Scoping Review

This study is part of a KFPE funded project. Learn more about the project:

The scoping review began by identifying the research questions to be addressed, which served to guide the literature search strategy. Once the volume of research and scope of the field were better understood, decisions were made about how to set parameters for a literature search. We implemented the search strategy in an iterative process between May and August 2023, building checks into the process to ensure that inclusion and exclusion criteria were used consistently.

A variety of sources were searched using different keyword combinations, including electronic databases (PubMed, Elsevier, JSTOR, Science Direct, and Google Scholar) and reference lists. We also read through key journals and tapped existing networks or conferences for government and non-governmental publications.

Our selection covered publications and documents published between 2015 and 2023. Initially, studies were screened by title and abstract, where possible, or based on a review of the full text. Once a final selection was made the references were imported into a group library on the Zotero app, which facilitated collaborative review, synthesis and removal of duplicates.

The studies were then reviewed and cross-checked by researchers connected to the project, to ensure they met the inclusion criteria. The selection included articles containing information which helps to understand the origins and meaning of decolonization, existing and past decolonizing practices with published guidelines, or initiatives and ideas put forward by the authors of selected articles. This process produced qualitative and quantitative data, which called for using both a numerical summary to describe the results, and a thematic analysis.

A total of 16 articles were reviewed. We observed two main categories of decolonized North-South collaboration practices, which were labelled “actual” or “advisory” practices. Actual practices are those implemented and clearly stated by the author(s) who took part in an North-South research collaboration; advisory practices are recommendations and frameworks for decolonized practices that were put forward by author(s) after reflecting on past or ongoing North-South research collaborations.

A handful of articles – five out of the 16 – discuss actual experiences of implementing decolonized practices during a North-South research collaboration. Two others profile the lived experiences of 11 scientists based in the North or South who took part in research collaborations, or assess perspectives on decolonized practices in a research community based in the South. These were included as personal reflections on collaboration experiences that highlight useful decolonization practices, and therefore fit the selection criteria. They identify practices which are essential for successful collaboration, and raise the visibility of perspectives on decolonized practices in the South without necessarily emphasizing the term decolonization. Several articles offer suggestions, guidelines, toolkits and recommended advisory practice frameworks that can be embedded in future North-South research collaborations. The goal is to improve equity in how knowledge is created and owned, without getting in the way of sustainable collaborations or the ongoing sharing and development of skills.

Limitations and Potential Biases

The scope of this review was limited to peer-reviewed literature published after 2015. The timeframe was chosen in line with the most recent KFPE guidelines that were available around that time. It also aligns with the launch of the UN’s 2030 Agenda, where Sustainable Development Goal 17 promotes partnerships, including equity in research collaboration. For purposes of this review, the ‘South’ in North-South collaborations is mainly represented by African countries.

Research collaboration / Collaborative research / Partnership / Co-construction / Co-production / Participatory research

These terms refer to the active participation in projects carried out jointly with other organisations, which aim to innovate working practices to decolonize research. Excluding contracts unrelated to innovation, this type of work can involve joint implementation of novel working practices with customers and suppliers, partner companies or organisations. It is described as a process through which the entities involved share information and resources; they may also share responsibilities to jointly plan, implement, and evaluate a programme of activities to achieve a common goal. Research collaboration is also seen as co-creation, where the entities involved enhance each other’s capabilities. This suggests a sharing of risks, resources, responsibilities and rewards, which – if desired by the group – can project a common identity. Collaboration also requires participants to agree to solve a problem together. This implies mutual trust, which takes time to build. Research collaborations can produce social and economic benefits for the public, science, and industry. Other phrases also used throughout the literature to indicate collaborations along these lines include co-construction, co-production, partnership, and participatory research.

Decolonizing / Decolonization / Decoloniality / Knowledge Democracy

These terms are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature, despite subtle differences in their definitions which are likely based on diverging experiences, worldviews, or the authors’ positionality – a term that refers to one’s understanding of themselves and the social and political background they bring to the table[1]. Decolonizing and decolonization are similar in meaning, both referring to the shift of power – usually political power or governmental rule – from the colonizers to the colonized, who claim ownership of what originally belonged to them. This concept has expanded and now also applies to other socioeconomic conditions, where it can refer to the process of challenging institutional hierarchies and the monopoly on knowledge, especially from the North. This is where both terms tie in with decoloniality, which technically refers to a mindset or actions taken to remove unequal power structures that continue to shape knowledge production, intellectual activity, and other practices well beyond the colonial era[2].

