The Southeast Asia Response - Global Development Network
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
M YA N M A R LAOS THAILAND
THE PHILIPPINES
The
Southeast
Asia
INDONESIA TIMOR-LESTE Response SINGAPORE
M A L AY S I A CAMBODIA
BANGLADESH VIETNAM
Editors: Contributing Authors:
Daniel Fussy | GDN Anacleta Pinto da Silva Bui Tu Anh
Francesco Obino | GDN David Alex Dimas Inaya Rakhmani
Inaya Rakhmani | ARC - UI Domingos Fatima Kwok Kian Woon
Fidelis da Costa Nguyen Ngoc Anh
Francelino T Soares Nguyen Thanh Hien Luong
Francisco Mariano Nurliyana Daros
Gerson Ribeiro Panji Anugrah Permana
Januario Pinto Rosalia Sciortino
Jonato dos Santos Luciano Sabina F. Rashid
Jorge Taique Metan Sokphea Young
Jubelina Amaral Pinto Somdeth Bodhisane
Norberto Soares Ximenes Teresa S. Encarnacion
Selima S. Kabir Tadem
Antero Benedito da Silva Vinissa Kattiya-aree
Azmil Tayeb Zaw Oo
DISCLAIMER
The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of GDN, IDRC or its Board of Governors.
This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from Global Affairs Canada, and the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.
Published in 2022
SOCIAL SCIENCE AND COVID-19
THE SOUTHEAST ASIA RESPONSE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD ................................................................................... 4
SOUTHEAST ASIA ............................................................................ 7
BANGLADESH ............................................................................... 12
CAMBODIA ................................................................................. 20
INDONESIA ................................................................................. 27
LAOS .......................................................................................... 35
MALAYSIA ................................................................................... 42
MYANMAR .................................................................................. 49
THE PHILIPPINES ......................................................................... 56
SINGAPORE ................................................................................ 62
THAILAND ................................................................................... 70
TIMOR-LESTE ............................................................................... 79
VIETNAM ..................................................................................... 86
Foreword
The outbreak of COVID-19 in Southeast Asia, the context of the HIV-AIDS epidemic at the end
as in the rest of the world, has exposed the of the last century, institutional responses clearly
interaction of biological and socioeconomic embraced the notion that epidemics were tightly
processes; the implications of health and intertwined with social and cultural phenomena,
socioeconomic inequity on well-being; and not just an intractable medical issue.
the structural ramifications of public health and
healthcare governance. Despite its biological What Can We Say About COVID-19,
origins, understanding the pandemic, and Two Years into a Global Pandemic?
controlling and reducing its human costs, The Global Development Network (GDN) and
requires a dynamic and granular knowledge the Asia Research Centre (ARC UI) at Universitas
of social, economic, cultural and political Indonesia joined together to mobilize a group
processes. Social sciences – and arguably the of social scientists in 11 countries in South and
humanities as a whole – and the knowledge Southeast Asia: Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia,
social scientists produce, with their critical Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, The Philippines,
engagement with how our societies work, are Singapore, Thailand, Timor Leste and Vietnam.
fundamental ingredients in any effort to discuss We asked this group to answer a number of
or find actionable measures that are applicable common questions related to the mobilization of
to real-world conditions. social scientists and social science knowledge in
This may not be a new idea, but it’s one that’s national COVID-19 responses.
often overlooked. Prussian physician, Rudolf The 12 chapters (a regional overview and 11
Virchow, while studying a typhoid outbreak in country notes) that follow, are the result of this
central Europe, stated as far back as 1848 that rapid, cross-country effort. The aim is to stir
disease spreads ‘in the cracks of society’1 and that debate on the role national and regional social
‘medicine is a social science’.2 More recently, in research can and should play in responding to the
1. See the insightful discussion by Ed Yong on this: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/america-prepared-next-pandemic/620238/
2. Vichrow’s work has been described as one of the “neglected classics of social medicine”. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9566.ep10778374
4
ongoing COVID-19 crisis, but also in crises we can While the authors of the compendium discuss
reasonably expect to come. how social scientists have mobilized, they also
The issues discussed here relate to: throw light on how they have contributed to
• The inclusion of social scientists in scientific illuminating overlooked aspects of the current
commissions/ad hoc advisory bodies at crisis, in an official or voluntary capacity,
different levels of government, and their answering the question: what has been the
influence within and outside them. contribution of social sciences and social
• The emergence of research funding scientists to COVID-19 responses?
opportunities for COVID-19 research in the Social scientists have a special relationship
social sciences, from national and international with the notion of ‘the public’, not only in
sources. questioning its definition and importance.
• Research policy interactions (international, Through their social research work, they ‘are, do
national and local) at different levels (planning, and make’ the public too.3 This reflection should
implementation and evaluation). form part of the broader debate on how to place
• Researcher-led initiatives set up by social knowledge and collaboration at the centre of
scientists in support of COVID-19 responses. systemic efforts to build more resilient societies.
• Emerging research agendas on social sciences COVID-19 is both a crisis and a wake-up call to
and COVID-19. revive this discussion.
This initiative was possible thanks to the
programmatic and financial support from the
Knowledge for Democracy Myanmar Initiative at
the International Development Research Centre
(IDRC), Canada. The project is also part of GDN’s
global ‘Doing Research’ initiative – an ambitious
program to generate systematic comparative
evidence on the state of social research capacity
in the ‘global South’.
Daniel Fussy Francesco Obino Inaya Rakhmani
(GDN) (GDN) (ARC - UI)
3. Mark Carrigan and Fatsis Lambros. The Public and Their Platforms: Public Sociology in an Era of Social Media. Policy Press, 2021. Page 8
5
Inaya Rakhmani1
& Rosalia Sciortino2
1
Director of the Asia Research Centre,
Universitas Indonesia. inaya.r@ui.ac.id.
