Technology can refer to at least two different things: a particular equipment/machinery or the application of knowledge. In the humanitarian realm, this implies that technology can refer both to the application of logistical, medical, or other expertise for practical humanitarian purposes, and to such things as off-grid solar power in refugee camps, humanitarian demining devices, or “Plumpy’Nut” (Scott-Smith 2017), to mention a few. Despite this broad meaning, in recent years the term has mostly been used with reference to new technologies, such as blockchain, drones (Sandvik and Lohne 2014), biometrics (Jacobsen 2017), satellites, and information and communications technology more broadly.
This current trend in usage of the term reflects the fact that numerous humanitarian actors have introduced a range of new technologies into different aspects of their work, examples being biometrics for refugee registration, satellites for crisis mapping, drones for the delivery of medical aid, apps for refugees, and mobile phones for cash transfers. These and other uses of new technology in humanitarian work have given rise to debates that mainly center around two core themes: (1) benefits versus risks and (2) agency, politics, and accountability.
- (1) Benefits versus risks. Accuracy, empowerment, and the link between technology and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals are benefits that have been emphasized in discussions about the possibilities and promises of technology. For example, in response to allegation of fraud, the World Food Programme called for the use of new technology to reduce theft of food aid in Yemen. More broadly, debates have emerged about the potential of technology to revolutionize humanitarian action (Read, Taithe and Mac Ginty 2016). The numerous expectations invested in the use of new technology in various humanitarian settings have given rise to debates about techno-optimism in the humanitarian community, possibly involving the appreciation of potential risks (Duffield 2016). One of these is technology failure, and harm stemming from such a failure. Debates about “experimental” technology are related to this issue. This links to the gap between laboratory and humanitarian field use, the effects and implications of using humanitarian technologies in volatile aid settings (Kalkman 2018), and how to limit risks, referring to revitalized discussions about the principle of “do no harm” (i.e. delivering aid without causing harm) in the context of humanitarian technology (Sandvik, Jacobsen and McDonald 2017).
- (2) Agency, politics, and accountability. A second central theme in recent debates about humanitarian technology has been the question of agency. In short, debates have centered on the question of whether technology is best understood as a “neutral means” (a tool through which to achieve predefined humanitarian objectives) or as having the potential to generate productive effects beyond what humans intend when they deploy it. One example of a productive effect is that many of the technologies mentioned here have produced enormous amounts of new and sometimes very sensitive data. This has certain benefits, but comes with new challenges, including data protection, privacy, and access questions. Accordingly, the International Committee of the Red Cross notes that guidance on “the interpretation of data protection principles” is particularly relevant when new technologies are employed ( ICRC 2017). Another example is the impact of connectivity, not only on how humanitarian assistance is practiced, but also, importantly, on how it is conceptualized.
More broadly, these debates suggest that technology cannot easily be understood in isolation from broader questions of politics, power, ethics, and accountability. It is, for example, difficult to grasp the implications of using new technology in humanitarian work without considering the politics of humanitarian actors’ relations with other actors, such as host countries, donor countries, and asylum countries, as well as with private technology companies.
References
Duffield, M. (2016) The Resilience of the Ruins: Towards a Critique of Digital Humanitarianism. Resilience, 4(3): 147–165.
ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) (2017) Handbook on Data Protection in Humanitarian Action. www.icrc.org.
Jacobsen, K.L. (2017) On Humanitarian Refugee Biometrics and New Forms of Intervention. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 11(4): 529–551.
Kalkman, J.P. (2018) Practices and Consequences of Using Humanitarian Technologies in Volatile Aid Settings. Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 3(1): 1–12.
Read, R. , Taithe, B. , Mac Ginty, R. (2016) Data Hubris? Humanitarian Information Systems and the Mirage of Technology. Third World Quarterly, 37(8): 1314–1331.
Sandvik, K.S. , Jacobsen, K.L. , McDonald, S.M. (2017) Do No Harm: A Taxonomy of the Challenges of Humanitarian Experimentation. International Review of the Red Cross 99 (904): 319–344.
Sandvik, K. , Lohne, K. (2014) The Rise of the Humanitarian Drone: Giving Content to an Emerging Concept. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(1): 145–164.
Scott-Smith, T. (2017) Sticky Technologies: Plumpy’Nut®, Emergency Feeding, and the Viscosity of Humanitarian Design. Social Studies of Science, 48(1): 3–24.