Thank you for putting so much effort to give us a sense of how you deal with ethics, with ethics reviews. And it shows a lot of care. Obviously it's a difference in terminology. And I appreciate what you said that you're in communication with the source office and I think, you know, we've sort of learned from you. And I think we've shared with you what we do. And I think that has been beneficial, which in fact brings me to our next speaker Khalid Hassan, who is our governance and ethics officer. And I know Khalid and you, Alex, when you were last here at SOAS we're having conversations about it starting, I think, specifically. And I know, you know, obviously Khalid has been thinking about this is Alex as well, Alex Lewis. And, you know, it's, we're always concerned of how to work with local universities or, you know, universities in Africa, Asia, at least where we work in and, and then how to adapt our policies and approaches in, you know, in relation to the legal frameworks and policies you have in place. May I ask, may I invite you to share your thoughts on how, you know, what have maybe what we have done so far and what do you think we could do more to sort of equip our researchers when they go into different contexts and how universities here in the UK could, you know, could engage with safeguarding. Hello, everyone. Thanks, Romina. To be honest with you on your latter point, I'm a little bit hesitant. I would be very reluctant to set out very prescripted things for other universities but what we found particularly at SOAS is the essentiality of embedding the safeguarding concepts and process within the whole research ethics framework as an end to end process. We acknowledge and our researchers acknowledge at all different levels. There is always going to be inherent tensions between as some of the previous speakers alluded to what, for example, the UK framework, which is a very legalistic safeguarding vulnerable persons act and other associated pieces of legislation. How we actually operate from that and then look at it within a wider international framework and then also bespoke for the countries where our researchers might be going to. And although it has been highlighted, while the vernacular of the language may not necessarily match what a UK highly regular, highly legalistic and regularised approach that is not necessarily to be taken that those lower middle income countries have no legislation on this or have no pre-existing frameworks. So it's a very, very delicate balancing act. And I think a base point, what we've learned at SOAS is that this is never a one stop shop. This is something which is constantly which has to be revisited something which has to be built upon and the essentiality of building at the very, very earlier stages. More informed and active relationships with the people which we're working with particularly in terms of our partners. So when we look at how this is approached at SOAS some of the newer features which we've introduced within the research ethics process. And it's kind of a balance between yes something which is purely legalistic but also something which takes into account what funder requirements are because many funders now are saying as part of the actual proposal which is research proposal which is submitted. So we're trying to find the safeguarding and or child protection issues and then funders like the EC, which would have a slightly broader perspective to say that will actually vulnerable groups and populations are not just necessarily children under 18s people at risk of direct exploitation, for other categories of participants, for example internally displaced persons, live asylum claimants, etc, etc. So what we've tried to do at the very outset is to try and capture as quickly as possible at the proposal stage. Are there any safeguarding and or broader related safeguarding issues that this potential research project may throw up. And then to reiterate what some of the other speakers have mentioned in this. It's not about being completely risk averse to say that there is a vulnerable or potentially vulnerable group or children involved in the research. Therefore, the research can't go ahead. No, that should never be the case. Rather, it should be very early identification, appropriate strategies and approaches to okay, what potential risks do we initially anticipate, but then not having that frozen in time. So for we have bigger research projects which run three, four, five years at a time. It's not about having that static to say, well, we've revisited, sorry, we've taken into account any particular safeguarding issues. It's done and dusted. We don't need to look at it again. It's an iterative process and it will be constantly changing and something which needs to be factored into three, six, nine month reviews. But so as authorization for ethical approval, which can involve children and or potentially vulnerable vulnerable participant groups can only come from the institutional research ethics panel, a lower level. Authorization is not acceptable, but tied within that, because it's a legal requirement for the UK is to have designated safeguarding leads and or deputy equivalent deputies. Within our particular processes, we have involved our DSL within this process. So it's not just about so as research ethics professionals looking at this and saying, well, okay, we give the initial authorization for the research to proceed. It's also building in the review and input, which very often is invaluable from our own designated safeguarding lead, just quickly turning to within the international context, particularly in terms of our partners. There can be and I know, Romina, you've, you know, you've touched upon this extensively. There can be a perception that a particular university, whether it's us or anyone else, that we are almost transporting or transposing a highly technical legalistic framework or approach on to a low and middle income country. Some of the difficulties in navigating through that one has been in terms of vernacular and language, but also where we're looking to do now is looking and seeing whether our partners, whether they be universities or NGOs, etc. Do they have that existing framework? Do they have, you know, it might be called something else. It might be a prevention of harm document, but do they have bespoke frameworks and or equivalency with what