Good and Bad Research Collaborations: Researchers’ Views on Science and Ethics in Global Health Research

Abstract

There has been a dramatic rise in the scale and scope of collaborative global health research. A number of structural and scientific factors explain this growth and there has been much discussion of these in the literature. Little, if any, attention has been paid, however, to the factors identified by scientists and other research actors as important to successful research collaboration. This is surprising given that their decisions are likely to play a key role in the sustainability and effectiveness of global health research initiatives. In this paper, we report on qualitative research with leading scientists involved in major international research collaborations about their views on good and bad collaborations and the factors that inform their decision-making about joining and participating actively in research networks. We identify and discuss eight factors that researchers see as essential in judging the merits of active participation in global health research collaborations: opportunities for active involvement in cutting-edge, interesting science; effective leadership; competence of potential partners in and commitment to good scientific practice; capacity building; respect for the needs, interests and agendas of partners; opportunities for discussion and disagreement; trust and confidence; and, justice and fairness in collaboration. Our findings suggest that the sustainability and effectiveness of global health research collaborations has an important ethical or moral dimension for the research actors involved.

Recommendations for establishing global collaborative networks in soil ecology

“…Building trust is an essential aspect to ensure the success of any international collaboration (Vangen & Huxman 2003, Bagshaw et al 2007, Parker & Nigori 2016). For doing so, it is critical to clearly communicate from the very beginning what participants can (and should not) expect from being part of the network, and to have a fluid and responsive communication with all of them (Perz et al 2010).…”

“…Different networks already established provide very good models about how to implement effective policies to deal with publication issues, and we personally like the opt-in/opt-out approach being pioneered by the Nutrient Network (Borer et al 2014) as a role model (so we will not repeat it here; for further reading see also networking means and tools in Eisenhauer et al 2019). Having clear and fair co-authorship rules not only contribute to the proper functioning of the network, but also promote the engagement of network members (see Recommendation 9 below) and foster and maintain their trust (Parker & Kingori 2016). …”

“…Again, be aware of cultural differences among participating researchers, as academic life and conventions regarding issues such as data use and working hours and holidays change in different regions around the world, and national or regional funding agencies may also have rules or requirements that must be followed. Having a fluid communication between network members and being flexible when discussing network rules is crucial for overcoming potential barriers arising from these issues (Monteiro & Keating 2009, Parker & Kingori 2016). …”

“…But when the questions explored require having data with a global coverage and/or when capacity building/training is a major objective, a research network should be inclusive and particularly target local scientists from traditionally understudied groups and regions. This has multiple benefits: they have comprehensive and specific local ecological/biological knowledge (Brook & McLachlan 2008), which is crucial when dealing with aspects such as vegetation or arthropod surveys, add additional perspectives and insights about how to answer the questions being explored, which increases the scientific impact of the publications resulting from the network (AlShebli et al 2018), and by doing so the network contributes to the building of scientific capacity and to train students and technicians where it is (often) more needed (Parker & Kingori 2016). …”

“…Existing articles on international collaborations (e.g., Perz et al 2010, de Grijs 2015, Parker & Kingori 2016, Gewin 2018) and globally distributed ecological experiments (Fraser et al 2013, Borer et al 2014) provide excellent advice and generic recommendations that have been proven to lead to successfully establish global networks in multiple disciplines, including soil ecology. These studies, however, have not focused on topics that may not be relevant when dealing with collaborators from the traditional scientific powers (e.g.…”