North-South Research Research Articles

Communities of Knowledge or Tyrannies of Partnership: Reflections on North-South Research Networks and the Dual Imperative

Communities of Knowledge or Tyrannies of Partnership: Reflections on North-South Research Networks and the Dual Imperative

Supporting Southern-led Research: Implications for North—South Research Partnerships

Background: Global health research partnerships are commonly led by Northern investigators who come from resource-rich research environments, while Southern partners participate with a paucity of research skills and resources. This power asymmetry within North–South research partnerships may further exacerbate the unequal distribution of benefits from the research process. Methods: This study is designed to present the benefits and challenges of engaging in the research process from the perspective of The AIDS Support Organization (TASO), an HIV/AIDS care and treatment organization that has been involved in global health research partnerships. It uses a validated research tool entitled “Is Research Working for You?” to facilitate qualitative interviews surrounding the experienced benefits and challenges in engaging in the research partnerships as described by TASO staff. Results: Three key themes emerged from the content and thematic analysis: 1) the reported benefits of research (e.g., evidence-based management, advocacy, etc.), 2) the challenges the research committee members face in becoming more involved in the research process (e.g., lack of data analysis skill, lack of inclusion in the research process, etc.), and 3) the institutional ambition at TASO to develop a Southern-led research agenda. Conclusions: This is one of the few studies to document the development of a Southern-led research agenda in addition to the challenges of engaging in the research process. Mechanisms for moderating power dynamics within North–South partnerships can provide opportunities for improved research capacity and quality.

Supporting southern-led research: implications for North-South research partnerships.

Global health research partnerships are commonly led by Northern investigators who come from resource-rich research environments, while Southern partners participate with a paucity of research skills and resources. This power asymmetry within North-South research partnerships may further exacerbate the unequal distribution of benefits from the research process. This study is designed to present the benefits and challenges of engaging in the research process from the perspective of The AIDS Support Organization (TASO), an HIV/AIDS care and treatment organization that has been involved in global health research partnerships. It uses a validated research tool entitled "Is Research Working for You?" to facilitate qualitative interviews surrounding the experienced benefits and challenges in engaging in the research partnerships as described by TASO staff. Three key themes emerged from the content and thematic analysis: 1) the reported benefits of research (e.g., evidence-based management, advocacy, etc.), 2) the challenges the research committee members face in becoming more involved in the research process (e.g., lack of data analysis skill, lack of inclusion in the research process, etc.), and 3) the institutional ambition at TASO to develop a Southern-led research agenda. This is one of the few studies to document the development of a Southern-led research agenda in addition to the challenges of engaging in the research process. Mechanisms for moderating power dynamics within North-South partnerships can provide opportunities for improved research capacity and quality.

Fairness and legitimacy of decisions during delivery of malaria services and ITN interventions in zambia

BackgroundMalaria is the leading cause of morbidity and the second leading cause of mortality in Zambia. Perceptions of fairness and legitimacy of decisions relating to treatment of malaria cases within public health facilities and distribution of ITNs were assessed in a district in Zambia. The study was conducted within the framework of REsponse to ACcountable priority setting for Trust in health systems (REACT), a north-south collaborative action research study, which evaluates the Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) approach to priority setting in Zambia, Tanzania and Kenya.MethodsThis paper is based on baseline in-depth interviews (IDIs) conducted with 38 decision-makers, who were involved in prioritization of malaria services and ITN distribution at district, facility and community levels in Zambia, one Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with District Health Management Team managers and eight FGDs with outpatients' attendees. Perceptions and attitudes of providers and users and practices of providers were systematized according to the four AFR conditions relevance, publicity, appeals and leadership.ResultsConflicting criteria for judging fairness were used by decision-makers and patients. Decision-makers argued that there was fairness in delivery of malaria treatment and distribution of ITNs based on alleged excessive supply of free malaria medicines, subsidized ITNs, and presence of a qualified health-provider in every facility. Patients argued that there was unfairness due to differences in waiting time, distances to health facilities, erratic supply of ITNs, no responsive appeal mechanisms, inadequate access to malaria medicines, ITNs and health providers, and uncaring providers. Decision-makers only perceived government bodies and donors/NGOs to be legitimate stakeholders to involve during delivery. Patients found government bodies, patients, indigenous healers, chiefs and politicians to be legitimate stakeholders during both planning and delivery.ConclusionPoor status of the AFR conditions of relevance, publicity, appeals and leadership corresponds well to the differing perceptions of fairness and unfairness among outpatient attendees and decision-makers. This may have been re-enforced by existing disagreements between the two groups regarding who the legitimate stakeholders to involve during service delivery were. Conflicts identified in this study could be resolved by promoting application of approaches such as AFR during priority setting in the district.