2
Associate Professor at the Institute
for Population and Social Research,
Mahidol University, Visiting Professor
at Chulalongkorn University, Thailand,
and Director and founder of SEA
Junction, Thailand. rosaliasciortino@
yahoo.com
Southeast Asia
6
The role of social sciences in
COVID-19 responses in Asia
Highlights exacerbated by the effects of the
pandemic.
1. There is a lack of presence of social 6. Alternative discourses among social
scientists in national responses to scientists are widely captured by mass
COVID-19 in Asia. and social media, helping to inform
2. National responses are largely state- public discourse and, in some cases,
driven, with variations in local-level influence policymaking.
implementation; they often view the
pandemic as a security and medical
issue, overlooking its socio-cultural COVID-19 forces us in Asia, as in the rest of
dimensions. the world, to come to terms with the structural
3. When social scientists are involved shortcomings in our environmental, economic
in policy responses, their work is and health systems. The pandemic has brought
generally technocratic in nature, old vulnerabilities to the surface and deepened
with a preference for generalization existing fractures, while triggering new
and modelling over qualitative and
challenges. Now, more than ever, is the time for
participatory social analysis.
social scientists to contribute to much-needed
4. COVID-19 research is predominantly
multi-dimensional approaches and help define a
funded by national governments,
better shared future for the 21st century. Yet the
with a bias toward natural sciences,
while foreign funding shows a greater experiences of the region, as presented in this
degree of support for social sciences. Compendium, compel us to reiterate the urgency
5. Outside of official structures, social of including social science insights in formulating
sciences play a critical role in a comprehensive and effective response to the
exposing the social dimensions of pandemic and its long-term impacts – as well as
health and in researching inequalities for future crises we will face together.
and vulnerabilities that have been The Compendium summarizes the findings
of a rapid assessment conducted by the Global
7
Development Network and the Asia Research Southeast Asia turned into a global epicenter,
Centre, Universitas Indonesia, with support from with cases growing rapidly and peaking during
the Knowledge for Democracy Myanmar Initiative the months of July and August – to the point that
at the International Development Research Indonesia had the highest mortality in the world,
Centre, Canada. The four-month regional effort and countries that had previously been spared,
aims to shed light on the role of social sciences such as Vietnam, were fully engulfed by the
and scientists in and for COVID-19 responses in a pandemic. The reasons for this regional timeline,
number of Southeast and South Asian countries as well as some of the variations among countries,
(Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, range from socio-cultural and economic factors
Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, to geographic and genetic characteristics.
Thailand, Vietnam and Timor Leste). Leading Government responses and the degree to which
social scientists in the selected countries studied a ‘whole-of-government’ and inclusive approach
the mobilization of social sciences during the has been employed, also played an important
pandemic in their respective settings. Through a part. As the authors show, the way each country
combination of literature reviews and interviews has calibrated short-term containment measures
with key stakeholders, they examined four main with longer-term economic and political concerns,
aspects: the formal inclusion of social science combined with the specific epidemiological
knowledge and scientists in COVID-19 response features, has produced a variety of situations
mechanisms; funding for social research in regards across countries and over time. Political contexts
to the pandemic; research-policy interactions; also have a strong influence on shaping the nature
and current and emerging initiatives led by social and effectiveness of COVID-19 responses. In
scientists in the region. The objective is to share the most extreme case, in Myanmar, the coup
experiences among social scientists in Asia and d’état in February 2021 and its aftermath severely
beyond, align common concerns and consider undermined the COVID-19 response.
relevant actions. In spite of significant contextual differences,
Mainland Southeast Asia was the first region our research found that governments in the region
outside of China to report COVID-19 transmission. have opted for a top-down and partial approach.
Remarkably, however, COVID-19 did not spread In spite of it being a multi-dimensional crisis, the
as rapidly and fatally here as in the highly- pandemic is being treated merely as a medical
impacted continents of Europe and the Americas. and security issue. When national commissions
With the exception of Indonesia and the have been established to control the pandemic,
Philippines, and to a certain extent Malaysia, the they have been dominated by bureaucratic
region as a whole had a relatively low prevalence. personnel and in a number of countries, including
It was only in 2021, against expectations, that Cambodia and Thailand, by military personnel.
8
Scientists, when present, consisted of medical quality and risks associated with them are crucial
specialists and macro-economists, with no to an effective delivery of mass vaccination
demand for sociologists, anthropologists and programs.
humanities experts. Laos is an example of the The response to COVID-19 highlights
significant contribution of economic institutions the broader lack of appreciation among
– particularly the National Institute for Economic contemporary governments for the potential
Research (under the Lao Academy of Social contribution of social sciences to society. This is
Economics Sciences) – in developing financial reflected in the bias toward the ‘hard sciences’
interventions to support the economy and in research and educational budgets and the
affected sectors. In the limited instances when dismantling of humanities and social science
(other types of) social scientists are involved institutions. From analysis of COVID-19 research
in government programs, it is generally for the funding and reviews of published research in
management of large data sets and statistical both English and local languages, it appears
information, with preference given to research that investments, unsurprisingly, have been
that promises ‘generalizability’. In some countries, geared toward medical sciences and biomedical
such as Indonesia, collaborations with scientists engineering. This raises questions, however, about
were mainly at lower administrative levels, with the far smaller level of support for public health
local governments experimenting with inter- and economics, and the minimal interest in social
disciplinary evidence-based responses. research. In part, this is because social sciences
The overall scarcity of social scientists in the are perceived to be of little economic value, but
COVID-19 pandemic differs from past national also, as in the case of Cambodia, institutional
health interventions, such as during the HIV actors are often wary of critical and independent
epidemic in Thailand or for the uptake of family research findings. Input from extra-institutional
planning, immunization and oral rehydration actors (researchers and research organizations)
therapy in Bangladesh. It also implies a failure by is often seen as a form of hostile criticism rather
policymakers to recognize the social dimensions than constructive support. When social science
of health: to be effective, efforts to prevent research is funded, it is mainly commissioned
COVID-19, including the use of masks and social and technocratic in nature. The case of Malaysia
distancing, requires behavioural change and an also shows that COVID-19 research grants favor
understanding of the different socioeconomic social scientists who can quickly repurpose their
and cultural contexts that enable people to research or are already in multidisciplinary groups.
