Annex C: 2 Annex D: 22 Annex E: 35 Annex F: 89

One respondent reported they had reached out to one of the presenters on research ethics after the forum and “applied some of the learning.” A second respondent mentioned the value of the “ethics framework” presented at one of the fora. [...] To answer them we will draw on: • To what extent has the flexibility and range of research funding calls responded to humanitarian needs for The synthesis of our RQ+ assessments research evidence? The synthesis and updating of existing • Have the tools, support activities, guidance and evaluation case studies knowledge products developed to strengthen grantee capacities and other key stakeholders. [...] RQ+ was first used in IDRC’s external program evaluations in 2015, and has subsequently been used in over 200 evaluations of research commissioned to influence policy and practice.8 The RQ+ approach and family of instruments9 provide an assessment of the quality of research designed to influence policy and programming that consider a number of factors beyond the research design and outputs, or the. [...] But while huge gaps remain in the evidence base for humanitarian action, there has been an increase in the numbers and range of providers of humanitarian research and “a proliferation of humanitarian teaching and research programmes all over the world, as well as sector-wide activities aimed at improving accountability and performance.”15 There has also been an expansion in the number of relevant. [...] These include many that are frequent grantees of R2HC, such as the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Harvard School of Public Health and the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and others that are not R2HC grantees such as the Humanitarian Health Research Initiative at the Australian National University.