we've got and what we're looking to do going forward for particular projects is working with our partners to say that, okay, you know, you may have an existing framework, we have an existing framework, but because the research is taking place in country X, we will develop or we want to develop jointly with you a set of safeguarding protocols, which will be bespoke and specific for this project, because each project will, you know, invariably raise its own particular nuances. And while we can and do within the sector have a broad approach with, okay, these are the generic issues, there will be particular nuances for every research project, which, you know, there may be new things, there may be things which don't apply, there may be very niche areas which are being covered, in particular to do with a category of participant. So ideally moving forward, this is, this is something which we're particularly keen on working with to have bespoke protocols per project, and that way we can hopefully, and I'm not saying this is a, this is going to be a done deal. But hopefully by that way we can build in a what is the actual cultural sensitivities and the environment which we're working in, be to actually take account all the okay this country acts, what is its actual regulatory framework, and how does that compare contrast with where we're coming from here. And last as an element to that as well is to try and embed more training, as I'm sure colleagues from across the sector know with the change in data protection laws, everybody has had to do mandatory training for data protection. One of the newer features which we have now is a safeguarding training module, which is, you know, now becoming mandatory so where researchers are identifying at their proposal state, you know, potentially I may have a vulnerable participant group, there may be children involved etc etc, tying mandatory training to that, formally looking at, okay, is, is an enhanced DBS required, or if it's in an international context in ICP's international child protection certificate in the countries which we're operating in, is there equivalency, or is there something similar, which we can cover at both ends. And lastly just to finish, I think with this area. Because I come from a very formalistic legalistic background there can be a tendency to be a little bit inadvertently and I think everyone does this to be a little bit too rigid in terms of how we are looking at these kinds of things and I think it's incredibly important that for all parties concerned, whether it's, you know, us as a research institution, our partners in other countries and also research participants with particular safeguarding areas of vulnerability is that we do not have this as a one-stop shop, that we are constantly asking the difficult questions of ourselves, having those difficult conversations between us and our partners, and constantly looking and revisiting these things, because the moment we or any organisation sits on its laurels and says, well, you know, we have an appropriate framework or we're covering or ticking all the boxes. I think that's where, from that complacency, a lot of these difficulties can re-emerge. And I think that, you know, being willing to challenge ourselves, you know, to have our partners challenge us, and to build that reflexivity end to end, I think it's absolutely crucial. Thank you, Khalid. Thank you so much. Those are invaluable thoughts and, you know, we've had these conversations before and we think we understand the necessity of having this dialogical approach with our partners one-to-one. And, you know, since I think in the past year we are trying to have that informal conversation going on, it's difficult, it's challenging, and I appreciate that you corrected me of not sounding prescriptive. And I think my intention was more of the kind of providing some lessons that we've learned to other universities because we have been in conversation with managers and administrators, and it's interesting that everyone is asking similar questions. Right. And if we can share those lessons and not duplicate or, you know, try something that someone else has already tried, then I think we can all benefit from that. Thank you so much. This was, this was invaluable. And I think it contextualizes the discussion. We can have a really interesting discussion at the Q&A session. And I realize we went over time. That is because we had some technical issues in the beginning, and also because everyone is, you know, everyone's presentations are so interesting. I also don't want to rush the conversation. So if the speakers are okay, we can extend a bit the session. And since this is live stream, people, viewers can return to it anytime. So I hope this is fine with everyone. And I knew our intention was to touch a bit on the pandemic and how this might have changed a bit the situation or might add some other considerations we need to keep in mind. And I'd like to invite Leona, if that's okay to Leona, because I know there was a separate guidance for COVID-19, maybe we want to speak on that, or any other thoughts that you think are important. Yeah. Well, like you say, we, when we were ready to publish the guidance and the report that we've done for UK CDR, which was a really, really short piece of work, was just at the beginning of the pandemic. And it would have been remiss of us to carry on with the publication without some form of acknowledgement that actually COVID-19 presented us with a whole different set of challenges, and to some extent a continuation of existing challenges. Because I think, like I said before, you know, sort of in terms of the characteristics of international research and Global North, Global South power dynamics is that we have a history, whether we like it or not, of very extractive, exploitative relationships in research where we, you know, we get all the credit for all the work that's been done in the Global South within the Global North. And the COVID-19 situation, I think it not only revealed that those inequalities were still there, but actually it also revealed the potential and the potentiality for research institutions to actually exacerbate inequalities or even create new ones. So I don't need to talk about specifics in terms of the French scientists who talked about testing the vaccine in Africa before, everywhere else, just for ease of