comply (or not) with containment measures – In low-resource countries, where foreign
all specialties of the social sciences. Likewise, donors play a dominant role, we see a greater
insights on how people perceive vaccines and the variety of social research, especially on social
9
protection responses and on the inequitable of containment measures; securitization of the
ways COVID-19 and containment measures affect COVID-19 response and the invasiveness of
the poor and disadvantaged. More generally, new apps and technologies; the inadequacy of
corporate, bilateral and international donor social provision measures for informal workers
funding that comes through universities, think and marginalized communities, especially the
tanks and CSOs helps to widen informal spaces urban poor, migrants and refugees; the lack
in which social scientists collaborate with non- of disaggregated data and a gender-sensitive
government actors – as well as government approach; educational concerns for children
counterparts sympathizing with public intellectual of poor households; mental health issues; and
movements – providing alternatives to official mismanagement in vaccine procurement and
discourses and interventions. The case study distribution. The findings, shared by the media
of the University of the Philippines Center for and on online platforms, have sparked dialog and
Integrative and Development Studies shows how encouraged new discourses among the public;
external funding (local and international) was in some countries, this has helped to influence
crucial in enabling the Center to fulfill its multiple government decisions and resulted in policy
roles during the pandemic, which ranged from revisions.
involvement in government policymaking to Social scientists have also worked with NGOs
helping marginalized communities survive. and community organizations, contributing to
In spite of the limitations, social scientists try community initiatives and relief, as well as self-
to affect policy decisions through informal or help efforts. Examples of such partnerships have
pre-established institutional channels – although been documented in Indonesia, Malaysia, the
their degree of influence depends largely on Philippines and Thailand, including for programs
their proximity to those in positions of power. that provide local food and aid, and improve
Some also collaborate with CSOs to highlight employment opportunities. These initiatives have
the overlooked sides of the pandemic in public proven effective and responsive. However, they
forums and media. Scientists from more critical are often in response to a lack of access to basic
schools of thought are often engaged in social services that should ideally be provided by
movements with non-government activists and the state. Once more they point to the lack of
other stakeholders. Together, they strive to ensure government interest in the social aspects of the
governments are accountable in their policies and pandemic and the subsequent failure to provide
for providing adequate health and social services adequate social protection, particularly to the
to those most affected by the pandemic. The most vulnerable.
issues raised include: transparency and accuracy Paradoxically, it would seem that for social
of official data; appropriateness and timeliness scientists, being on the fringes has allowed
10them to be more responsive and adaptable in This is also pertinent to other multi-dimensional
highlighting the plight of those marginalized by crises that we face, most notably the climate
the pandemic. Their exclusion from government emergency. In examining the power imbalances
processes has, in a sense, enabled them to have within the sciences, as well as between social
more of an impact in public arenas. However, scientists and the policy community, we can
working outside of institutional frameworks implies unpack the connections and disconnections
that containment measures have not benefited between social sciences and COVID-19
from contextual insights that are essential to policy response in Southeast Asia. We can
better understand and address the spread of the then advocate for a much-needed integrated
pandemic. Systemic failures in enabling safer framework to tackle the pandemic – one that
behavior continue to be ignored; individuals are takes into account the human and contextual
blamed for their non-compliant behavior, with no factors that affect people’s ability to cope with
effort to understand the constraints to behavior catastrophes. The COVID-19 pandemic is a
change. Moreover, broader social inequalities and defining moment for the social order and for those
their root causes remain overlooked, and are not who study it. Only by enhancing the visibility and
mainstreamed into society-wide approaches. credibility of existing research and expanding
As we start to talk about living with COVID-19 the space for greater involvement in policy
and post-pandemic recovery, it is imperative formulation and implementation, will we ensure
for social scientists to challenge the structures that the social sciences can fully contribute
and overcome the political barriers that prevent to halting the pandemic and to reshaping our
a more integrated approach – one that views common future in a more sustainable and just
the pandemic as more than just a health crisis. manner.
11Sabina F. Rashid1
& Selima S. Kabir2
1
Dean and Professor at the BRAC
James P Grant School of Public
Health, BRAC University. sabina@
bracu.ac.bd
2
Assistant Research Coordinator at
BRAC James P Grant School of
Public Health, BRAC University.
selima.kabir@bracu.ac.bd
Bangladesh
12Social Science and COVID-19:
Bangladesh Response
Highlights including media launches, webinars,
online platforms and online dialogs.
1. There has been no national demand 5. Emerging research agendas focus on
for social science research in understanding and addressing the
Bangladesh and, in many cases, social needs of vulnerable communities
scientists have not been included in impacted by the pandemic, such
the pandemic response. as vulnerable women, refugees and
2. There are limited funding school-going children.
opportunities for social science 6. There is a need for an integrated
research in Bangladesh. Most framework to tackle the pandemic
government funds are directed toward that can only be achieved through a
medical research; as such, most social multi-sector approach that includes
science research funding comes from social scientists in response and
regional and international donors. decision-making at the highest levels.