A Sociology of International Research Partnerships for Sustainable Development

In recent years, the partnership concept has shaped not only international development assistance, but also the organisation of knowledge production processes in development research. This article looks beyond the rhetoric of the partnership concept by discussing the institutional conditions and individual choices that shape North–South research collaboration in the context of an international development research network. By drawing on ideas from the Sociology of Knowledge, and by distinguishing among three distinct lenses on power, the article analyses discourses and practices shaping working relations between unequal partners. Research partnerships are not a universal remedy for structural inequalities and epistemological hegemonies. However, they can offer important opportunities for direct encounters between people and institutions from different scientific traditions and policy contexts, which can lead to the emergence of more respectful and reflexive forms of knowledge production in contemporary development research. Depuis quelques années, le partenariat est un concept essentiel non seulement de l’aide au développement international, mais aussi de l’organisation de la production de connaissances dans le domaine de la recherche sur le développement. Dans cet article nous nous situons au delà du discours sur le concept de partenariat et examinons les conditions institutionnelles et les choix individuels qui déterminent les collaborations Nord-Sud au sein d’un réseau de recherche international pour le développement. En s’inspirant des idées de la sociologie du savoir et en examinant le pouvoir de trois points de vue différents, cet article analyse les discours et les pratiques qui déterminent les relations de travail entre des partenaires inégaux. Le partenariat de recherche n’est pas un remède universel aux problèmes d’inégalités structurelles et d’hégémonie épistémologique. Cependant, les partenariats de recherche offrent d’importantes opportunités de rencontres entre individus et institutions ayant des traditions scientifiques et politiques différentes, ce qui peut faciliter le développement de pratiques de production de savoir plus respectueuses et réflexives dans le domaine de la recherche contemporaine pour le développement.

Afterword

This brief afterword uses the image of the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City to reflect on the north-south contact zones of the Americas, then goes on to examine how the five essays collected in this special issue of Social Text, which were presented at the 2008 Tepoztlán Institute for the Transnational History of the Americas inhabit that space and inquire after its unequal, often violent dynamics. I comment on the new archives and objects of study that north-south research brings into view, and on the ways they exemplify the methodological challenges faced by cultural studies at this point in its emergence.

Mother and Child Contaminants and Dietary Impacts on the Body Burden of Contaminants: Contribution of North-South Research Collaboration to Maternal and Child Global Health

Mother and Child Contaminants and Dietary Impacts on the Body Burden of Contaminants: Contribution of North-South Research Collaboration to Maternal and Child Global Health

Concentrations of Toxic Metals in Blood and Cord Blood of Delivering Women from Three Indian Ocean Coastal Communities, South Africa. North-South Research Collaboration

Concentrations of Toxic Metals in Blood and Cord Blood of Delivering Women from Three Indian Ocean Coastal Communities, South Africa. North-South Research Collaboration

P06-05. Building capacity for HIV/AIDS prevention trials in Africa: Evidence from three projects supported by the Global Health Research Initiative

Methods The three teams are using diverse but complementary capacity building approaches with a mix of African-Canadian and African-African research partnerships. In West Africa, a Benin-Canada partnership is strengthening capacity for clinical trials by: 1) training African investigators; 2) supporting the creation of the national Ethics Committee for health research in Benin; and 3) supporting the creation of a HIV/STI Prevention Research Unit within the Faculty of Health Sciences in Benin. A second Africa-Canada team created and supported the CanadaAfrica Prevention Trials (CAPT) network which facilitates north-south and south-south research partnerships in this domain. The third team used the grant to build the African Development of AIDS Prevention Trial (ADAPT) capacity program. This program is strengthening the capacities of local health systems to design, conduct, and use the evidence from large-scale AIDS prevention trials in southern Africa. Results These three projects are helping to build African capacity to undertake HIV/AIDS clinical trials in Africa by: 1) combining capacity building strategies both at the individual institutional levels and 2) strengthening a range of skills and knowledge that includes epidemiology, community and stakeholder engagement, research management, research ethics and grant writing.

Symmetry and Asymmetry: New Contours, Paradigms, and Politics in African Academic Partnerships