Overall, these are related terms which are used interchangeably to signify a willingness to resist rules and teachings which were imposed by the North during the colonial era and still linger, contradict, or seem to suppress indigenous knowledge, teachings, and traditions. They also imply the availability of space and time to flesh out ideas in a local context, devise plans to bridge knowledge gaps, as well as contest the assumed authority of the North over proposals from the South.

We have documented a number of additional terms that have been used to support the same concepts – specifically, Knowledge Democracy and Mertonian Science, with their associated explanations that derive from different disciplines[3]. They may include the following:

• considerations of local context;
• out-of-the-box intellectualism within formal settings;
• participatory processes;
• systematic attempts at mental emancipation as a process, not outcome-oriented;
• mindset change;
• resistance and balance of power;
• non-Western/Northern context;
• considering and acknowledging a diverse approach to the research question at hand;
• decolonizing/humanistic values;
• regaining of power, identity, and culture;
• radical thinking, un-doing, and re-doing of North-South relations;
• unsettling prevailing systems;
• chaos and dis-order;
• continuous monitoring in a dynamic process of decolonising a system or practice;
• alternative assertions of power that act as a way to resist and subvert colonial actions that are experienced as oppressive

By contrast, some communities of scholars and other professionals in the government or non-governmental sectors distance themselves from terms such as decolonization or decoloniality. They tend to see these ideas as an attachment to the past, which stands in the way of moving forward towards a world of interconnectedness. They may point to practical considerations, such as the lack of funds available for Southern researchers to develop their own methods, to argue against returning to an uncomfortable topic that could hamper relationships with donors[4]. Others see such terms as generated from the North, without active involvement from the South.

Regardless of objections or concerns over how the term originated, many scholarly communities neither overlook nor stay silent about the decolonization movement. Our work provides guidance through Section 3.1.1, which presents a variety of practices – either employed or advised – to decolonize North-South research collaborations.

[1] Lazem et al., 2021

[2] Lazar, 2020

[3] Lutomia, 2019; Pant et al., 2022; Leal et al., 2022; Cascant Sempere, 2022

[4] Lazem et al., 2021

Reflection is an active and intentional process of exploration and discovery, which often leads to unexpected outcomes. It forms a bridge between experience and learning, using both cognitive and emotive functions. The capacity to reflect is also at the centre of adult learning, professional development, and empowerment. It is also an opportunity to examine habitual actions by critically evaluating and questioning experiences, assumptions, beliefs, practices, and emotions. These capacities could be summarized as acquired skills of self-regulation, self-monitoring, and self-directedness[1]. In the context of collaboration, Lutomia (2019) explains that self-reflection is part of a continual process of trial and error which is critical for a successful partnership. Engaging in self-reflexivity also requires researchers to focus on their own assumptions and observations, and how these could influence their research.

Reflections are also used to shape praxes: actions that follow an iterative process. In this context, we see praxis as an ongoing, cyclical process where collaborators reflect on their own experiences, analyze them critically, and use this knowledge to inform future actions and decision-making. The process involves sharing ideas, challenges, and information, with the goal of bringing about change in actions and processes to improve how well researchers collaborate[2].

In one example, Girei (2017) used self-reflective tactics to shape and enhance her commitment to decolonize how she engaged with Southern African research partners. This entailed a critical analysis of the assumptions, values, and interests that guided her actions and thinking. It created an awareness of her identity and the social-political context that shapes her position in the collaboration – but it also challenged her readiness to question and manage the consequences of having that position, especially when it came to methods of engagement with partners. Rather than assuming that her contribution came with a neutral perspective, Girei acknowledged her subjectivity. In this way, her self-reflexive practice helped to minimize any conscious or subconscious dominance through her position of power in the collaboration, and to separate her behaviour from typical colonial attitudes or so-called ‘colonial syndrome’[3]. In her own words, Girei critically analyzed “what I took for granted and why, what I consider relevant and why, what I dismiss and why”, with the aim of gathering “perspectives and practices which help generate knowledge that makes sense of the research in that context and for the people concerned”. This approach also led her to re-examine her commitment and willingness to break with predefined methods and partners’ expectations. Girei concluded that, once we question our own perspectives and biases, knowledge cannot be considered neutral or separate from political and ethical concerns. Her experiences also show that conducting in-depth research in the Global South – taking into account its environment, including human and financial resources, as well as culture – can help to counteract the limitations of a research tradition that has historically proved damaging to local organisations by adopting harmful comparisons, and by overlooking relevant historical or other local context.

