The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Questionable Accountability: MSF and Sphere in 2003
Abstract
This article examines the relationship between Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and the Sphere Project. Prior to revisiting the concerns MSF had with the project, it looks at factors that give rise to differences between NGOs and cites some reasons for why an organisation such as MSF would not embrace such a project and clarifies some key elements of MSF‐style humanitarianism. The author revisits the original concerns and arguments presented by MSF when it decided not to participate beyond assisting with the establishment of technical standards and key indicators for the handbook. This is followed by a critical discussion examining these concerns and counter‐criticism with reference to experiences a few years after the inception of Sphere. It concludes with MSF's perceptions and stance regarding Sphere and accountability in 2003.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In addition, USbased HOs can differ from their European counterparts in relatively more utilitarian use of biometrics, particularly in having multiple use-cases and data-sharing activities.”
From Unique data, different values: Explaining variation in the use of biometrics by international humanitarian organizations (2024) · cites this paper as Tong, 2004
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Bouchet‐Saulnier F., 2002, Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law
- Braughman R., 2001, Humanitarian Responsibility
- Buchanan‐Smith M., 2003, How the Sphere Project Came into Being: A Case Study of Policy Making in the Humanitarian Aid Sector and the Relative Influence of Research
- Darcy J., 2003, According to Need, Needs Assessment and Decision Making in the Humanitarian Sector
- 10.1111/1467-7717.00178 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.327.7416.650 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.323.7315.740 · DOI
- Mompoint F., 2000, Using Sphere, Oxfam's Experience in West Africa
- Perrin P., 2002, War and Accountability – Accountability: A Framework
- Ridley M., 1993, The Red Queen, Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
- 10.1001/jama.286.5.531 · DOI
- 10.1093/rsq/21.3.113 · DOI
- Stoddard A., 2003, Humanitarian NGOs: Challenges and Trends
- Terry F., 2002, Condemned to Repeat, The Paradox of Humanitarian Action
- Terry F., 2000, The Limits and Risks of Regulation Mechanisms for Humanitarian Action
- Brabant K., 2000, Regaining Perspective: The Debate over Quality, Assurance and Accountability
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Açıkyıldız, Ç. (2024) · Global Policy · doi:10.1111/1758-5899.13343 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Tong, J.
- Affiliations
- Médecins Sans Frontières (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Tong, Jacqui
- Venue
- Disasters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 176-189
- ISSN
- 0361-3666 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-7717
- OpenAlex
- W2128896930
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 14.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Disasters (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Medecins Sans Frontieres Field Research (Medecins Sans Frontieres) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Historical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Conflict Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
- Keywords
- Médecins Sans Frontières, Sphere Project, humanitarian accountability, humanitarianism, non-governmental organizations, humanitarian norms
- MeSH terms
- Altruism, Humans, International Cooperation, Relief Work, Global Health
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
