In the final article of this four-part series on AidData\u2019s experience and learnings from forming partnerships with two Africa-based organisations, we share a rough checklist for successful North-South research partnerships. Derived from our own experiences, as well as drawing on the writings of others, it is intended to be a working document, a starting point.<\/p>\n
Fundraising cannot be left to an afterthought. In a long-term strategic partnership, all partners should be prepared to jointly fundraise and invest in the skills that bring in revenue. You can:<\/p>\n
This will be dependent on a range of soft skills: respect, reciprocity, trust, collegiality, understanding, flexibility. The On Think Tanks Exchange notes the importance of familiarity<\/em>, understanding<\/em>, knowledge<\/em>, and trust <\/em>in creating \u2018meaningful exchanges and collaboration\u2019<\/em>. Consider:<\/p>\n There is often a dichotomy between what policymakers want and need, versus what peer-reviewed academic journals are looking for.<\/p>\n At one extreme there may be policymakers who require timely or near-real-time information fit for purpose, or project deliverables on a tight timeline demanded by a funder. At the other end of the spectrum, where time may be less of a factor, there may be peer-reviewed journal standards of research, where publication may take months or years, where innovation is the incentive, or where quality and sample size of data trumps currency, for example.<\/p>\n Some research organisations may want \u2013 or have incentives \u2013 to produce both journal articles and policy research outputs, or may prioritise one over the other. Funders may also unwittingly play a role in this: viewing the strength of a proposal, for example, on the academic publication record of the principal investigator or project director.<\/p>\n Determining partner compatibility on these issues will be crucial as, among other things, they will impact the time, investment and direction spent on capacity strengthening, for example.<\/p>\n The Evidence and Lessons from Latin America programme, which conducted inter-regional comparative policy research between Latin America and Africa, has a useful discussion on this<\/a>.<\/p>\n In a climate where funding decisions will increasingly be de-centralised, and where emphasis will be placed on encouraging projects to be led by Southern primes, it will be important that partners do not treat each other as window dressing in order to make proposals more attractive and win awards.<\/p>\n Valuable lessons come from the experiences of an ODI venture<\/a> several years ago. In-country partners complained of feeling \u2018used\u2019, asked to \u2018fill in text boxes\u2019 rather than collaborating in research. The Northern organisation\u2019s business model \u2018meant that it was generally forced to take a contractual approach in its interactions with members\u2019.<\/p>\n It is also important to avoid \u2018\u201cparachute science\u201d in which investigators from developed countries merely collect samples and data, return home and publish papers\u2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n Consider carefully:<\/p>\n Who will be authoring the analysis and other final outputs? Who will be reviewing, approving final content? Partners should put in place processes and practices that signal clear communications and equitable distributions of authorship and budgets. In the ODI venture<\/a>, partners complained that some outputs to which significant contributions had been made by in-country network members, \u2018were packaged and presented as ODI research products rather than co-branded or under EBPDN\u2019s [the network\u2019s] own branding\u2019.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In the final article of this four-part series on AidData\u2019s experience and learnings from forming partnerships with two Africa-based organisations, we share a rough checklist for successful North-South research partnerships. Derived from our own experiences, as well as drawing on the writings of others, it is intended to be a working document, a starting point. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"tags":[207,353,200,820,193],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2823285"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2823285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2823285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2823285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2823285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
Be transparent and honest about the degree of rigour you are seeking in research.<\/h2>\n
Be sincere in efforts to build equitable partnerships.<\/h2>\n
\n