This study has four important limitations. First, primary data collection in South Sudan was not possible due to restrictions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This limited the number of interview partners significantly since interviews could not be arranged spontaneously ‘on the spot’. Moreover, the researchers were unable to participate in relevant meetings, visit intervention sites and learn from observations and informal conversations with humanitarian staff. For the study of disability inclusion, immersion in the field is extremely valuable because it leads to knowledge that it is hard to obtain by standardized data collection methods. As Krause (2021, p.331) notes: “Immersion and participant observation […] enable researchers to study aspects of meaning-making that do not lend themselves easily to verbalization in interviews or surveys because the respondents find them too trivial, too embarrassing, or too traumatizing to mention.” Thus, the lack of ethnographic data is the main limitation of this study. However, Dennis Dijkzeul was able to visit South Sudan for four weeks in September and October 2021 to complete data collection for another, unrelated, research assignment on food security. This was his third visit to the country. He is familiar with the overall context and some of the relevant organizations. His observations from his visit in 2021 and an interview with the OCHA head of office in Juba also inform this research report.
Second, the results of this study are mainly based on interviews with HI or CBM partner organizations or staff from HI and CBM themselves. This means that most key informants already have experience in disability inclusion. Those with only limited knowledge, awareness or experience have not been involved in the data collection. In this respect, it is important to highlight that the purpose of this study was not to measure the performance of individual organizations, programmes or projects with regard to disability inclusion, but rather to gain a general understanding of the challenges, progress and good practices involved in implementing the four ‘must do’ actions and better understand how they are applied ‘on the ground’.
Third, the approach of using the four ‘must do’ actions to structure the data sometimes hampered a differentiated presentation of the findings relating to the different levels and locations of the humanitarian response, e.g. at the central coordination level, the programme and field level, inside and outside internally displaced persons (IDP) camps, and inside and outside the capital Juba. Therefore, in the Conclusion, we briefly reflect on the usefulness of applying the four ‘must do’ actions in studies on disability-inclusive humanitarian action.
Finally, more comprehensive research on the implementation and use of the IASC Guidelines, particularly in combination with other normative tools, is necessary to better understand how human rights norms influence the work of humanitarian organizations. This requires more in-depth field research and comparative approaches that are beyond the scope of this study.