La KFPE est la plate-forme centrale d’information pour la recherche globaux en Suisse. Elle s’engage en faveur d’une coopération augmentée et équitable avec les pays à revenus faibles et intermédiaires. Elle contribue ainsi au développement durable et à la résolution des défis globaux et locaux.en plus

Image : NASAen plus

Institutional get-to-know guide

The institutional get-to-know for North-South research collaboration was developed in order to help northern and southern researchers to design research project object of North-South research collaboration. In order to maximize chances for successful collaboration supported by equity and resource access, the collaborators need specific information about each other. To develop the guide, the author collected (de)colonization related stories from southern and northern researchers involved in North-South research collaboration, and summarized their experiences into statements. These statements were translated into questions to guide efforts of knowing collaborators at project design phase.

The exercise was developed to be used in group composed by the North-South research collaborators.

You might use the institutional get-to-know guide via the following steps:

Definition of element to get-to-know

  1. Read each statement below.
  2. Each group of northern and southern researchers choose at least your five (5) most important statements, and opens them.

Discussion of element to get-to-know

  1. Discuss the statements using the guiding questions provided.

Statements

Each statement represents experience from (de)colonization related stories of southern and northern researchers involved in North-South research collaboration. They are presented in a way to present the experience and their “opposite”, to raise awareness of your situation and situations other researchers may experience.

Guiding Questions

  • How do we involve northern and southern collaborators?
  • How did we do in previous project(s)?
  • What do we want to keep?
  • What do we want to change?

Story

In the beginning as a PhD student in a North to South research project. The participation in the project was limited to the studentship. The university as a south collaborator was not involved in the original proposal writing. The role was mainly to supervise the students and it was at times challenging when there would be issues that affected students as there was another organization linking the university to the Northern collaborator. There was no budget for the department and at times supervision was a challenge as the faculty were limited in terms of agency and even accessing any facilitation.

(Ari, South)

Guiding Questions

  • When do we involve northern and southern collaborators?
  • How did we do in previous project(s)?
  • What do we want to keep?
  • What do we want to change?

Story

We had acquired funding for a collaboration. The main objectives and methods were set before the first meeting with the southern partners. Along the collaboration, we discussed the objectives and the wording, but the scope of the project did not seem to adapt towards the idea of the southern partners.

(Pure, North)

Guiding Questions

  • What were the issues encountered before from the financial procedures in the North-South collaboration?
  • How could they be avoided?

Story

In my past experiences I have acted as project coordinator, or project leaders in North-South collaborations. I therefore carried the responsibility to fulfil the funders' requests whether in terms of outputs or in terms of financial reporting. This was often a difficult position as I had to pressure South partners to meet deadlines, produce certain types of outputs etc. all the while administration in the Global North institutions in my experience is not necessarily fit to enable such a collaboration, e.g. delaying payments because they need different process than in-country payments, confusing account numbers if the South institution has several accounts.

(anonymous)

Guiding Question

  • How could the research agenda of the project be co-defined?

Story

When I started my PhD in Southeast Asia, I was totally "half-baked" in terms of doing research in a post-war, least developed country. I went to the fieldwork with my very nice methodology, concepts, topics etc. (all designed in the Global North). I was really motivated and interested to learn many things about my research topic. But after a few workshops and surveys, I realised that my research topic was completely irrelevant for my interviewees. They cared about survival, discrimination, access to water, land grabbing, human rights violations etc., not telecoupling. I was emotionally shaked-up and started realising, how ignorant and extractive the research agendas of the Global North can be (including myself as a representative thereof). This insight and having met traumatised people patiently answering my irrelevant questions changed my attitude completely.

(Lara_North)

Guiding Questions

  • Do we need a collaboration agreement between / among collaborators?
  • For us, what are the important elements of a collaboration agreement between / among collaborators?

Story

My disappointment was in the power imbalances that made my experience as a PhD student very disheartening. I constantly found myself having to defend my studentship to a local collaborator inspite of being very committed to meeting my deliverables. This was mainly because there was no formal agreement between the universty, the local collaborator and the North who represented the funding.

(Ari_South)

Guiding Question

  • How and when do we discuss about the strengths and weaknesses of the North and the South to raise awareness of equity?

Story

The recurring issue of insufficient early communication has been a prominent challenge in my experiences with North-South collaborations. On occasion, we have taken the approach of protecting specific individuals, even within the Southern team, which has led to the omission of red flags. Unfortunately, this approach can have adverse effects on both the project's success and the well-being of those involved, potentially endangering sustainability.

It's worth pondering whether Northern teams encounter similar challenges. To gain insights into this, it would be beneficial to create dedicated time and space for discussions about strengths and weaknesses, thus enhancing North-South collaborations and the process of decolonization. For instance, we were surprised to discover that a Northern sub-team had faced difficulties in obtaining certain data they had been pursuing for some time. It turned out that the data either didn't exist or was not in the required format for their work. This revelation was enlightening, as we had assumed that such data should be readily available in a region as technologically advanced as the “North” with systems that keep records. Understanding this situation made us feel less inferior regarding access to sophisticated data.

(Santy_South)

Guiding Questions

  • How and when do we report and discuss concerns and conflicts with the project and among project team members?
  • Do we need professional support for the discussion?

Story

Dissatisfaction regarding the scarce engagement of one of the south partners to the project. In every project meeting they only talk about their intention, but progress is very weak. Difficult to deal with that.

(X_North)

Guiding Questions

  • How do we draft the terms of collaboration?
  • What are the most important topics for the collaboration?