Liwanag and Rhule (2021) agree that such a reflexive approach can have positive impacts on research activities. For instance, critical reflection on the part of researchers about the social-political context of their position in a partnership can help both individuals and institutions to build relationships that are more equitable[4].

[1] Zimmerman, 1995

[2] Freire, 1970

[3] Cited by Girei and others, ‘colonial syndrome’ refers to features of internalized colonialism, where the colonized hold beliefs of inferiority, with indigenous or local cultures and knowledge systems seen as less valuable than those imposed by colonial powers. This internalized colonialism can hinder efforts to reclaim and revitalize indigenous practices, languages, and identities. It can also create resistance to change on the part of both former colonizers and the colonized.

[4] Chazarin, 2023

According to the body of research reviewed in this study, a process that aims to decolonize North-South research collaborations needs to be put in place from the start; it should also make provisions for continuous monitoring and evaluation throughout the research project. For this to be effective, it is vital that all collaborators are made aware of the potential for a colonization mindset to influence North-South partnerships as early as possible, preferably at the bidding stage of a project. The chances of success will be greater if the process articulates what colonization represents, and why decolonization of North-South collaborations is needed. That process needs to also create spaces that facilitate an open exchange of views within the research team. Alternatively, an independent mechanism can be set up specifically to mediate challenges that emerge in the course of practising decoloniality. If historically established patterns are to change, all collaborators need to share a willingness to question personal and institutional practices. Frank conversations are considered essential in order to acknowledge and define power relations within a partnership. Most importantly, purely symbolic efforts, box-ticking exercises or other forms of tokenism[1] should be discouraged[2].

Our review suggests that as part of this process, collaborators from the South need to be encouraged to state their opinions and observations clearly, and early enough, so that they can be assessed and addressed. As the objective of collaborating is co-creation as much as it is the product of any partnership, they should also insist on being engaged at all levels of the project. The research needs to be co-designed in a way that factors in perspectives from both the North and South. Decision making, agreement on research procedures, and reviews of work in progress should be inclusive of all parties in a two-way process, where partners from the North review work from the South and vice versa. It is crucial to create a common vision and joint ownership of the research based on democratic principles and a participatory ethos. Inclusivity also suggests there should be a way to accommodate academic contributions in languages other than English which are spoken by collaborators[3].

The decolonizing process needs an enabling environment built on respect and trust. Working within a collaboration based on trust implies an expectation that partners are likely to act in a way that is helpful, or at the very least to refrain from causing harm. If this likelihood is high enough, it facilitates some form of engagement and cooperation[1]. In turn, this usually leads to a better understanding of partners’ strengths and weaknesses, which ultimately benefits collaborations by improving their flexibility and effectiveness[2]. Decentralising budgets, so that more financial support flows towards the South, can go a long way to show respect and trust in a way that also promotes good management. In a similar vein, it is important that collaborative research cites authors from the South and factors in their perspectives, including from oral sources. The work products should be published in journals based in the South as well as journals from the North, and should include co-authored works or an acknowledgment of contributions from the South, as appropriate[3].

[1] Lutomia, 2019

[2] Ibid

[3] Cascant Sempere et al., 2022

[1] Acknowledging colonial power relationships at every step which has included clearly defining which decision-making spaces were left open to partners (Chiavaroli, 2022).

[2] Cascant Sempere et al., 2022; Chiavaroli, 2022; Chazarin, 2023

[3] Lutomia, 2019; Lazem et al., 2021; Cascant Sempere et al., 2022; Meredith and Quiroz, 2020; Chiavaroli, 2022; Chazarin, 2023

As an intentional and collective effort, decolonizing North-South collaboration practices requires conscious decisions on the space and time that should be invested in the process. These need to tracked, monitored, and evaluated with consistency[1].

