We tailor our methodological approach to the given context and constantly question and reassess our analytical framework and assumptions. We strive to be conscious of our biases and mitigate against them. We invite scrutiny and share sources, methods, and assumptions when possible. We are open about our mistakes and seek to learn from them or any external feedback we receive for improvement.
Make sense,
not data
We monitor the globe daily and gather evidence on the humanitarian situation where we identify a crisis. Our data collection is mainly based on secondary data review but data collection is only the first step. Data interpretation is the key to forecasting likely developments and providing an adequate response. After analysing evidence, we consider the best way to communicate and draw attention to humanitarian impacts.
Better approximately right than precisely wrong
In an emergency response, fast decisions need to be made. Producing a timely analysis with caveats is far better than not conducting any analysis at all. Designing a ‘good enough’ process to make timely decisions is key. We connect contrasting and complementary perspectives to provide a nuanced understanding of a crisis. We are open about our level of confidence in our analysis. When no clear conclusions can be reached, we present the different sides to an argument. We highlight any information gaps identified in our publications. When there is limited information available, our analysts make informed assumptions based on similar contextual situations.
Identifying reliable sources
ACAPS verifies all primary and secondary sources of information and only uses data after careful consideration of the following criteria:
authenticity, accuracy, precision, and reputation
corroboration and consistency with other independent sources
plausibility in context.