3. There is limited interaction between
researchers and policymakers –
except when policymakers are Background
required to refute findings from
Since 8 March 2020, when Bangladesh
research outputs.
reported its first confirmed case of COVID-19,
4. Despite not being formally invited
to share their recommendations, the number of infections in the country has
many social scientists continued to grown significantly. As of September 2021,
undertake research and offer policy there have been upwards of 1.52 million cases
recommendations through their and 26,684 known COVID-related deaths.1
widely disseminated online activities, However, the statistics for deaths and infected
1. As of 8 September 2021; retrieved from COVID-19 Dashboard – the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU).
13cases in Bangladesh do not capture the reality reports, blogs and newspaper articles on the
on the ground because of inadequate testing issue. As this country note explains, social
and tracking. A survey in two slums in Dhaka and scientists have not had a strong influence on
one in Chittagong found that 71% and 55% of Bangladesh’s response to the pandemic and, as
the participants respectively tested positive for such, it was difficult to find relevant citeable
COVID-19 antibodies, indicating that they had information. Much of the discussion presented
most likely been infected with a mild case of the here comes from the James P Grant School of
virus at some point (Dhaka Tribune, 2021). For the Public Health, BRAC University (bracjpgsph.
2019-2020 fiscal year, Bangladesh had one of the org/), informed by the author’s (Sabina F. Rashid)
lowest budget allocations for the health sector role as a medical anthropologist during the
(only 4.9% of the total budget) in South Asia pandemic. The pandemic is still unfolding in the
(NBR, 2019; CPD, 2019) and the second-lowest country. As such, information presented here is, in
doctor-to-patient ratio (UNDP, 2020). The surge in many ways, limited by the social and professional
caseloads has overburdened the country’s under- networks and experiences of the researchers,
resourced health systems, despite the government any gray and published literature, including
and private sector responses to the crisis (UNDP, reports from different departments and institutes
2020; Anwar et al, 2020). under BRAC University, and the Bangladesh
In this country note, we identify and explore Health Watch citizens’ platform established in
the role and contribution of social scientists in 2006 (bangladeshhealthwatch.org) – a platform
the COVID-19 response. We look at the different dedicated to improving the health system through
enablers and barriers to providing inputs and evidence-based research and policy advocacy.
insights for the COVID-19 response, as well as
emerging funding opportunities, changes in
The Role of Social Scientists
engagement with social scientists (if any), and
initiatives by and emerging research agendas for
in COVID-19 Responses
the social sciences at national level and in the The Inclusion of Social Scientists
future. in Scientific Commissions/ad hoc
Advisory Bodies
Methodology
The response to the COVID-19 pandemic in
Bangladesh’s response to the COVID-19 Bangladesh has been largely biomedical and
pandemic has not been well-documented clinician-led in terms of the strategic approach
(Chowdhury & Misha, 2020). For this country in the initial phase. As the cases in Bangladesh
note, we had to rely on journal articles, started to rise in March 2020, the government
recommendations published by social scientists, began developing the National Preparedness
14and Response Plan for COVID-19, based on the pandemic. However, these committees seem
WHO guidelines. A predominantly clinician-led to lack the inclusion of different community-level
taskforce was formed to take decisions relating to stakeholders (Chowdhury & Rasheed, 2020).
COVID-19. Upon reviewing the National Preparedness and
The absence of social scientists in the Response Plan for COVID-19, there appears to be
response has been noticeable, particularly no known social scientists or economists on any of
given that the inputs of social scientists and these committees (Chowdhury & Rasheed, 2020).
other stakeholders have been sought in other
government interventions (Chowdhury & The Emergence of Research Funding
Rasheed, 2020) such as for family planning Opportunities for COVID-19 Research
(Munshi & Myaux, 2006), immunization (Jamil, in the Social Sciences, from National
Bhuiyan, Streatfield & Chakrabarty, 1999), and and International Sources
the uptake of oral rehydration therapy (Cash, Bangladesh – namely, the Social Science
2021), among others. In fact, these interventions Research Council (SSRC)2 – is part of the
in the 1980s and 1990s were incredibly inclusive, Association of Asian Social Science Research
engaging the community at a variety of levels, in Councils.3 The Council funds research on a variety
partnership with researchers, NGOs and other of topics; its most recent call for proposals
key stakeholders in the country. As such, it is (2022-2023 cycle) included ‘COVID-19 Health
surprising to note the lack of engagement or the Systems’ and ‘Economic Impacts of COVID-19’.4
failure to seek out recommendations from outside However, the Council is not as visible as it should
of government as the pandemic unfolded in be, and the total amount of funds available for
March 2020. It could be argued that the sudden interested researchers is unclear. The most recent
nature of the pandemic and the lack of global available figures on the SSRC’s website5 seem to
direction and uncertainty as it unfolded across indicate a budget of approximately 12.5 million
countries was an important factor. BDT (equivalent to 145,000 USD) allocated for
The National Preparedness and Response Plan research. It remains to be seen whether the SSRC
for COVID-19 details the formation of different will produce research related to the pandemic in
national- and local-level committees to address the current or future cycles.