International partnership spanning various organizational and geographical boundaries has emerged as the dominant paradigm for organizing modern scientific research; and for undertaking international development policy. Academic collaboration has become ubiquitous, embedded in organizational cultures, and is increasingly organized in a wide variety of structural forms and for different purposes among individual researchers, academic institutions, international development agencies, and governments. Research partnerships can promote knowledge production and sharing; stimulate the pooling of financial and high level human resources across boundaries; and create synergies and complementarities among the diverse participants for mutual benefit. But research partnerships are hardly unproblematic. In practice, partnerships are highly dynamic and complex phenomena embedded with varying configurations of power and resource flow asymmetries and geopolitics; and these contestations can intensify where the cooperation involves entities from the North and those in the South. This paper suggests that strategic international research collaboration between research communities located within Africa and those in developed countries, as well as regional partnerships among African universities themselves, represent the most productive framework for reinvigorating and strengthening research capacity within sub-Saharan universities. Partnerships can also help reintegrate Africa more vigorously into the emerging global knowledge economy where the continent currently occupies a relatively undermined position or is excluded altogether. This paper is structured as follows. The first part attempts to define and conceptualize the phenomenon of research partnership and examines some of the forces that drive its rapid growth worldwide. The next part looks at the multiple asymmetries embedded within the politics of North–South research cooperation. The growing political and economic significance of knowledge partnership as the newly dominant policy tool within the broader terrain of international development is explored; followed thereafter by a brief overview of the difficulties of measuring the impacts of research cooperation. It concludes with a discussion of the resurgence of regional and international research and development partnerships in the contemporary African continent.

Pitfalls and opportunities in knowledge sharing: experiences from a research capacity building project in Central America

A number of attempts have been made in the North to assist in the formation of independent research capacities in the South by establishing knowledge sharing through North-South research collaboration. The development aid department of the Danish ministry of foreign affairs initiated one such attempt. Aalborg University was approached by the National University of Costa Rica to make a joint research venture within the field of sustainable development. The project got a Central American regional perspective by including participants from Nicaragua and El Salvador. It aimed at the support of relevant Central American research activities, including the formation of adequate organisational setups. In this paper, the Central American universities are viewed as important subsystems of the respective national systems of innovation. It discusses research capacity enhancement through collaborative research between Denmark and Central America. To what extent did the knowledge transfer and sharing, as well as the organisational capacity building efforts, succeed? Our overall conclusion is that the research capacity that exists in the North has to be carefully adapted to the specific context in places where it is expected to be useful. Research capacity is built much more by interaction and collaboration than by one-way transfers.

On the agenda: North–South research partnerships and agenda-setting processes

Co-operation between researchers in the global North and South is critical to the production of new knowledge to inform development policies. However, the agenda-setting process is a formidable obstacle in many development research partnerships. The first section of this article examines how bilateral donor strategies affect collaborative agenda-setting processes. The second section explores researchers' motivations for entering into North–South partnerships; the obstacles that Southern researchers encounter in agenda-setting processes; and the strategies that they employ to ensure that research partnerships respond to their concerns. This analysis suggests that while strong Southern research organisations are best placed to maximise the benefits of collaboration, donors and researchers alike are well advised to recognise the limitations of this approach and use it prudently, because North–South partnerships are not necessarily the best way to advance research agendas rooted in Southern priorities.

The emerging shape of a global HIV research agenda: how partnerships between Northern and Southern researchers are addressing questions relevant to both

In this review I will narrate and discuss recent North-South health research partnerships and how such partnerships are of mutual benefit to both. Globalization has shrunk the world into a virtual single community in which actions of individuals may have global repercussion. The ever-improving accessibility to fast communications through both transportation and knowledge and information exchange is making this virtual community even smaller. The current large global burden of diseases of poverty, made worse by the HIV/AIDS pandemic is a major concern for all. Although the South bears the brunt of this burden and is disproportionately adversely affected, the ill effects are global. Among these effects, include global poverty, development constraints and insecurity. It is no wonder that scientists from both north and south are working together to mitigate the effects of this scourge for the mutual benefit of all. Despite a period of 25 years since the onset of the HIV/AIDS pandemic many challenges still abound. A preventive vaccine is still illusive and care and prevention programmes not universal. To mitigate this several global initiatives and North-South partnerships are working together for the common good. Such collaborations seen in academic settings, research institutions, networks of excellence and the private sector engage in research, training and service provision. This cooperation includes discovery and evaluations of HIV vaccine candidates as well as treatment and prevention methods.

North-South and South-South Trade-Related Technology Diffusion: How Important Are They in Improving TFP Growth?

This paper examines the impact on total factor productivity (TFP) growth in the South of North-South and South-South trade-related technology diffusion and of foreign direct investment (FDI). North-South and South-South trade-related research and development (R&D) stocks are constructed based on industry-specific R&D in the North, North-South and South-South trade patterns, and input-output relations in the South. The main findings are: 1. Both North-South and South-South trade-related R&D have a positive impact on TFP growth in the South; 2. FDI has a positive, though smaller, impact on TFP growth; 3. The impact on TFP growth of trade-related technology diffusion increases with the level of education in the case of North-South trade but not in the case of South-South trade.

