Previous
Enrique Mendizabal’s recent article An insider’s perspective into equitable think tank partnerships: time for a fundamental change partially reacts to Southern Voice and the Institute of Development Studies’ work on equity in research. I appreciate that Enrique is very candid in his approach to the disparities in power dynamics between think tanks in the Global North and Global South and relates the issues to his career. From my perspective, I want to use this response to expand on some of the implicit questions Enrique poses in his article. However, much of this reflection stems from hours of discussions among our project team.
Why equitable partnerships?
Enrique inquires why frameworks like “equitable partnerships” and “research for development” remain alive despite feeling outdated. When we began this project, we knew that “equitable partnerships” and “research for development” were placeholders. They are imperfect, but we use them because there isn’t a better alternative yet. If I could write proposals with placeholders for these terms and still get funding, I would.
The challenge is that these ideas, developed and funded by actors in the Global North, have become entrenched. Enrique quotes Werner Hernani saying, “Right now, more people are googling Pad Thai in Bolivia than the SDGs.” This comment speaks to the disconnect between the conversations that dominate the ‘development discourse’ and the realities faced by many in the Global South. Exactly! Most international funders and organisations, the main targets of our work, google more ‘equitable partnerships’ than ‘Southern leadership’, ‘reforming the funding space’, or the other systems transformations we would like to see. So, we meet our audience where they are, hoping they will reach new destinations in their frameworks and ways of thinking along with us.
But independent of the labels, do international research collaborations matter? Yes. International research collaboration happens across sciences and sectors, and they keep multiplying! In our interviews, we talked with all types of researchers within universities, think tanks, and across sectors. They confirmed this trend.
That is expected, but the evidence gets more interesting when comparing the data across income levels. The evidence seems consistent across different studies: high-income countries collaborate less (as a proportion of their total outputs). On the other hand, low-income countries depend more on international collaboration for their research outputs than any other income category. These collaborations happen primarily with high-income countries. Unsurprisingly, researchers see these partnerships shaping their systems, not always for the better.
Is this debate irrelevant to most researchers in the Global South?
Enrique rightly argues that the debate on equitable partnerships is often narrow and dominated by voices from the Global North. As a result, the discussion becomes increasingly irrelevant to the Global South. This creates a chicken-and-egg dilemma: the conversation is dominated by Northern perspectives and, in its current shape, remains irrelevant to many in the Global South, but without Southern voices, the discourse cannot be reshaped to reflect their needs.
My conclusion, for now, is that individual organisations and researchers in the global South are tired of the system and would like it to change. However, they also know that their actions alone will not alter the system. We face a collective action problem:
- Incentives are not aligned. Many in the Global South would like to see the change, but going at it alone could mean isolation from the funding and collaborations that help sustain their organisations.
- Lack of shared vision. In a debate driven by the global North, organisations in the Global South have few opportunities to draft their agenda, which is currently scattered.
In this context, second-tier initiatives like the African Charter, the Partnership for Economic Policy and Southern Voice can play a critical role in enabling solutions for this collective action problem. This is precisely what Enrique suggests when he recommends ‘not distracting [Global South think tanks] from their missions’.
Can we move from the personal to the systemic?
Enrique does a good job sharing his personal stories in his article. It mirrors what I’ve heard repeatedly in conversations with Global South researchers and my personal experience. I was motivated by how quickly the interviewees I engaged moved from their individual bad experiences to unpacking the underlying structural issues they had identified, unwilling to stand in a position of being a victim. This is precisely what moved us to take a step forward from the personal to the systemic. The fair thing to do was to replicate this in our framework: highlighting the structures where change is needed and should be possible. Changing funding practices, academic incentives, and publication and dissemination processes can lead to a more equitable research ecosystem. Changing these systems, we propose, should be the goal of anyone truly convinced of an agenda for change.
Are there ways to not “legitimate business as usual”?
This is a tricky question and one that I face frequently. The interest in “equitable partnerships” within some funding organisations is palpable. As a think tanker, I hate that a window of opportunity goes to waste, so I keep thinking about how to use this opportunity to change the system from within. Working across different spaces with diverse actors is complex. One day, we accept small incremental changes that seem, and sometimes feel, like we are legitimising business as usual. Then, on other days, we upset people in power and get a slight feeling of being revolutionary.
Personally, I do not take this challenge lightly and remain reflective and critical of my actions. I was in a recent conversation with leaders of organisations from the Global South, and the insights were very nuanced as to the types of leadership needed from within our regions to navigate these changes.
As a rule of thumb, I have become cautious and cautioned others about the North-South consensus on these debates. In our project, we consciously avoided the push for consensus between the Global North and Global South perspectives. Too often, Northern-led discussions around equitable partnerships water down the fundamental arguments from Global South researchers in the name of consensus. Instead, we should highlight the differences and accept them. Reaching consensus in such deep inequality is almost impossible without sacrificing the concerns of those with less power. But of course, the personal is just one ingredient.
Most importantly, actors in the Global South need to be more explicitly working towards a joint agenda to replace the ‘equitable partnerships’ towards a new paradigm that centres primarily on the researchers doing the work at the local and national levels. This agenda will not summon everyone because it will result in significant shifts within the system. But this is the time to do it. As I said before, if researchers in the Global South do not come together to create a common agenda and seize the opportunity, others will do so on our behalf.