2. https://ssrc.portal.gov.bd/
3. https://aassrec.org/
4. SSRC call for proposals _bn (plandiv.gov.bd)
5. SSRC Budget _bn (portal.gov.bd)
15Despite the existence of the SSRC, funding (Chowdhury & Rasheed, 2020). This means there
opportunities for social science in Bangladesh is limited interaction between researchers and
are extremely limited. Most government funds for policymakers. While researchers have hosted
research are directed toward medical research a number of dissemination meetings and policy
rather than the social sciences. For example, dialogs – for example, through Bangladesh
the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare – Health Watch – there is limited uptake and
particularly, the Medical Education and Family engagement from the policy level, except when
Welfare Division – issued a call for research (TBS policymakers are required to refute the findings
Report, 2021) but the majority of the research from research outputs (Bangladesh Health Watch,
areas were for clinical and medical studies 2020).6
(epidemiology, new treatments, genetics and However, several institutions have played an
experimental/translational medicine, biomedical important role in generating and sharing evidence
engineering, non-communicable diseases, etc.). on COVID-19. While there is no concrete proof
While none of the topics – with the exception that the research had a direct impact on policy,
of research on endemics and pandemics – cited the findings did spark dialog and discourse across
COVID-19 specifically, the implication was that the country. These wider conversations – and the
priority would be given to COVID-19 research. continuous reporting in newspapers on the state
Though the research topics seemed primarily of COVID-19 and its impact across the country –
biomedical, there is an argument that the studies undoubtedly impacted government decisions and
on endemic/pandemic outbreaks, innovative policies around COVID-19.
medical education and/or the health delivery
system could allow for a social science lens. Researcher-led Initiatives in Support of
Research policy interactions (international, COVID-19 Responses
national and local) at different levels (planning, Despite not being formally invited to share their
implementation and evaluation) recommendations, many different researchers,
While there is engagement on a policy level including social scientists, continued to undertake
with economists and clinicians, this is not the case research and offer policy recommendations
for social science practitioners. As mentioned through their widely disseminated online
earlier, the two national committees for COVID-19 activities, including through media launches,
do not include any economists or social scientists webinars, and online platforms and dialogs. At
6. https://bangladeshhealthwatch.org
16BRAC James P Grant School of Public Health,7 emerging areas of research,10 we expect that
we began undertaking rapid assessments and social scientists will seek out funding and spaces
surveys of marginalized groups and communities. to ensure sufficient and in-depth exploration of
For example, during the pandemic, the School these topics, which include the following:
completed 16 studies, with a further 29 ongoing, • Socioeconomic aspects (livelihoods vs. risk
including rapid and qualitative surveys that focus of COVID-19): a more holistic approach to
on the socioeconomic and health conditions understanding debt and its impact on peoples’
of vulnerable groups in the country, to assess lives, gender dynamics, social and economic
the impacts of lockdown measures on diverse networks, and emotional distress.
communities (https://covid-bracjpgsph.org/). • The impacts of COVID-19 on the most
The research focuses on six main areas8 – based vulnerable populations in Bangladesh (urban
around different centers within the School – such poor, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities,
as gender, health and urban equity, universal etc): their experiences of deepening poverty,
health care, non-communicable diseases, discrimination and exclusion, and the social,
implementation science, and the humanitarian economic and political impact on their lives,
crisis. The BRAC Institute for Governance and including on health and wellbeing.
Development,9 led by an economist, focused • The impacts of COVID-19 on Rohingya
more on the governance and economic refugees: the diverse risks, vulnerabilities,
repercussions of the pandemic; while the Centre coping strategies and challenges among this
for Peace and Justice, another multi-disciplinary heterogenous population.
academic institute at the University, led by a • The impact of the nearly two-year-long
barrister, focused on the Rohingya refugee camps. education shutdown and its adverse effects on
school-going children, adolescents and their
Emerging Research Agenda on Social families.
Sciences and COVID-19 • The impacts of the pandemic on the lives
Social scientists are committed to exploring of migrant workers: the risks, vulnerabilities,
and understanding the various socioeconomic coping strategies and challenges, and the
implications of the pandemic. With these new impacts on social relationships and families.
7. https://covid-bracjpgsph.org/
8. https://bracjpgsph.org/centres.php
9. https://bigd.bracu.ac.bd/studies/covid-19/
10. This list is not exhaustive.
17• The gendered impact of COVID-19: the Brief Bios of the Authors
risks, vulnerabilities, coping strategies and
Sabina F. Rashid, PhD, is Dean and Professor
challenges among all genders.
at the BRAC School of Public Health, BRAC
• Vaccine hesitancy and appropriate
University. A medical anthropologist by training,
communication messages: research on
she has over 25 years of work experience in
sociocultural, religious and other barriers
Bangladesh. Her areas of research and teaching
(i.e., restricted mobility, lack of access to
interest are ethnographic and qualitative research,
the Internet, lack of information, inability to
with a focus on urban populations, adolescents
register) to address fears, rumors and other
and marginalized groups. She is particularly
challenges related to vaccine uptake among
interested in examining the impact of structural
diverse, disadvantaged populations.
inequalities and inequities and intersectional
factors that affect the ability of these populations
Conclusion to realize their health and rights.
The response to the COVID-19 outbreak ORCID ID:
has been largely clinical and biomedical, with https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0916-2631
extensive national packages rolled out. However, LinkedIn:
there have been irregularities reported in the linkedin.com/in/sabina-faiz-rashid-5229671aa
distribution of relief, food and cash materials.
There has been, thus far, no national demand Selima S. Kabir is currently working as an
for social science research and, in many cases, Assistant Research Coordinator at the BRAC
social scientists have not been included in the James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC
pandemic response. Unfortunately, this translates University, where she has the opportunity to
to policies that lack an inclusive and nuanced combine her love of writing with her passion for
lens – and a failure to address the impact on anthropological research. Her research interests lie
diverse vulnerable communities and populations in global access to sexual and reproductive health
who need support. There is a need for an care and rights. She is particularly interested in
integrated framework to tackle the pandemic ‘netnography’ or methods to use and explore the
that can only be achieved through a multi-sector Internet and technology for qualitative research,
approach and the inclusion of social scientists particularly in relation to adolescents, culture,
in response and decision-making at the highest migration, gender and sexuality.
levels. LinkedIn: https://bd.linkedin.com/in/selima-kabir
18References
1. Bangladesh Health Watch. (2020). BRAC JPGSPH and BHW: Launch of 6 Research Studies.
2. Cash, R. A. (2021). Using Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) in the Community. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease.
