Barriers to sustainable health research leadership in the Global South: Time for a Grand Bargain on localization of research leadership?

Abstract

Background Strong Global South (GS) health research leadership, itself both dependent on and a requisite for strong health research systems, is essential to generate locally relevant research and ensure that evidence is translated into policy and practice. Strong GS health research systems and leadership are important for health development and in turn for strong health systems. However, many GS countries struggle to produce research and to improve performance on widely used research metrics measuring productivity and reflecting leadership. Drawing on literature from a rapid review, this viewpoint paper considers the barriers to GS health research leadership and proposes strategies to address these challenges. Findings GS researchers and institutions face numerous barriers that undermine health research leadership potential. Barriers internal to the GS include researcher-level barriers such as insufficient mentorship, limited financial incentives and time constraints. Institutional barriers include limited availability of resources, restrictive and poorly developed research infrastructures, weak collaboration and obstructive policies and procedures. Structural barriers include political will, politicization of research and political instability. External barriers relate to the nature and extent of Global North (GN) activities and systems and include allocation and distribution of funding and resources, characteristics and focus of GN-GS research collaborations, and publication and information dissemination challenges. Conclusions Strengthening GS health research leadership requires acknowledgement of the many barriers, and adoption of mitigating measures by a range of actors at the institutional, national, regional and global levels. Particularly important are leadership capacity development integrating researcher, institutional and systems initiatives; new GN–GS partnership models emphasizing capacity exchange and shared leadership; supporting GS research communities to set, own and drive their research agendas; addressing biases against GS researchers; ensuring that GS institutions address their internal challenges; enhancing South–South collaborations; diversifying research funding flow to the GS; and learning from models that work. The time has come for a firm commitment to improving localization of research leadership, supported by adequate funding flow, to ensure strong and sustainable research systems and leadership in and from the GS. Just as the humanitarian donor and aid community adopted the Grand Bargain commitment to improve funding flow through local and national responders in times of crisis, we strongly urge the global health research community to adopt a Grand Bargain for research leadership.

Missing in action: a scoping review of gender as the overlooked component in decolonial discourses

“…The impact of persistent coloniality in global health research has been a notable feature of the broader decolonising global health discourse. Of the 53 papers that discussed (de)coloniality and gender, 18 articles focused on global health research encompassing research partnerships,51–54 underlying epistemologies45 55 56 and methodological approaches,32 33 40 47 50 through to publication 57. Some of these papers were focused at the level of the individual,58 while others addressed structural and systemic factors driving inequity 59–62.…”

Mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings: research priorities for 2021–30

“…In line with recommendations concerning localisation in the humanitarian field 19 and decolonisation in global health research, 20 MHPSS research funding would benefit from: more direct funding for researchers from LMICs, so as to build knowledge infrastructures; an equitable voice for these researchers in LMICs in funding priorities and decisions from donors based in high-income countries; and-where possible-increased funding from LMICs. [21][22][23] The second issue is that the research agenda will require uptake by diverse stakeholders in the MHPSS field. Unfortunately, research might not always reach policy and practice stakeholders.…”

The ethical and validity conundrum in epilepsy research in LMIC settings

“…Researchers in LMICs would have a greater awareness of the epidemiology of epilepsy in their own settings. The future of sustainable global HIC and LMIC research relationships lies in equitable participation, recognition and attribution in the process and final outcomes, as well as in equipping young researchers with requisite skills allowing them to compete effectively for available resources and contribute to research projects at high standards ( 1 , 10 , 11 , 14 – 17 ).…”