Training can be defined as the “systematic acquisition of knowledge and skills with the goal of developing competencies necessary for effective performance in work environments” (Nazli, Sipon and Radzi 2014: 576). Humanitarian training aims to build the skills of volunteers, staff, participants, and the management of a team to improve preparedness and response at all levels before, during, and after emergencies ( IFRC 2019). Several types of training are aimed at humanitarian professionals, including humanitarian negotiation, advocacy, and diplomacy (Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation 2019); humanitarian logistics and supply chains ( NOHA 2019); human resources and finance management, program management, and coordination (Centre for Education and Research in Humanitarian Action 2012); security training in hostile environments ( NRC 2019); generic and technical trainings concerning water, sanitation, and hygiene (Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology 2019); nutrition project management (Bioforce 2019); and cash-based interventions ( NOHA 2019).
Humanitarian response comprises various professional disciplines, expertise, and work experiences. As such, the education of staff operating in humanitarian emergencies integrates “task-related, profession-specific, and cross-disciplinary competencies” (Ripoll Gallardo et al. 2015: 430), where knowledge is coproduced by educators and practitioners. This form of coproduction results in an exchangeable role between educators and practitioners in the teaching of humanitarian action, in which humanitarian “experts” act as educators who intermediate and translate the humanitarian discourse into local concerns through academic and applied scientific degrees, open and tailor-made diplomas, summer schools, and program modules, for example. At the same time, the teaching curricula are simultaneously the learning curricula in terms of what humanitarianism is and how it should be. One critical element here is that this coproduction of knowledge, although dynamic and adaptive, is primarily characterized as either discipline or multidiscipline-centric, largely leaving aside non-American/European perspectives with “limited success as an evidentiary basis for policy improvements” (Weichselgartner and Pigeon 2015: 109).
In the disaster risk management cycle, for example, the preparedness stage is intended to increase readiness and knowledge among staff and community (Nazli, Sipon and Radzi 2014). This comprises a complex sequence of planning, equipment, training, exercises, and improvement, with emergency preparedness exercises often viewed as the most important component (Skryabina et al. 2017). These exercises aim to test the workability of emergency planning with four main purposes: learning the emergency plan, learning to collaborate during emergencies, providing collective training, and gaining input from stakeholders (Watts 2016). In disaster preparedness, training exercises can be broadly divided into two major groups: discussion-based exercises, including table or desk exercises, workshops, or seminar-based activities, and operation-based exercises, such as drills, functional exercises/command post exercises, and fieldwork training. The first category is used to familiarize participants with their plans, roles, and procedures. It can also involve allowing participants to practice their role through simulated emergency situations. The format is led by facilitators and presenters who check whether participants meet the desired objectives. The second category usually involves responding to a scenario where a more realistic emergency is imitated. For example, fieldwork training looks at replicating as closely as possible a response to an actual emergency event, allowing for the testing of various “tools, plans, procedures, resources, interagency coordination, and command centres” (Skryabina et al. 2017: 274–275).
In all circumstances, training in humanitarian settings implies knowing in practice, where “work-practice-knowing” is formed through regular interactions between various types of persons with specific roles, materialities, institutions, and discourses. Thus, the knowledge attained is not “fixed” but is adapted and engaged in practice by its practitioners.
References
Bioforce (2019) Certified Training Courses. Institute Bioforce. www.institutbioforce.fr.
Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology (2019) Training Workshops. www.cawst.org.
Centre for Education and Research in Humanitarian Action (2012) Professional and Accredited Advance Training in Humanitarian Action. www.cerahgeneve.ch.
Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation (2019) Home—Frontline Negotiations. https://frontline-negotiations.org.
IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) (2019) Training in Disaster Management. www.ifrc.org.
Nazli, N. , Sipon, S. , Radzi, H.M. (2014) Analysis of Training Needs in Disaster Preparedness. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140: 576–580.
NOHA (Network on Humanitarian Action) (2019) Education and Training. NOHA Network on Humanitarian Action, International Association of Universities.
NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council) (2019) HEAT Training. https://www.nrc.no/heat-training/.
Ripoll Gallardo, A. et al. (2015) Core Competencies in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance: A Systematic Review . Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 9(4): 430–439.
Skryabina, E. et al. (2017) What Is the Value of Health Emergency Preparedness Exercises? A Scoping Review Study. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21: 274–283.
Watts, I. (2016) Disaster Management: How to Plan, Prepare, Conduct and Evaluate Emergency Planning Exercises for All Types of Emergency. Lifelong Learning.
Weichselgartner, J. , Pigeon, P. (2015) The Role of Knowledge in Disaster Risk Reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(2): 107–116.