3. Chowdhury, M., & Misha, F. (2020). Covid-19 and the missing data conundrum. The Daily Star.
4. Chowdhury, M., & Rasheed, F. (2020). Covid-19 response: Inclusion as the first mantra. The Business Standard.
5. Dhaka Tribune. (2021). icddr,b: Covid-19 antibodies found in 71% people of Dhaka, 55% of Chittagong. Dhaka Tribune.
6. Jamil, K., Bhuiyan, A., Streatfield, K., & Chakrabarty, N. (1999). The immunization programme in Bangladesh: impressive gains in coverage, but gaps remain. Health
Policy Plan.
7. Munshi, K., & Myaux, J. (2006). Social norms and the fertility transition. Journal of Development Economics.
8. Rashid, S. F. (2020). The dilemma between hunger and a pandemic. The Daily Star. Retrieved from https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/news/the-dilemma-be-
tween-hunger-and-pandemic-1893550
9. TBS Report. (2021). Health ministry calls for research proposal on health services, one year after fund allocation. The Business Standard.
19Sokphea Young
Research Fellow at University College
London, United Kingdom, and a founder
of the Cambodian Scholars Network.
sophiabelieve@gmail.com
Cambodia
20Social Science Research
and COVID-19 Responses
in Cambodia
Highlights 5. The emerging research agenda for
social science research tends to focus
1. No social scientists have been on the impacts of COVID-19 and the
appointed to the COVID-19 roles of digital communication and
commission, which is dominated technology during the pandemic,
by senior government officials with rather than the COVID-19 response.
military experience. 6. The relationship between social
2. Local research initiatives and funding science research and COVID-19
opportunities are not well established response in Cambodia is
in Cambodia; consequently, the characterized by the extent to
limited number of social science which the social science research
researchers or research institutions environment and academic freedom
have to look overseas for donors. are influenced, or even restricted, by
3. Given the socio-political environment those in power.
in Cambodia – known as ‘hegemonic
authoritarianism’ – the institutional
actors (power holders) consider the Background
critical research findings of extra-
As COVID-19 spread to Cambodia in early
institutional actors (researchers and
2020, many media outlets began to cover the
research organizations) as an intrusion
potential trajectory of the pandemic and the
on their authority rather than a form of
impacts on the country. Few research projects
constructive support.
were initiated to look at how the government
4. The political economy and political
control of social science research in responded to the pandemic and its impacts
Cambodia have restricted researcher- until the number of infected people started to
led initiatives, either by individual increase and the government began imposing
social scientists or organizations, in restrictions on movement and lockdowns in
support of COVID-19 responses. March 2020 and April 2021 respectively. The
21adverse impacts of lockdown restrictions on the that employs social research methods that seek to
economy, food supply chains, poor communities, inform and influence COVID-19 responses.
garment industries (as supply chain were severely
disrupted), education and the ability to repay The Role of Social Scientists
loans were widely reported by commentators,
in COVID-19 Responses
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and
local and international media outlets. Local and The Inclusion of Social Scientists
international NGOs, research institutions, think in Scientific Commissions/ad hoc
tanks and bilateral agencies commissioned Advisory Bodies
research initiatives on the impacts of COVID-19, Several sub-committees were established
with the aim of informing the COVID-19 response by the government to tackle and contain the
and policymaking. This paper seeks to understand COVID-19 pandemic. The supreme commission,
how social scientists, in particular, contributed namely the national committee for COVID-19
to the COVID-19 response, and the factors that response, is chaired by the Prime Minister and
enabled and hindered their contribution. supported by deputy prime ministers and the
ministers of interior and defense. No social
Methodology scientists have been appointed to the commission,
Based on a review of relevant documents, which is dominated by senior government officials
media reports and interviews with key experts, with military experience. However, scientists and
this paper analyses: i) the role that social medical doctors working in the public health
science research and scientists played in sector have been appointed, given their primary
national commissions for COVID-19 response; roles in infectious diseases. Many public health
ii) the emergence of research funding during academics and policy researchers with a social
the COVID-19 pandemic; iii) how social science science background complained that:
influences policymaking; iv) researcher-led There is no systematic response. It is a military
initiatives in Cambodia; and, (v) emerging response; where there is a foe… we fight…
research agendas for the social sciences and the government response is inconsistent and
COVID-19. While there are many types of ineffective… there are national guidelines… but
research related to COVID-19, this paper looks the interpretation of the guidelines is difficult to
at academic and evidence-based policy research understand...1
1. Academic public health researcher (virtual, 10 July 2021)
22The impacts of the responses and measures Both academic and applied research funding
to contain or prevent the spread of COVID-19, in Cambodia is largely driven by foreign donors
including lockdowns, have not been well or regional partners who seek collaboration,
studied or have had limited input from scientific more often than not, with individual academic
studies. Some social researchers acknowledged researchers/consultants; a few have also
that the response or guidelines produced by partnered with local academic institutions and
the national committee of COVID-19 response organizations. Based on the interviews for this
might have been adapted from lessons learned research note, I categorize research funding
from other countries and from World Health opportunities as small, medium (between
Organization (WHO) guidelines, which have US$50,000 to less than a million) and large
incorporated social expertise.2 The Director of grants (mostly provided by international research
WHO has acknowledged the vital contribution institutions and NGOs). As public and private
of the opinions and expertise of interdisciplinary university systems in Cambodia have not set up
scientists in fighting and responding to the a system for receiving small- or medium-scale
COVID-19 outbreak: “This outbreak is a test of research funding, many foreign researchers
solidarity – political, financial and scientific… to collaborate with local researchers using
fight a common enemy that does not respect individual contracts, whereby local researchers
borders…. Research is an integral part of are employed as collaborative consultants or
the outbreak response.”3 While global-level co-investigators and are paid directly by the
organizations recognize the importance of foreign institutions. In other instances, individual
interdisciplinary expertise, including social researchers have received grants and fellowships,
science, the inclusion of scientific opinion and mostly small ones around US$10,000-$50,000 per
research is highly contextual, and far from grant award, from foreign institutions to carry out
apparent in countries with an authoritarian research in the country.
