Table 5 Evaluation of ODA-funded development research model based on interview data and document review

Effectiveness

• Pathways to impact are often indirect and long-term

• Development impacts are difficult to quantify and are not always strategically planned or adequately tracked

• