How are Research for Development Programmes Implementing and Evaluating Equitable Partnerships to Address Power Asymmetries?

Abstract

The complexity of issues addressed by research for development (R4D) requires collaborations between partners from a range of disciplines and cultural contexts. Power asymmetries within such partnerships may obstruct the fair distribution of resources, responsibilities and benefits across all partners. This paper presents a cross-case analysis of five R4D partnership evaluations, their methods and how they unearthed and addressed power asymmetries. It contributes to the field of R4D partnership evaluations by detailing approaches and methods employed to evaluate these partnerships. Theory-based evaluations deepened understandings of how equitable partnerships contribute to R4D generating impact and centring the relational side of R4D. Participatory approaches that involved all partners in developing and evaluating partnership principles ensured contextually appropriate definitions and a focus on what partners value.

Bridging Learning and Action: How Did CLARISSA’s Participatory Adaptive Management Approach Foster Innovation, Effectiveness, and Stakeholder Empowerment?

“…Recent articles have identified these dynamics as critical and recognise that the aid industry's operational model, with heavy reliance on 'consortiums' of disparate organisations, significantly limits the adaptive capacity of development programmes (Barnes and Lonsdale 2023;DT Global 2022;Bridges and Woolcock 2019). However, they stop short of calling for dedicated monitoring and explicit management of these relational dynamics to complement those proposed for the external and operational domains (Snijder et al 2023b).…”

A multi-step analysis and co-produced principles to support equitable partnership with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, 125 years on

“…We, as researchers need to engage with the research eco-system that shapes the partnership, creating space for mutual learning and adapt to changes in the external context [23]. For example, partnerships are influenced by the changing global funding architecture; the recent climate of UK ODA funding cuts amidst a global pandemic brought unexpected budget cuts and additional challenges to transboundary research, as highlighted by respondents, and in recent literature on research partnerships [45]. Individual and institutional action is critical but also needs to be part of a wider process of change within the broader political and funding ecosystems that shape and underpin research partnerships and maintain epistemic injustice through funding infrastructure (donors) and knowledge dissemination avenues (journals).…”

Research legitimacy as a precursor to effectiveness: the role of equitable partnerships in transforming aquatic food systems

“…Cultivating equitable partnerships in research-for-development starts with a recognition of the context of the research, which is often colonial and Global North-as well as male-dominated, with associated power asymmetries (Snijder et al, 2023). Critically engaging with this context, along with investment (time, funding) in building and maintaining relationships, helps to place research partnerships within the wider system, which includes historic and contemporary inequities (Fransman et al, 2021).…”

“…These are the types of arrows that require investment through partnerships that (1) recognize and acknowledge gender, race, institutional and other power asymmetries; (2) actively work to address power asymmetries in both process and representation, and (3) seek to improve equity and justice in practice through policy and research use. However, current evaluation methods for quality of science tend to focus on progress along a linear pathway and against pre-determined quantifiable indicators Apgar et al, 2023), which separates legitimacy and scientific credibility. This focus on linear frameworks of evaluation means a lack of recognition of complexity and a lack of attention to the societal embeddedness of problems (Arkesteijn et al, 2015).…”