Research on the Nature and Scope of Trafficking in Persons (TIP) in South Africa - Lessons Learned Research Brief

The research aimed to collect robust, empirically-based qualitative and quantitative data to reveal the nature and magnitude of TIP in South Africa. The study focused on two geographic areas: a national study across South Africa and a local study in the Western Cape. The research was conducted in partnership with US and South African institutions, including the University of Witwatersrand and the University of the Western Cape. The research highlighted the impact of a fragmented approach to monitoring and managing TIP in South Africa. The team shared lessons on how TIP research and implementation of mitigation measures could be improved to translate research into policy and practice in South Africa. These lessons are relevant to all inter-sectoral and inter-government research and policy efforts. Stakeholder engagement was identified as critical but challenging to achieve. The team recommended enabling front-line stakeholders and practitioners to participate in research that informs policies, strategies, and resource allocation. This could be achieved by reviewing and amending government department mandates and protocols to clarify accountability and information sharing. Ethical approval and permissions were found to be a time-consuming and often arbitrary process, taking 6-12 months. The National Intersectoral Committee on Trafficking in Persons (NICTIP) research committee was recommended to facilitate multi-sectoral participation in ethical research. This would enable coordinated efforts for ethics approval and permissions across government departments, rather than individual committees. The team also highlighted the importance of adhering to ethical practices in research practices. Researchers must continue to conduct research sensitively and use ethical safeguards. Continuous discussion and sharing of research and ethical considerations across the team, and engagement with Research Ethics Committees (REC) and Institutional Review Board (IRB) when necessary, were recommended. Adaptive and flexible management of research was also emphasized, with research team leads and inter-sectoral committees using a management approach that maintains the rigor of the design, data, and data analysis. The government was recommended to contribute to the research and encourage participation by their departments, beneficiaries, and beneficiaries' vulnerable populations. Maintaining data rigor was also crucial, even when the time frame or design had to change. A longer time frame for inception and buy-in and continuous stakeholder engagement were recommended. Despite delays in approvals and design changes due to COVID-19, data rigor must be maintained. Finally, the team emphasized the importance of including a multi-sector platform in the research design to enhance research-policy engagement and translation from the start. An intersectoral mechanism such as NICTIP was recommended to ensure the implementation of research findings inform policy, practice, and practice. Regular discussions, engagement, and engagement with inter-sectoral committees, government departments, and society were recommended to enhance research studies and translation of findings into policy and practice.