leadership, as in China where social science The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport
struggles to influence policymaking (Hu and Sidel, recently launched a new funding scheme, the
2020). ‘Research Creativity and Innovation Fund’ (RCI
The emergence of research funding Fund). Researchers from both private and public
opportunities for COVID research in the social education institutions can apply for financial
sciences, from national and international sources support of between $500 and $380,000 per
2. Public health researcher (virtual, 03 July 2021)
3. WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: https://www.who.int/news/item/12-02-2020-world-experts-and-funders-set-priorities-for-Covid-19 -research
23grant to carry out research on digital innovations the hybrid system allow, but limit, the
for the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’, applied participation of non-partisan actors. Many of
agricultural research, and 21st Century pedagogy. the researchers and organizations interviewed
These themes also seek to support research on for this research note confirmed that officials
education and COVID-19 responses.4 and policymakers officially and publicly
refute research findings that are critical of the
Research Policy Interactions government.5 Officials often cite the limitations
(International, National and Local) of the research, particularly in terms of sampling,
at Different Levels (Planning, methods and the lack of collaboration with
Implementation and Evaluation) officials, as the basis for their rejection. For
In this study, the interaction between instance, academic research widely cited in
social science research and policymaking media outlets claimed that a coronavirus similar
is characterized by institutional and extra- to COVID-19 (with a 90% match) was found
institutional processes. Through these two in horseshoe bats in Cambodia (Lacroix et al.,
channels, social science research has sought 2017). On the basis of methodological issues, the
to influence and inform policymaking for government immediately rejected the findings
COVID-19 response in Cambodia. However, the – although, informally, they acknowledge the
effectiveness of these channels is contingent upon results of the research. Whether or not research
the relationship between social scientists and findings are incorporated in government policy is
policymakers. often difficult to determine.
While extra-institutional processes provide However, research conducted jointly by UN
a means of interacting with policymakers, organizations and the government tends to gain
including the COVID-19 response commissions, more leverage than informal institutional policy
their effectiveness is limited due to the influences. A United Nations Development
exclusionary nature of the political system. Programme assessment of the impact of
Exclusivity is a tactic of the ‘pluralistic hybrid COVID-19 on vulnerable and poor communities,
regime’, whereby civil society and multiple for example, resulted in targeted cash distribution
parties exist in name only. Those who dominate programs, mostly in rural areas.6
4. Announcment of the MoEYS funding imitative can be found on the Ministry’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/moeys.gov.kh/photos/pcb.3918086188217966
/3918085634884688/ (Retrieved on 30 August 2020)
5. Interview with a director of a research NGO (virtual, 20 August 2020).
6. More information on cash distribution to support the most vulnerable people is available here: https://www.kh.undp.org/content/cambodia/en/home/stories/2021/
lifeline-for-vulnerable-cambodians-as-poverty-doubles-during-cov.html (retrieved on 20 July 2021).
24Researcher-led Initiatives in Support Funded by Australia’s Department of Foreign
of COVID-19 Responses Affairs and Trade, this initiative calls for
expressions of interest from research think tanks,
Research initiatives that investigate
NGOs and academic research institutes. Grants
the preparedness and responses of the
awarded to these institutes and think tanks have
government and the prevention of infectious
disease are not openly encouraged.7 been used to research many issues, of which
COVID-19 has unveiled many weaknesses and COVID-19 has been one of the key themes.
institutional concerns, especially in the public
Emerging Research Agenda on Social
health and socioeconomic protection systems
of the ruling government party, and research
Sciences and COVID-19
on these issues would further undermine As the space for civil society and academic
the system’s legitimacy. The government freedom has shrunk as the ruling regime leans
does not see this research as constructive further toward hegemonic authoritarianism,
and has limited research initiatives on social researchers and research organizations
COVID-19 responses led by foreign academic have tended to focus more on the impacts
researchers/institutions that seek to partner of COVID-19, seeking to stimulate evidence-
with local research institutions, including the based policy recommendations, shying away
National Institute of Public Health. from examining how the commissions respond
Despite the political and research to COVID-19 and the use of vaccinations. In
environment, a consortium of research addition, we observe the emergence of
institutions was established among local research on digital communication and its
and international not-for-profit research impacts on users, both adults and children,
organizations to receive funding for research during the pandemic. Similar to the aftermath
into the impact of COVID-19, with the aim of of the Avian influenza (H5N1) epidemic, future
informing and dialoging with policymakers. research agendas will include research on
Policy Pulse,8 an initiative of The Asia the repercussions of COVID-19 responses,
Foundation, aims to improve the public’s vaccinations, and post-remediation and
understanding of important policy reforms resilience from a health-social science
in Cambodia through high-quality research. perspective.
7. Interview with an academic public health researcher (virtual, 10 July 2021)
8. https://policypulse.org
25Conclusion scientific research, and research funding initiatives
and agendas are minimal, or even discouraged.
