Perspectives from Trivandrum, India and Brighton, UK on research equity: In the two jointly authored blogs, two very differently positioned members of the global development research community share their combined challenges in the promotion of more equitable research for global change.
On the face of it, the growing focus on how to make research more equitable seems to be universally welcomed. Donors increasingly speak this language and publish guidelines and policies to support it. Researchers located in institutions like ours in diverse contexts embrace it and there are an increasing number of meetings that examine it. And yet, the future looks uncertain for all in these turbulent times, as we experience dramatic cuts to international aid by western powers. At this time of deep anxiety and a rush to secure new funding, all of us, irrespective of our nationality, race or professional status, face some mighty elephants in the room about the future of global research partnerships.
Finding some common ground
This phenomenon relates to our respective histories and cultures, our professional networks, our livelihoods, our privilege and a wider international system in crisis. These jointly written opinion blogs are our attempt to share our challenges from the different perspectives of an Asian academic who works on the political economy of development and a European researcher and practitioner who leads programmes designed to enhance the use of evidence in decision making.
Visioning equitable research partnerships
During a recent meeting in Kenya that celebrated the ESRC FCDO Raising Learning Outcomes Research programme (RLO) a session was organised to discuss research equity for an international cohort of researchers who had worked together for over a decade. The organisers recognised that conversations about equity can be difficult given the power dynamics between the funders and the funded and between prime contract holders and their research partners. In international development research, this is still overwhelmingly divided by North and South, typically mapped on to former colonisers and colonies. It was, therefore, decided to follow Southern Voice’s methodology and create three separate group discussions: One for research project principal investigators located in universities in Europe and North America; A second for the RLO’s funders who are from UK-based institutions; and one for research partners (sub-grantees) who are located in academic and research institutions in the global south.
The funders’ perspective
The meeting participants based in the UK who design research calls and commission research seemed to share a similar vision of equitable partnerships with those from the global South. These groups used some common language to describe their values and proposed almost identical mechanisms for enabling change. These proposals included the decentralisation of funding, longer term funding and local research leadership. However, in the plenary discussion that followed there was general agreement that wider systems and particularly the procurement rules, legal regulations and due diligence imposed by donors and development agencies undermine many of these aspirations. This is all largely beyond the control of donors’ programme staff.
The principal investigators’ perspective
The group that found it hardest to articulate their vision was the principal investigators. Although their ideological commitment to equity in research and the value of local knowledge is strong, their ideas for how to operationalise these were less clear. There is no doubt that they want to see greater transparency, fairness, respectful collaboration and to promote inclusive and engaged research. However, it was less obvious what this all means for a possible shift of research leadership from one set of institutions, predominantly in the global North to another set in the global South. Nonetheless, there were some strong examples of how to work more equitably, such as efforts by the University of Cambridge’s Research for Equitable Access and Learning (REAL) centre.
The research partners’ perspective
This group had the liveliest discussion of all and some in the group articulated salutary experiences with collaborators in the North. Others reported experiencing a lack of equity in funds and staff between researchers located in the South and North. Some participants even felt that those located in the South faced greater scrutiny regarding operational decisions compared to those located in the North. Some in the group also expressed unease at the division of participants into three groups in this manner (based on function and structural location), but this was not cogently articulated or discussed.
Building on this discussion and some subsequent correspondence, the authors of this blog wanted to share our respective reactions to the meeting responding to one another’s points. In the next blog we share this conversation and our combined call to action on equitable partnerships.
