Outsourcing accountability: Extractive data practice and inequities of power in humanitarian third-party monitoring

Since the early 2010s, humanitarian donors have increasingly contracted private firms to monitor and evaluate humanitarian activities, accompanied by a promise of improving accountability through their data and data analytics. This article contributes to scholarship on data practices in the humanitarian sector by interrogating the implications of this new set of actors on humanitarian accountability relations. Drawing on insights from 60 interviews with humanitarian donors, implementing agencies, third-party monitors and data enumerators in Somalia, this article interrogates data narratives and data practices around third-party monitoring. We find that, while humanitarian donors are highly aware of challenges to accountability within the sector, there is a less critical view of data challenges and limitations by these external firms. This fuels donor optimism about third-party monitoring data, while obscuring the ways that third-party monitoring data practices are complicating accountability relations in practice. Resultant data practices, which are aimed at separating data from the people involved, reproduce power asymmetries around the well-being and expertise of the Global North versus Global South. This challenges accountability to donors and to crisis-affected communities, by providing a partial view of reality that is, at the same time, assumed to be reflective of crisis-affected communities’ experiences. This article contributes to critical data studies by showing how monitoring data practices intended to improve accountability relations are imbued with, and reproduce, power asymmetries that silence local actors.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Big Data & Society
Published
2025-03-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517251328250
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Global Security and Public Health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.20
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Outsourcing accountability: Extractive data practice and inequities of power in humanitarian third-party monitoring

Mahad Wasuge, John Hope Bryant, Stephanie Diepeveen
1 citations
Big Data & Society
Global Security and Public Health
4.20
article

Outsourcing accountability: Extractive data practice and inequities of power in humanitarian third-party monitoring

Mahad Wasuge, John Hope Bryant, Stephanie Diepeveen
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Since the early 2010s, humanitarian donors have increasingly contracted private firms to monitor and evaluate humanitarian activities, accompanied by a promise of improving accountability through their data and data analytics. This article contributes to scholarship on data practices in the humanitarian sector by interrogating the implications of this new set of actors on humanitarian accountability relations. Drawing on insights from 60 interviews with humanitarian donors, implementing agencies, third-party monitors and data enumerators in Somalia, this article interrogates data narratives and data practices around third-party monitoring. We find that, while humanitarian donors are highly aware of challenges to accountability within the sector, there is a less critical view of data challenges and limitations by these external firms. This fuels donor optimism about third-party monitoring data, while obscuring the ways that third-party monitoring data practices are complicating accountability relations in practice. Resultant data practices, which are aimed at separating data from the people involved, reproduce power asymmetries around the well-being and expertise of the Global North versus Global South. This challenges accountability to donors and to crisis-affected communities, by providing a partial view of reality that is, at the same time, assumed to be reflective of crisis-affected communities’ experiences. This article contributes to critical data studies by showing how monitoring data practices intended to improve accountability relations are imbued with, and reproduce, power asymmetries that silence local actors.

Big Data & SocietyVol. 12(1)
Institute on Governance (CA), University of Cambridge (GB), Open Data Institute (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Global Security and Public Health
4.20
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Outsourcing accountability: Extractive data practice and inequities of power in humanitarian third-party monitoring — Mahad Wasuge, John Hope Bryant, et al. · Big Data & Society (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS