Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

Global Governance

Program Name/Specialization

Global Social Policy

Faculty/School

School of International Policy and Governance

First Advisor

Colleen Loomis

Advisor Role

Colleen Loomis

Second Advisor

Dan Gorman

Abstract

This dissertation examines how humanitarianism is studied, analyzing the research methods, perspectives, methodologies, positionalities, and epistemologies that scholars bring to humanitarian inquiry within the broader context of global governance. It is submitted under the Multiple Manuscript Option and develops its argument through two empirical manuscripts: a narrative literature review of how Turkish scholars study Turkish humanitarianism in Somalia, and a systematic literature review of scholarship on humanitarianism in contexts of genocide and conflict in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Somalia. These manuscripts are situated within a conceptual framework that examines the Western/non-Western binary in humanitarian research and introduces localized research as a distinct epistemological approach.

The dissertation addresses three overarching research questions: (1) What perspectives, methods, and methodologies do researchers currently employ to examine humanitarianism? (2) Are there significant differences between Western and non-Western research perspectives and methodologies in humanitarian studies? (3) If so, what are the similarities and differences among those perspectives and methodologies?

Three core arguments emerge from the integrated findings. First, scholars from both the Global North and Global South draw on similar methodological repertoires when studying humanitarianism, which suggests that the difference between traditions is not primarily about technique selection. Second, humanitarian research frequently silences the very populations it aims to assist, treating affected communities and local organizations as data sources rather than as co-producers of analysis. Third, researchers routinely conduct humanitarian studies without making explicit the epistemological, ontological, and axiological commitments that shape their design, fieldwork, interpretation, and use of knowledge.

The dissertation’s most significant finding is that these failures are not located in any one scholarly tradition or geographic origin; they appear on both sides of the Western/non-Western binary. In one manuscript, positionality dominates over methodological articulation without acknowledgment; in the other, methodological procedure is foregrounded while positionality and epistemological commitment are left implicit. The underlying failure is the same in both cases: positionality and methodology are not brought into explicit, reflexive alignment. The real divide in humanitarian research is therefore not geographic but epistemological.

In response, this dissertation proposes two complementary contributions. It introduces localized research as an epistemological approach that positions local actors as authorities throughout the research process, distinct from, though related to, the humanitarian field’s existing localization practice agenda. It also proposes Braided Humanitarian Inquiry (BHI) as a methodological framework that intentionally integrates Northern and Southern epistemologies, ontologies, and axiologies throughout the research cycle, from problem framing and design through evidence generation, interpretation, and dissemination, ensuring that no single knowledge system serves as the default authority. BHI offers a practical, well-grounded alternative to humanitarian research that uncritically centers Western perspectives, marginalizes affected populations, and treats local knowledge as secondary. It is designed for humanitarian scholars, practitioners, and pracademics who seek to strengthen research without reducing the complexities of crisis settings to a binary of local versus international.

Convocation Year

2026

Convocation Season

Fall

Download

Available for download on Thursday, June 24, 2027

Share

COinS