Refugee research agendas: the influence of donors and North-South partnerships

This paper examines how refugee studies and forced migration research agendas have been shaped by donor policies, and in particular by donors' support for North-South research partnerships. The first part of this paper considers the nature of donors' influence on forced migration research agendas, and contextualises donor support for forced migration research within broader trends in the financing of developmentrelated research, including increased assistance for multidisciplinary, multi-stakeholder research, and the primacy of ‘policy-relevant’ research. The second section focuses on the implications of donors' tendency to support forced migration research through North-South partnerships. In this section, I explore researchers' motivations for entering into such partnerships, and discuss the obstacles they may entail for Southern researchers trying to articulate and advance their own agendas. At their best, North-South research partnerships are a source of mutual learning and capacity building that stimulate academic debates while successfully contributing to efforts to protect and assist the displaced. However, I contend that donors and researchers alike are well-advised to be frank about the limitations of this approach and use it only judiciously, as North-South partnerships are not necessarily the most productive way to advance research agendas grounded in the concerns and perspectives of Southern actor.

Editorial: North-South research collaborations: a move towards a true partnership?

Tropical Medicine & International HealthVolume 10, Issue 3 p. 207-209 Free Access Editorial: North–South research collaborations: a move towards a true partnership? Fred Binka, Fred Binka INDEPTH Network, Accra, GhanaSearch for more papers by this author Fred Binka, Fred Binka INDEPTH Network, Accra, GhanaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 February 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2004.01373.xCitations: 67 Author Fred Binka, INDEPTH Network, PO Box KD 213, Kanda, Accra, Ghana. E-mail: fred.binka@indepth-network.org This editorial is a keynote speech given during the workshop “Communicable disease research in Sub-Saharan Africa – from the African bench to patients and populations”. The workshop, which took place in Accra, 18–22 April 2004, was coordinated by F. Binka from the INDEPTH Network in Accra and T. Junghanss from the University Hospital Heidelberg, and funded by the Volkswagen Foundation. This meeting was unique in that it brought together research institutions of the South and the North with research foundation representatives before launching a call for proposals for a new funding initiative (“Knowledge for Tomorrow. Cooperative Research Projects in Sub-Saharan Africa”), thereby giving the South a voice in shaping it. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume10, Issue3March 2005Pages 207-209 RelatedInformation

Research Capacity Building for Development: From Old to New Assumptions

This article departs from the idea that modalities of support from the North to research capacity development in the South rest upon particular assumptions concerning knowledge production and utilisation. It argues that most existing schemes tend to rely on assumptions that seem to be in need of revision, what helps to explain the low impact of North-South research partnerships on development. It illustrates the argument with an analysis of the Nicaragua-Sweden partnership with support from SAREC. It suggests new assumptions to be taken into account when designing modalities of support to research capacity building as follows: (a) the notion of innovation as a non-linear process involving different stakeholders and forms of knowledge; (b) the need for social relevance and accountability; and (c) the idea of self-determination and local ownership.

Poverty elimination, North-South research collaboration, and the politics of participatory development

This paper reflects critically on issues of North-South collaboration and participatory research arising from a project on participatory and sustainable local-level environmental management in the peri-urban area surrounding Kumasi, Ghana. Rapid immigration, uncoordinated conversion of farmland to housing, intensified resource exploitation, and declining water quality and availability are particularly pressing problems there. Collaborative research arrangements with local partners as well as sustained participatory relations with selected village communities were central to this project. More generally, the paper reflects on institutional issues relating to the dichotomy between research and development assistance projects, and their implications for project evaluations.

Application of the innovation systems framework in North-South research

This paper discusses the evolution of a development assistance research programme in South Asia. The programme supports North-South collaboration in the area of crop post-harvest issues. A novelty of the programme is the way it commissioned policy research on institutional issues impinging on the success of the research projects it commissioned. Through this and other learning activities, the programme has evolved the underlying principles of its approach, recently giving much more emphasis to the role of partnerships and institutional contexts in the planning and execution of its work. Underpinning this has been an exploration and application of the innovation systems framework. Lessons include the need to see North-South research collaboration in terms of its capacity development effects on national systems of partners and processes concerned with the development and use of innovations. Development assistance agencies should pay attention to the importance of engaging in their own institutional learning if they want to make more effective contributions to sustainable development through North-South research partnerships.

North-South partnerships in development research: an institutional approach

In order to challenge the global knowledge divide, knowledge-producing systems in the South need to become more integrally linked to international research networks as full partners in knowledge accumulation and international exchanges. This paper raises some issues for discussion on how North-South partnerships can contribute to supporting such processes. The paper draws evidence from the literature, existing Dutch programmes for North-South research cooperation, and recent innovative Dutch partnerships in North-South research, which emphasise a greater equitable exchange with partners in the South. It shows that joint programmatic research builds up more cumulative patterns of capacity enhancement and international networks, although capacity retention remains a long-term problem in the South. New initiatives give more space to equal exchanges and learning in the programmes than older established programmes. In the final section, five important issues that need to be explored in future studies of North-South research partnerships are discussed briefly.