Story

A recent collaboration has been different with more power balance between the North and South. In this collaboration the university is implementing research funded from the North and there are clearly outlined collaboration terms. The main challenge has been more around the delay in the disbursement of funds which affects project timelines yet there remains the expectation that the study timelines are met strictly.

(Ari_South)

Guiding Question

  • How do we foster mutuality and reciprocity in terms of respect, trust, and decision power?

Story

Enablers: mutual...respect, trust, decision power.

(pow_north)

Guiding Question

  • How do we structurally support equal and fair collaboration in terms of colaboration agreement and principles; application process that empower both South and North through freedom to make decision - on how to use the funding; equitable and independent budgetisation and budget management?

Story

there were structural constraints given by the funding agency which restricted the degree of freedom or the liberty of partners from south (and north) to use the funds which were earmarked though only broadly, but the reporting had to go into such details that it costs a lot of time and energy which would have been better served for project/ research otherwise.

(pow_north)

Guiding Question

  • How can we establish regular and demand based official exchanges, to avoid "collaborative fatigue"?

Story

Initially, our Northern partners were highly supportive, actively participating in stakeholder meetings and generously sharing valuable resources such as reading materials, emerging methods, and software that were not readily available in the South. However, this enthusiastic support seemed to diminish as our years of collaboration progressed. I've coined this phenomenon as "collaborative fatigue", perhaps stemming from the continuous, but not frequent, requests that gradually wear our partners down.

Nonetheless, during periods when they were in a supportive mode, their contributions were exceptional, fostering productive collaboration with swift consensus on various issues. It was truly encouraging.

I also believe it would be beneficial for the South to have the opportunity to engage in stakeholder meetings in the North. This could greatly enhance mutual understanding and bridge the gap between our respective culture and fields of expertise.

(Santy_South)

Guiding Question

  • How should be the decision-making process within the project?

Story

Common time-bound goals guided by the project goals.

Embracing discomfort - this has been evident in an ongoing collaboration where N-S collaborators have had to address potential conflicts as the project is being implemented. Some of the discussions to this end have been uncomfortable but eventually very useful in enabling successful implementation.

(Anonymous)

Guiding Questions

  • How to balance scientific outputs and stakeholder engagement within the project?

Story

In an ongoing project there is effort to manage the network development and expertise especially of the Southern researchers. However the delays in project implementation limit this possibility as the attention is mostly now focused on the attainment on research aims of evidence generation rather than network development

(Ari_South)

Guiding Question

  • Do we want to plan long-term collaboration between the institutions or among the collaborators? How do we plan?

Story

I personally benefited a lot through good publications, experience working with our colleagues in the South, co-supervising students, etc. I also learned a lot about North-South collaborations (and what I liked and what I didn't like about them). It has certainly shaped me in how i co-develop new project proposals and how I lead projects myself. For our collaborators there have been benefits too. Many of the students got better jobs as a result of being involved in our project, a number clearly became much better at interdisciplinary thinking and collaboration (which I also experienced myself of course)

(Anonymous_North)

Guiding Question

  • How do we acknowledge the contribution of our northern or southern collaborators?

Story

I am part of a North-South research collaboration project. I was coordinating the data collection phase for the entire project and therefore was in charge of the recruitment of the enumerators. I worked with these enumerators closely and know the effort they put into the collecting reliable and of quality data. The times the achievements of the project is raised in a meeting or others events, the names of northern assistants were mentioned loud and first for gratitude and acknowledgements. The southern researchers then were acknowledged as the general "local team". However, the task of the northern assistants were to gather the results / outputs of the entire team and assist in writing / editing the final report. This task did not require a specific expertise, except the knowledge of English. These acknowledged northern assistants are the ones that are usually at the end of work chain. The others who gathered and understand the data, put themselves in danger in the field, negotiated with respondents, and cleaned the data, are left unknown and in a minor position as contributor to the project.

(Galax, South)

Guiding Question

  • How do we balance professional and professional life within the project?

Story

Having participated in a research collaboration as a PhD student my networking had potential as i had an opportunity to work in the project after graduation. I however declined the opportunity to focus on my family commitments at that time. This i feed greatly affected network development linked to that research collaboration.

(Ari_South)

Guiding Question

  • How do we manage supervision with the project in terms of human resources, budget, and infrustructure?

Story

In the beginning as a PhD student in a North to South research project. The participation in the project was limited to the studentship. The university as a south collaborator was not involved in the original proposal writing. The role was mainly to supervise the students and it was at times challenging when there would be issues that affected students as there was another organization linking the university to the Northern collaborator. There was no budget for the department and at times supervision was a challenge as the faculty were limited in terms of agency and even accessing any facilitation.

(Ari_South)

Guiding Question

  • How do we share the responsabilities within the project? How do we communicate these responsabilities?

Story

Sometimes, I feel that north collaborator trust more north-based collaborator than south collaborator (both are same nationality).

(Anonymous_South)


During the meeting for institutional get-to-know, the following comments have to be taken into account:

  • The individual researchers do not have to position their colleagues.
  • The self-awareness exercise has to be sent to participants before the meeting.
  • The reflection part of the exercise has to be done first individually, and then in the group.
  • The moderator and note taker should be external to the research collaboration team.
  • The moderator of the group and the researchers participating in the exercise have to establish a safe space for each individual researchers, considering at least the following points:
  1. Preparing the self-awareness exercise taking into account hierarchy among the researchers and the diversity of background of the researchers.
  2. Reminding of the discomfort of the discussion.
  3. Establishing a constructive dialogue and avoiding a blame game.
  4. Acknowledging the diversity of perspectives