accessibility. But we can see how harms in that circumstance, particularly are acutely put under the microscope in that those particular harms are not just individual harms, but actually structural in terms of perpetrating and perpetuating racist stereotypes around, you know, sort of how much consent or assent is needed for research in particular areas. So that companion piece really just elucidated some of the major, major issues that researchers needed to be vigilant about at that time. So I don't know whether you can still access my presentation Romina, but it was just to say that Linnea Renton and I also wrote a short piece for the Discover Society, which talked about the very issues that that we've covered in terms of this anti-colonial approach to risk harm and vulnerability, but particularly at a time of COVID-19. So that's just really to, if people want to refer to that particular very short article that's online about safeguarding during the pandemic. And I think what we tried to cover there as well was that in the rush to either deliver research to capture the COVID-19 experience and the COVID-19 moment, or in the rush to try and advance our understanding of the virus itself. We don't want what we want to ensure that we don't ride roughshod over people's rights. And so it's acutely important to make sure that responsibilities within existing research are very clear in respect of report and safeguard and concerns, and that the processes are understood. So very much like what Callas was saying, you know, that the process should be understood, but also fairly distributed across partners. You know, we shouldn't push this down to global south partners that perhaps may be more involved in the data collection, rather than taking the responsibility more so on the institutions. And this is especially important in situations of constant change. But what I've put together, Romina, if it's useful is on the next slide, is some considerations for researchers. And these were, you know, broadly already within the guidance, but I think especially, like I say, COVID-19 has brought it into sharp relief. And I talk about, especially because from personal experience as well, of doing research into child labour in various lower and middle income countries, you know, these are the sorts of things that I wish I would have known at that time, but also some of the lessons that we picked up. So, you know, like all of the other speakers, talking about considerations from end to end, the entire process, and that started with your research questions, thinking about whether your research questions could actually do harm. So the design and the co-designing of the research idea, the research proposal and the research questions should be done with the risks that are identified informed by local knowledge and specific expertise. So, you know, researchers should be working with local experts to understand the context that you want to explore, you know, they should inform the risk assessments, like Alex mentioned, from their expertise, you know, I always find it quite unusual when people say they want to research a particular country that they know nothing about and they don't know what the context is, we should be avoiding those situations. Co-development of research, and that includes the research methodology, the research methods, so very much like we did with the UK CDR model that I created, you know, we didn't just decide what those methodologies would be or those methods would be, we co-created them to be appropriate for the context, and that's really, really important during the pandemic as well, because everybody's in different stages of the pandemic. So particularly identifying fieldwork sites should be done with the risks, again, informed by local knowledge and expertise. In terms of delivery of research, a lot of stuff has gone online, obviously, which poses not only opportunities for maybe access to people that we wouldn't have access before, but also challenges in that certain people won't be able to access that medium. So collaborating with research partners, gatekeepers and interpreters, for example, should be done in order to identify and link with, identify the most appropriate ways of doing the research and link with local appropriate support services for participants, because also one of the things that is a current challenge within the COVID-19 context is that small organisations, small charities, CSOs, NGOs have lost funding and don't exist anymore, so if you continue to do your research with particular communities, they may not be able to access those support organisations that would have ordinarily been there, so you need to know who you can sign posts to. And finally is the issue about co-authorship with researchers and research partners and co-dissemination. So to really think about how potentially research partners or people that you've worked within the research process can become invisibilised through the outputs of the research and trying to redress that and making sure that those people are visible. And like I said before, you know, consideration of all of these things should help you to mitigate, you know, identify the harms, mitigate the harms, address any harms that occur. But you know, even more importantly, and sometimes we're reluctant to say this, they might actually decide that your research should not go ahead in the way that you've planned it. Thank you so much, Leona. That's very comprehensive. Stop sharing. And we run out of time, obviously, and I know some people will need to go soon. So I'd like to invite Alex Kinimba, if he can add a few thoughts. Alex, you know, currently in the pandemic obviously has changed the situation locally as well. You know, how are the researchers dealing with these kind of concerns in this time? And if you have any other additional thoughts that you'd like to share. Thank you so much. I think since the onset of the pandemic, we have actually, there have been some change, even in terms of some ethical considerations. We are, we expect, we've been expecting researchers to, they've been actually a plethora of research being undertaken on COVID vis-à-vis the population, the local population. But of course, from the research office, we have been actually asking them to explain how they are going to deal with a, you know, the issue of the transmission, where we've been actually a little bit