Space: Dialogue is essential to create the space for collaborators to explore ideas, generate knowledge and co-create visions, as well as to strengthen learning and problem-solving skills. But effective dialogue requires trust and mutual respect[2]. The aim of creating shared spaces is to accommodate and understand diverse perspectives across different social, economic, and cultural backgrounds, in order to reach consensus on processes and actions. They usually involve discussion, which may challenge or disrupt well-established colonial norms, structures and ways of thinking in favour of alternative, indigenous or marginalized perspectives. They also involve participation by collaborators as peers, encouraging diversity and questioning assumptions in a facilitated dialogue. Importantly, the space for dialogue should address issues that may arise when working together, and it should challenge the idea that some collaborators are at the centre and others at the periphery of knowledge creation[3]. In the bigger picture, this needs to begin with the education system: the classroom is probably the ideal place to instigate awareness of these dynamics and practices.

Meredith and Quiroz (2020) put into practice ideas on designing a collaborative space by developing criteria rather than fixed definitions of how it should function. They view these criteria as creating the circumstances within which partners can work with an element of ambiguity. In their strategic planning meetings, for instance, the process begins by working individually, then in small groups, and finally in larger groups. This approach provides a structure to encourage participation and knowledge democracy, or the placing of equal value on diverse knowledge systems. It reflects adoption of a dialogic approach[4] where, according to a team member, “all partners, and all participants in the project are viewed [as] equally different; [embrace] plural truths instead of singular truth; [engage in] the ongoing process of communication rather than a once-for-all conclusion; [and] do not seek to overcome difference and suppress it to reach an answer and a consensus, [rather finding] meaning within the difference”. It is also an approach that creates an environment where power asymmetries can be challenged, which is often more effective when practised face-to-face rather than virtually[5].

Time: A research collaboration needs to allocate ample time for these dialogues and reflections to take place, and to address any issues within the partnership. Ideally, that time should be included in project timelines[6]. Sometimes, decolonizing agendas remain incomplete because funding – usually from sources in the North – is discontinued early, due to changes in political priorities for instance. In that light, Chiavaroli (2022) reiterates that, beyond the rhetoric of inclusivity and equity, partnerships should be fostered in a gradual process that allows co-creation through collective discussions, and by making power relationships explicit. It is crucial that this process takes place in safe and confidential spaces – and that institutions are willing to act on criticisms[7].

[1] Meredith and Quiroz, 2020; Chiavaroli, 2022

[2] Freire, 1998

[3] Meredith and Quiroz, 2020; Chiavaroli, 2022

[4] Bakhtin, 1981 in Meredith and Quiroz, 2020

[5] Lutomia, 2019; Meredith and Quiroz, 2020; Chazarin, 2023

[6] Chiavaroli, 2022; Chazarin, 2023

[7] ibid

Collaborators from the South should refrain from seeing industrialized countries in the North as “empires of knowledge”[1]. This is a legacy from the history of colonization that has left remnants of insecurity for researchers from the South, who have regularly seen their input get devalued through processes such as top-down agendas or reviews[2]. To counter this history, they must do more to liberate their “colonized/colonizing” state of mind, and to challenge the domination of the North, by initiating ideas and proactively contributing to agenda-setting. Researchers from the South need to be encouraged to free their minds of the notion that the “North knows better”, which is based on the colonial perceptions of incompetency[3]. On the other hand, changes to adapt funding and other operational practices to local Indigenous contexts need to happen in parallel within institutional settings[4].

[1] Fahey and Kenway, 2010 in Barrett et al., 2014

[2] Chiavaroli, 2022

[3] Lutomia, 2019

[4] Pant et al., 2022

Establishing a decolonized North-South research collaboration is key to a successful partnership. There is a greater chance of success when equitable decisions are prioritized from the outset, and when partners are willing to question and change existing norms[1]. That said, decolonizing practices face numerous challenges. Chief among them are language barriers; time constraints; weak commitment at all management levels; messy timelines when several activities take place for consensus-building; and last but not least, managing the diversity of emotions and points of view that are coloured by exposure to different cultural, political, economic and educational histories[2].

