Following on our previous blog which reported on the perspectives to emerge from a meeting of researchers and funders from the global South and North on visioning equitable research partnerships, we now share the subsequent conversation between Suraj Jacob and James Georgalakis and their vision for the future.
Comparing our elephants
The axis for equity
Suraj: The interactions at the Nairobi the ESRC FCDO Raising Learning Outcomes Research programme (RLO) conference reinforced my feeling that while the question of North-South equity in research collaboration has value—and is far from straightforward—it can hide other questions regarding equity in research. While, no doubt, many instances of North-South research teams have fundamental problems of respect and dignity (and even exploitation), that has not been my experience. Many others in the RLO projects also had salutary experiences like mine. Thus, for this specific context, I believe that the important questions of equity lie elsewhere, not the North-South axis. Specifically, I think there is considerable research inequity within the South.
James: The funding of research by Northern institutions whose governments still regard these investments as a form of soft power is a key contributing factor to inequalities within the research communities of the global South. The geopolitics of aid is layered on top of the culture of academic research which reproduces colonial elitist hierarchal models of scholarship with its outdated definitions of research excellence. However, I agree that the current debates on research equity would benefit from a more honest and transparent acknowledgement of where domestic as well as global factors are contributing to these inequalities.
Since our meeting, the USAID and UK Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) cuts have rocked the broader development sector to its core. This could undermine South-North, North-North and South-South relationships as organisations find themselves competing for a much smaller pool of research funding with even more stringent conditions for how it is spent. Aid is fragile and creates dependence on foreign assistance that is inherently inequitable. The research funding we bid for is part of this system and so are we.
Different forms of power
Suraj: Some countries of the South are researched relatively more and some countries far less. Within countries of the South, too—despite considerable intra-country diversity. These are matters of concern.
Further, research partners from the South often have social and academic elite status within their country that might edge out potentially important other research partners from collaborations with the North.
There can also be considerable inequity within the in-country team of a research project. We can and should ask questions regarding respect and dignity—and funds, staffing, and logistical support—between the research partner listed in the collaborative project and their in-country team members. In the case of India, unfortunately issues of gender and caste are always potentially serious axes of inequity, besides other important axes of power.
The sensitivities and sensibilities around these issues, and their own structural position and histories of inequity, make it particularly difficult for those in the North to raise such issues—but the fact is that that they exist and are often more important than North-South issues.
James: Our relative silence on both intra-country inequity and on the need to reconfigure Northern research capacity for development reflects power hierarchies within Southern and Northern academia and research. Global South researchers who raise the issue of South-North researcher inequity themselves may sometimes be in positions of power within their own countries and may even be complicit in the system of existing intra-country inequities. Global North researchers who advocate for funders to adopt equitable principles may fail to fully acknowledge their own power and influence and do not always consider how their work and institutional practices must change.
Equity for whom and in what?
Suraj: The group discussions in Nairobi prompted me to wonder what we mean by equity in the context of researchers and funders in different structural locations, and specifically, to ask: Equity in what? Respect and dignity, certainly, though it is easier to feel their presence or absence than convert them into un-gameable standard empirical measures. Perhaps one manifestation of equity in respect is the norms for scrutiny of decisions by those in different structural locations. One sees that ‘accountability’ is often operationally a top-down matter alone.
However, it is not obvious to me that equity should extend to funds and staffing, as some in the research partners group had demanded. This leads me to ask: Can there be administrative hierarchy and inequality in funds and staffing and yet equity in respect and dignity?
I would like to share a related observation from the research partners group. Although it was diverse, participants were all positioned as researchers from the South. Along with the explicit framing made by the organisers (namely, equity in North-South research collaboration), this induced participants to only compare their funds and staffing, and scrutiny of their decisions, relative to funds, staffing and scrutiny of their collaborators in the North. This meant that the more important and primary question of meaning and interpretation— ‘what forms of equity are attractive, and what forms of inequity are problematic in research collaborations?’—was simply not addressed. Thus, the framing and group formation diverted discussion from a wider and deeper inquiry into equity.
James: The inevitable shrinking of Northern leadership of research focused on low-income settings through a process of localisation and reduced aid budgets must be faced head on. We cannot have our cake and eat it. If we focus our attention on the funders and their practices, we must also take a hard look at the institutional cultures, practices and business models of research organisations and consultancies in the North. There are conversations and spaces in which these difficult issues are being discussed including IDS’ collaboration with Southern Voice.
Although equity does not need to always be reflected in equal allocation of resources, the respective roles and responsibilities in research projects need to be addressed with transparency, respect and fairness. The increasing trend by funders to simply dictate proportions of funding that can be allocated to North versus South is a blunt tool. We are already seeing various strategies being deployed to get around this or even exploit it. Some of us are willing to ask: Who will do less of what, to create spaces for others, and what new roles might evolve in knowledge systems at the local, national or global levels?
What about communities?
Suraj: Another concern to me is the inequity between researchers, both of the South and North, and the subjects of their research (in the South). The framing of the research equity question in meetings like ours makes it more difficult to acknowledge this question. It is not surprising that researchers from the South did not raise this as it is consistent with my previous point about inequity within the South. Neither did researchers in the North bring up this issue, but my experience and instinct is that they are more likely to do so than those in the South. In short, by posing the issue of in/equity in a particular way, other related and arguably more salient issues of in/equity receded into the background.
James: It can be tempting to retreat to discussing areas of equity we feel more comfortable about and that maintain our own relevance and importance. The focus on the behaviours and policies of donors unites researchers from different backgrounds against a common challenge. We can share our mutual experiences of the sudden suspension of projects, painful proposal deadlines and onerous due diligence requirements, blaming funders for all our woes. Meanwhile, research methodologies that we claim empower communities seem easier for Northern actors to talk about than the inequities and power dynamics between us and our partners in the South. Whether we are of the South or North the risk is that we frame these conversations on research equity in ways that let us off the hook.
The future of global research collaboration – our shared perspective
As we sit 5000 miles apart, divided by nationality, race, history and educational background, we are united in our desire to meet our challenges together. This is our response to a world that seems hell bent on dismantling aid and global cooperation against the backdrop of rising ultra- nationalistic agendas. This is going to require a more honest and at times awkward conversation about research collaboration and equity. As we face diminished research funding, the uncertainty of climate change, health emergencies, humanitarian crises and rising inequality, we will need more trans-national research collaboration, not less. The numerous initiatives and studies taking place that are allowing us to talk about our elephants are incredibly welcome, but will be inadequate, unless we can agree on what we are going to do about them.