somehow assertive that in one or another, we should find, researchers should actually explicitly state how they can, the wearing of masks has become mandatory, or actually social distancing, become an important aspect of research ethics, and of course, you know, the use of zoom. There's actually a challenge on that one because of the fact that even if we have got a very good internet coverage in the country, and not everyone, you know, maybe has got access to, for example, to the devices which they can use to access Zoom or Microsoft games and so forth. So this is actually some of the challenges we have been experiencing within the research undertaking at the University of Namibia. And even in terms of delivering teaching and learning at the University, not everyone, we have 24,000 students, and of course, about, let me say, maybe 15 or 18,000 students do not have access to the mobile devices. So they can't access, you know, lessons by Zoom and so is research. There's actually one point that I wanted to mention, which we have experienced, which we are actually experiencing from the research office, is the one of omission. There are times that researchers, for example, explain how they are going to deal with ethical issues, how they're going to promote, you know, safeguarding in the field. But when they go out there and undertake the research, they omit some of the, you know, considerations, they do something else, which was not actually stated in their original proposal. And the bigger challenge we have is that we don't actually have resources to do a proper and adequate monitoring to ensure that this is actually being a, you know, the way it's proposed in the research proposal or a concept, not to recall it now, since the COVID, because it's usually a very short proposal that they're giving, not elongated one. So, and there are ethical considerations there, and of course, if they omit some of these considerations, there's no way of ensuring that they've omitted some of these things. So it's actually has been a challenge from the research of us. But you seem to, you know, truly, you're becoming very resourceful, you're trying to deal with everything as best as you can. And you have other speakers in the sessions in the series, and you know, there's obviously opportunities as well, one in seeing the problems, and then to really appreciate the resourcefulness that our local partners have and relying on that resourcefulness. I realised that Alex's, yes, can I just quickly make a point on that? Because just following on Professor Alex's and Dr Leona's comment, I think, you know, the SARS-CoV-2 thing has really brought into light a couple of different points, one of which on the idea or notion of moving research virtually, of safeguarding and issues of safeguarding don't necessarily go away. In some instances, these can actually be magnified. The most obvious one, how would a researcher recruit potentially vulnerable participants, say for example, who are children and interview them remotely via a computer. This can raise a whole panellope of quite complicated and legalistic issues with how can the research be done safely, ethically. And another thing, which just very quickly, which we noticed as well, was whether it was done subconsciously or consciously, the idea that public health guidance in a particular country should or can be necessarily transposed onto another. So from discussions with researchers at all levels, when they're thinking through, well, okay, you know, how would this come to fruition? It was almost like the advice being given from Public Health England, oh, we'll just follow that in Country X. Well, not necessarily because Country X may have a particularly different approach. Their category of people who are largely affected with SARS-CoV-2 may be different from the UK. So for a UK context, you look at the biggest vulnerable group, it's median age 75 plus, and in particular, within care homes. Now, specific public health guidance which would relate to that may not necessarily easily translate to a country in Africa or in the Far East. So it's almost like a subconscious will follow the rules on social distancing, will follow the rules on masks, but is that necessarily a legal requirement? Is the public health guidance within a low and middle income country, is it identical to the UK? Have they taken a different approach? Are they managing their risks slightly differently? And I think SARS-CoV-2 has kind of magnified or brought many of these issues into greater perspective as well. Just and particularly with this idea of, you know, moving research online as opposed to in doing it in face to face. Yeah. And I think these are very valuable points again and I don't think we will think about it. We think of the safety of the people and we sort of would tend to apply the same rules we apply here when we travel or when we find ourselves in different contexts. And then I think it goes back to the point of working with the legal framework, understanding the policy framework, understanding the local government's response, the community's response. And again, it's all about consultation, right? And Leona made that point very well, dialogue and quite cool, at the very beginning, a dialogical, a consultative approach to anything we do, both in understanding what safeguarding means and how we implement it, but also how we adapt in the current era, we adapt it in the current era. I have to say that Alex Lewis, our director of research has to leave. As far as I know, we don't have, we haven't received any questions. So I guess people are sort of digesting everything we're saying. There's a lot to think about. We have given the email, it's researchatsuas.ac.uk. So we invite any questions, any afterthoughts, please do send them through. And I'm happy to share them with the panelists, if that's okay with everyone. And we can, you know, share them via Twitter, via our event page later on. And obviously this live stream will be archived so you can rewatch anytime. So I want to thank you all. My apologies for running over, but it's been such an interesting and insightful discussion. And I will rewatch it myself to try and digest everything that was said. Thank you all so much. Let's continue talking to each other. Be safe and stay healthy. Thank you all. Thank you. Bye everyone. Thank you to the viewers. Thank you to the viewers.