The relationship between social science
The social science research agenda is limited to
research and COVID-19 response in Cambodia
the socioeconomic impacts of COVID-19 and the
is characterized by the means and extent to
roles of digital technology during the pandemic
which the social science research environment rather than an assessment of COVID-19 responses.
and academic freedom are influenced or even Local funding is rare, and the ability to secure
restricted by institutional actors (power holders). overseas research funding lags far behind that of
Social science researchers from public and neighboring countries.
private universities, NGOs and research institutions
are considered extra-institutional actors. They use Brief Bio of the Author
informal or extra-institutional channels such as
Sokphea Young is a Research Fellow at
informal dissemination workshops, media outlets
University College London, United Kingdom, and
and public awareness initiatives as a means of
a founder of the Cambodian Scholars Network.
informing and shaping policymaking – both His work includes research on transnational
in general and more specifically in relation to activism, civil society, media and visual politics,
COVID-19 response policies. Institutional actors human rights, citizenship, globalization and
consider social science research as a form of development, Chinese globalism, and political
policy and institutional liberalization that could, regimes and development in Southeast Asia.
ultimately, undermine the leadership – or the He is the author of Strategies of authoritarian
‘hegemonic authoritarianism’ – of those in power. survival and dissensus in Southeast Asia (Palgrave
The response to COVID-19 is shaped by non-social Macmillan).
References
1. Hu M., Sidel M. (2020). Civil society and COVID in China: Responses in an authoritarian society. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(6), 1173-1181. doi:
10.1177/0899764020964596
2. Lacroix, A., Duong, V., Hul, V., San, S., Davun, H., Omaliss, K., & Buchy, P. (2017). Genetic diversity of coronaviruses in bats in Lao PDR and Cambodia. Infection, Genetics
and Evolution, 48, 10-18.
3. MoEYS. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2015). Higher education quality and capacity improvement project (Development and Innovation Grants): Stocktaking
report. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport.
26Panji Anugrah Permana1
& Inaya Rakhmani2
1
Lecturer at the Department of Politics,
Faculty of Social and Political
Sciences and Fellow at the Asia
Research Centre, Universitas Indonesia.
panji.anugrah@gmail.com.
2
Director of the Asia Research Centre,
Universitas Indonesia. inaya.r@ui.ac.id.
Indonesia
27Social Sciences and the
Pandemic in Indonesia
Highlights of Indonesian researchers through
international collaboration.
1. The number of social science 6. The pandemic has worsened social
experts involved in scientific inequalities, which have been
commissions and technocratic exacerbated by the inclusion of
policymaking is miniscule technocrats and the exclusion
compared to those from the hard of critical social scientists within
sciences. policymaking.
2. Funding that emerged during the
pandemic was obtained from two
major sources: the Indonesian Background
government’s state budget,
Currently, Indonesia is grappling with the
and bilateral and international
rise in confirmed COVID-19 cases. It has the
cooperation.
3. The power dynamics within and highest number of infections in the Asian region
between the central and local together with one of the lowest testing rates
governments influence the use of (France 24, 2021). Global reports indicate that
evidence by local governments in the Indonesian government was slow to respond
managing the pandemic. to COVID-19 (Varagur, 2020), both in comparison
4. Social science researcher-led to other countries in the region and in the world
initiatives during the pandemic
more generally. In this country note, we examine
emerged through community self-
the inclusion (and exclusion) of social scientist;
help groups and the role of the
emerging funding opportunities; the relationship
Indonesian diaspora.
5. The emerging research agendas between (national and select local) government
in the social sciences focus on and social scientists; researcher-led initiatives; and
national economic recovery and the new social research agendas that arose during the
potential for building the capacity pandemic.
28Methodology providing social science recommendations to
the government: the COVID-19 Task Force and
We conducted in-depth interviews with key
the newly disbanded Ministry of Research and
actors that were influential during the pandemic
Technology/National Agency of Research and
(government, CSOs and academics) and a
Innovation (Kemenristek/BRIN). For the Task Force,
document review to understand the particular
scientists from various disciplines – including the
role of social sciences and the relationship
social sciences – are recruited by the state as
between the state and society.
part of the expert team (Tim Ahli). Importantly, of
the 81 experts, more than half were sourced from
The Role of Social Scientists Universitas Indonesia. The Task Force is dominated
in COVID-19 Responses by life science practitioners and medical experts,
with only nine social scientists.
The Inclusion of Social Scientists Secondly, most social scientists that are
in Scientific Commissions/ad hoc critical of government policies are excluded
Advisory Bodies from bureaucratic channels, and articulate
Based on the involvement of social scientists their criticism through opinion pieces, national
in COVID-19 policy response, we identify two media interviews, webinars and social media
broad categories of social science orientation: (particularly Twitter, Instagram and Facebook)
technocratic and critical. We identify and as well as messenger platforms (particularly
categorize this based on the way their relationship WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram). This group of
with policymakers developed and evolved, as scholars are more scattered and tend to operate
well as the manner in which they voiced their individually or within loose networks.
recommendations.
Firstly, technocratically-oriented social The Emergence of Research Funding
scientists have direct access to policymakers. Opportunities for COVID Research in
They typically worked with state agencies in the Social Sciences, from National and
dealing with the pandemic, either as members International Sources
of expert teams or by leading research Several types of funding emerged during the
commissioned by state agencies. Two state pandemic in Indonesia: funding sourced from the
agencies in particular play an important role in state budget, and from bilateral and international
1. The Expert Team includes a number of social science experts: five economists, two legal scholars and two psychologists (COVID-19 Indonesia, 2020).
29You can also read
