At Kalu Institute, we train professionals to take action — not to repeat what everyone else is saying. That’s why our master’s students are expected to submit a final assignment that shows real analysis, technical thinking, and a critical view of the humanitarian system.
We don’t require students to follow a specific topic. However, we’ve defined six research lines that represent the kind of thinking we want to encourage. These lines are for people who challenge the status quo, bring fresh ideas, and create value for those working in crisis situations.
Here are the lines we propose:
1. Applications of technology in humanitarian action
Technology is not helpful just because it’s new. It needs to work. We want case studies and field experiences with real tools — such as drones, sensors, blockchain, or telecoms — used in logistics, monitoring, or aid delivery. In short: we value proven results over hype.
2. Use of artificial intelligence in humanitarian action
AI is already here. It’s being used in humanitarian work — sometimes well, sometimes not. We want solid analyses of how it’s been used to predict crises, automate responses, manage data, or support decisions. At the same time, we want to hear about its limits: ethical risks, biased data, and poor decision-making.
3. Disability inclusion in humanitarian crises
We need studies on how to include people with disabilities effectively — from the planning stage to real implementation. Forget slogans. Show what works in practice, even when it’s messy or imperfect.
4. Humanitarian access in conflict settings
Getting to people in need is not always guaranteed. Sometimes, it’s the hardest part. We’re looking for stories and analysis on access: difficult negotiations, obstacles on the ground, ethical dilemmas, and what was learned. We want honest reflections, not theory.
5. The role of the private sector, markets, and competition in humanitarian aid
Let’s move past black-and-white views. We want studies on how businesses, markets, and competition shape the quality of aid. Topics may include public-private partnerships, market-based responses, or direct service delivery by companies.
6. Limitations and contradictions of the international humanitarian system
This is not a space for complaining. It’s a space for smart criticism. We want clear analysis of problems inside the system: bureaucracy, empty principles, or political games. In particular, we want to hear how state-run disaster systems fail — especially when they’re run like networks of favors, or when fear and self-interest are stronger than the humanitarian imperative.
If your final paper fits one of these lines — great. If it doesn’t, that’s fine too. Just make sure your topic makes sense, adds value, and avoids repeating what has already been said a thousand times.
We’re looking for original thinking, not clichés.
And if your work stands out, we may publish it.
