Research capacity building through North–South–South networking: towards true partnership? An exploratory study of a network for scientific support in the field of sexual and reproductive health

NetSRH: a North–South–South research network

The first of the 11 principles underlying North–South research partnerships, as developed by the Swiss Commission for Research Partnerships with Developing Countries as far back as 1998, is that partners should decide on objectives together [14]. NetSRH is financed by the Belgian Cooperation and its project proposal has been written by the only partner in the network not rooted in the south. Through more investment in collaboration between the southern partners, possibly to the detriment of the coaching role of the northern institute, the network might evolve towards South–South–North collaboration, which is one step away from the North–South network paradigm and one step closer to a reinforced South–South collaboration.

The United Nations Commission for Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD) mentions, in its working paper Making North-South Research Networks Work, as a prerequisite to success the “establishment of a strong common focus around a concrete, widely shared problem or goal” [15]. Released in 1999, this report proves that the challenges experienced by NetSRH members are not new. Lessons from three African networks confirm this prerequisite [16]. Progress in the planned multi-country studies within NetSRH has been slowed down because of perceived differences in context, in research objectives and in focus, although it concerned the same theme.

A second recommendation found in the UNCSTD report and confirmed by the experiences of Doherty [16] is to achieve win-win situations and mutual benefits: “Good network management implies both asking members for their voluntary inputs and helping them to benefit optimally from the network’s collective outputs” [15]. Have we stretched the voluntary inputs of the network too far? Did the coaching, capacity building and opportunities for exchange in the network constitute a return on the investment that the members have made? When asked for possible reasons of the lack of sharing and collaboration between the network members of the south, the answer was often reduced to logistical and pragmatic reasons: a lack of time, a deficient internet connection and weak communication modalities in general, including differences in context.

NetSRH has gone far beyond most recommendations for North–South networks [15]: a formal network governance structure exists, southern researchers’ participation is optimised and NetSRH members are encouraged to participate actively by informing the network of the results of their research activities and other news, such as technical information or details concerning calls for proposals in fields of common interest. Nevertheless, from our study results collected after 18 months of launching the NetSRH, we derive the observation that southern partners perceive a certain domination of the north over the south. NetSRH members attribute this phenomenon largely to the fact that such networks, as well as research projects developed within those networks, are mostly initiated and financed by northern partners. This maintains LMIC in an asymmetric relation with their research partners from the north [17]. Is this perception correct?

Weinrib [18] argues that the asymmetry between northern and southern research partners is rooted in (distorted) program and project selection criteria and processes, in project agenda-setting processes, in knowledge management and resource management as well as in a predominance of short-term funding cycles and the limited success of institutionalisation efforts of North–South collaboration. Weinrib documents how the initiation of North–South research collaboration has historically been based on exogenous political and academic agendas rather than endogenous motives in order to maintain a high level of dependency within the south on foreign knowledge-related norms, structures and systems. Hereby southern researchers “remain beholden to particular mandates of knowledge production and evaluation vis-à-vis supply-side development and knowledge regimes” while northern actors “continue to place themselves at the center of the knowledge management systems, often as gatekeepers of technical knowledge and base practices” ([15] p. 103). Interviews with NetSRH members confirm that northern donors have funding available only for particular fields of interests and that southern institutes will adapt their production to that reality in the absence of alternative funding sources.

When research takes place in the South, southern partners feel they are predominantly responsible for more executive tasks, e.g. data collection, rather than for analytic, technical or coordinating aspects of a given research project, e.g. dissemination of results or production of articles. We might question whether this domination of North over South is unique; whether there is not also a domination by southern partners with more experience in networks over other southern partners? As we have seen in our study, significant differences exist in research and other technical competences among NetSRH partners, as well as in the experience gathered in multi-country projects and in working with foreign donors. Are these differences solely a consequence of an unequal distribution of resources, competences and exposure to experience? Is it hence a matter of closing the gap through “tailor-made” capacity building in order to make those who need to progress faster? Bennet et al. [19] showed that institutes that benefitted from longer-term institutional collaborations with organisations outside their own country were particularly advantaged concerning capacity development. Similarly, Mayhew et al. [3] confirmed that pre-existing research capacity, as well as good personal relationships between members of the partner institutions, increased the likelihood of successful partnership. In the experience of Mayhew et al. [3], the northern partner’s biggest lesson was how to manage the very different types of partners within the same partnership. It requires space and flexibility for the different partners in order to define their own national priorities while engaging each partner in international research interests.