Decolonizing processes tend to be emotionally unsettling and uncomfortable by challenging biases, prior knowledge, and assumptions which are otherwise taken for granted[3].

[1] Chazarin, 2023

[2] Lutomia, 2019; Girei, 2017

[3] Lutomia, 2019

Decolonized collaboration practices that work, and which can be recommended, have some shared characteristics. They involve continuous reflections, transparency, collective discussions of positionality and bias, space for dialogue, co-authorship, monitoring and evaluation, efforts to localize knowledge and enhance self-worth in relation to that knowledge, and a synthesis of commitments to the decolonization agenda across the project – from the micro level of managing the research partnership to mid-level management by organisations to the macro-level of government and funding agencies[1],[2].

[1] Micro indicates “individual determination and preparedness/readiness to participate in designed processes of engagement”; Meso is “workplace infrastructural provision and support to meet challenges by managers”; and Macro is “national entities/agencies; government policies and resources” (Yassi et al., 2016).

Co-authorship, whether partial or full, is a widely accepted decolonized practice that every North-South research partnership should endeavour to achieve, according to Barrett et al., 2014. So is having a central space where all partners can meet on a regular basis to reflect, deliberate, and communicate agreements or disagreements that need to be addressed. Robinson et al., 2022 also recommend that research partners express any grievances and reflect on power structures early on in the collaboration process, and openly. In particular, those partners who benefit from such structures should be responsive and open to change, according to agreed guidelines. Practices that encourage reflection should be a formal component of the collaboration process, as the needs and positionalities of research partners typically evolve during the course of a project. Self-reflection and dialogue are highly recommended – but they must be backed by commitments from partners to support the implementation of outcomes from those processes[1].

In addition to strengthening collaboration systems so they promote equal access to and sustainability of the knowledge produced through research projects, North-South collaborations initiated from the South should also be encouraged. There are several examples of how that can take shape. For one, the quest for Southern leadership should come from the South itself[2]. Programme funds should flow from the South to the North, in a “reverse funds flow” model of soliciting consultations for technical and scientific advice[3]. Partnerships should also ensure continuity and functioning relationships within the knowledge ecosystem; this can be achieved by providing the producers and users of this knowledge, as well as governing institutions, with stronger administrative capacity, and with support through supplemental funding, to encourage a fair distribution of long-term benefits from the project[4]. Finally, the entrenched dominance of Northern partners in knowledge production should be challenged, so as to allow the value of Southern perspectives and leadership to emerge[5].

[1] ibid; Mormina and Istrati, 2023; van Wessel et al., 2023

[2] van Wessel et al., 2023

[3] Virginia et al., 2017

[4] Virginia et al., 2017; Mormina and Istrati, 2023

[5] Yassi et al., 2016

[2] Barrett et al., 2014; Yassi et al., 2016; Virginia et al., 2017; Beck et al., 2019; Lazar, 2020; Robinson et al., 2022; Chiavaroli and Chazarin, 2023; Mormina and Istratii, 2023; van Wessel et al., 2023

Several tools have been developed by researchers to help the implementation of recommended decolonized practices. Some of these tools were drawn from sources that were published prior to the time period within scope of this review, but we believe they merit a mention here to indicate the continuous quest for ways to implement equitable decolonized practices that can be sustained through to the end of a North-South research collaboration. Mattesich et al. (2001), for instance, identified 22 factors that make a successful collaboration based on a review of 40 studies. Among the most important are mutual respect, understanding and trust; open and frequent communication; and having a cross-section of collaboration partners with the right credentials. Moon (2004) developed six tools to aid the process of self-reflection for collaboration partners: to practise self-examination, change one’s point of view, put things into perspective, harness a sense of trust, regulate financial and human resources, and engage in dialogue[1].

Prominent organisations have also made efforts to put together new guidelines for decolonized North-South research collaboration, or to update existing ones with evolving research, suggested best practices and new challenges. These include A Guide for Transboundary Research Partnerships – 11 Principles and 7 Questions; the United Kingdom Research and Innovation’s (UKRI) Eight Principles for Fair and Equitable Research Partnership; and the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO)’s Best Practices and Leading Practices[2]. Additional guidelines and tools have been used in individual research collaborations, such as the Eight-Step Model and the Equality and Inclusion Toolkit[3].