Is asymmetric capacity building with a focus on those who are lagging behind potentially key to progressively increasing the efficacy of South–South collaboration? In other words, when trying to close the knowledge gap, should we move from North–South collaboration to South–South collaboration? Or is the domination of one group over the other associated to directing political, economic and often historically embedded power relations? Would it be possible for the stronger southern partners to train the other southern partners without maintaining (or even reinforcing) the asymmetry in their relationship? Is a transfer of competence and knowledge by the stronger southern partners to less experienced peers a better response than the traditional North–South capacity building, or would that only mean jumping from the frying pan into the fire?

Interesting, and potentially a key to progress, is the observation by Bennett et al. [19] that the more successful institutes appeared to benefit from strong links to policymakers which affected not only their ability to influence policy, but also supported their research capacity. A similar observation has been made in the NetSRH experience.

Why to invest in networks?

In the wake of the questions discussed above, we ask ourselves whether it is worth investing in networks and what the role of the northern partner should be in such networks. If research development in the South is the main objective, the institutional collaboration run by the ITM over the last decade in 10 to 15 countries has shown more efficiency. The network is not a guarantee of collaboration. However, it does create a pool of researchers who can react more rapidly when an opportunity occurs to collaborate in projects. In this sense and with South–South collaboration being an objective, networking may lead to several advantages, despite it being a time and resource-consuming activity. These advantages become apparent after a certain investment, as we see in the NetSRH project in which members have started to collaborate spontaneously only 2 years after its implementation.

Lifting the barriers to South-led research: heading to true and equal partnership

Our study has exemplified a vicious circle. Researchers in the South run after consultancies to secure income, yet large budgeted projects are usually North-led, whereby southern institutions are asked to collect the data according to a study design decided upon by the northern partner. Consequently, southern partners do not have time to invest in reading, writing and submitting their own projects. When there is no project (no income), the researchers seek consultancies to make ends meet without motivation to invest in things they do not master, hence capacity strengthening is put on the back burner. Much of the work undertaken by the institutes appears to have been driven by requests from government or donors [20]. Girvan argues that, if governments and donors are not prepared to provide resources in a form of assistance which is non-intrusive and supportive of the development of local capacities, it should not be offered, and if offered it should not be accepted, for otherwise it will hinder development through continuous knowledge dependency and disempowerment [7]; this is easier said than done. As long as research centres in LMICs are struggling to find structural financing and hence unable to advance the costs for literature reviews and other preparative studies for autonomously led research, it could be suicidal for centres to refuse offers that are not as supportive as they need to be. It is evidently a shared responsibility between partners, yet the donor agencies should be urged to collaborate with their partners on an equitable and ethical offer for assistance, ensuring a fair share for its partners in overheads, task distribution, output and authorship. Donors must commit to long-term and in-country support if they wish to support successful research capacity building [3].

LMICs might take a prominent role in leading or directing these research collaborations in order to maximise the benefits and minimise the harm of inherently inequitable relationships. Chu et al. [5] suggest that high-income country (HIC) institutions could provide access to distance learning resources such as online libraries, proposal development, statistical expertise, database development and management, and that trusted long term HIC collaborators who understand the context and needs of the region can teach agenda-setting skills and assist in agenda development. Further, they also state that the coordination of HIC collaborators should be done by the LMIC. The ITM is doing so since 1998 through its institutional collaboration in 14 countries for which they are financially supported by the Belgian Development Cooperation. South-led research has also been stimulated by China and South Africa in, respectively, the (rather contested²) 1000 Talent Plan for foreigners [21] and in the South African Research Chairs Initiative [22], aimed at recruiting or maintaining internationally recognised academic experts in order to strengthen and improve the country’s research and innovation capacities.

Finally, while collaborative partnership initiatives have rightfully received a growing interest and are the main topic of our study, we also wish to stress the importance of a fair distribution of authorship credit within these partnerships, which needs similar attention [23].

Recommendations

Mid-term of the network project, NetSRH members from South and North unanimously conclude that sustainable financing of southern research centres is a necessary condition for them to initiate their own research projects. We recommend reserving funds within the international donor agencies for South-led research in order to break the vicious circle of running behind money provided by northern donors, thereby missing out on time and resources for literature review and needs evaluations required for initiating own research. Reserving the necessary funds can be done in at least two ways: international donors can finance studies decided by the southern partners through the demand from Ministries of Health (which is itself financed by international donors) or they can allocate a part of the international funds to South-led research only.

With regards to competences, inequality between network partners could represent an opportunity rather than a source of inequity: the more advanced southern partners discussing with and informally coaching their less experienced peers appeared, at least for NetSRH, to be a very efficient way to strengthen the competences of all. Moreover, doing so in the institute of one of the southern partners reduces geographical boundaries and reinforces the organisational capacities and experience of the hosting partner.

Other important assets for successful North–South partnering, equally highlighted by Doherty in 2015 [16], are a strong anchoring institution with the financial and human resources to sustain the network/collaboration, dedicated resources for collaboration in terms of funding and regular face-to-face meetings.