For instance, the eight-step model by Cascant Sempere (2022) outlines the following as a guide for successful North-South research collaboration:

• Build a truly global partnership structure
• Decentralize budgets towards the Global South
• Build a multi-country and hybrid research team
• Build a multi-country and hybrid ethics panel
• Co-design research
• Cite Global South authors and perspectives, including oral sources
• Publish in Global South journals
• Make research outputs available for free, and in different languages

[1] Moon 2004 in Lutomia, 2019

[2] KFPE, 2018; UKRI, various issues; GAO, various issues

[3] Cascant Sempere, 2022; Chiavaroli and Chazarin, 2023

The notion of power dynamics refers to how power is distributed and exercised among individuals and groups in a research partnership. These dynamics are reflected in how funding schemes, as well as the positionalities of those involved, produce and reproduce historical, social, or cultural power imbalances that influence the collaboration. They can be influenced by several factors such as partners’ position relative to each other, their seniority and expertise, funding sources, reputation, as well as gender, race, culture, and language[1].

Very asymmetrical North-South research collaborations continue to be documented. They are generally “political” – characterized by complex and unequal power relationships, institutional structures, and processes, often to the disadvantage of South-based researchers and institutions[2].

By definition, where unequal power dynamics are at play, the position and role of North-South collaborating institutions and researchers is not level[3]. This influences decision-making processes, resulting in the common practice of project proposals designed in the North and later ‘shared’ – but only once finalized and approved – for local ethical review and implementation. Often, this practice means that researchers in the South become data collectors, assistants, or facilitators: positions with the least bargaining power in the research and knowledge ecosystem[4].

[1] Carbonnier & Kontinen, 2015a; Pallitt et al., 2023; Schmidt & Neuburger, 2017

[2] Dannecker, 2022; Ibrahim et al., 2023b; Kamuya et al., 2021; Karrer et al., 2023

[3] Farnworth et al., 2020, 2020; Rakotonarivo & Andriamihaja, 2023

[4] Cochrane, 2021; Dannecker, 2022; Farnworth et al., 2020; Green, 2019a

Based on the scoping review, we find that the motivations driving North-South research collaborations can be categorized into intrinsic and extrinsic factors, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors behind North-South research collaborations[1]

[1] Farnworth et al., 2020; Ibrahim et al., 2023a; Sabzalieva et al., 2020; Correa, n.d.; Karrer et al., 2023; Omanga & Mainye, 2023a

Bild der Tabelle

The motivations that drive researchers or institutions to enter into North-South partnerships can both enable and hinder research collaboration in different ways[1]. Intrinsic factors, for instance, which are inherent to the individual, are more likely to act as an incentive to participate in a collaboration[2]. Extrinsic motivations appear more likely to make North-South collaborations happen.

Our review also suggests that some barriers to North-South research collaborations are seen to be linked to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. These barriers include time constraints to conduct research, other work responsibilities taking priority, low staffing levels, and high staff turnover. They are more likely to hinder collaborators from the South who tend to hold positions that are predominantly academic, as well as junior researchers who also have limited time allocated for research[3].

Poor resources and infrastructure can act as barriers too. The lack of resources is often financial but can also show up in weak administrative support, substandard research skills and knowledge, or limited access to research software, libraries, experts and training[4]. Poor coordination can also become a barrier, when inadequate support from managers, colleagues, and partners leads to feelings of isolation within the partnership, and ends up becoming a demotivating factor in a research collaboration[5].

[1] Green, 2019b; Haybano et al., 2021; L. M. Karrer et al., 2023; Larkan et al., 2016a; Perrotta & Alonso, 2020b

[2] Farnworth et al., 2020; Ibrahim et al., 2023a; Larkan et al., 2016a

[3] Farnworth et al., 2020; Fransman et al., 2021; Haybano et al., 2021; Ibrahim et al., 2023a

[4] Farnworth et al., 2020; Ibrahim et al., 2023a; Perrotta & Alonso, 2020b; Perry et al., 2022

[5] Larkan et al., 2016a; Perrotta & Alonso, 2020b; Perry et al., 2022

add references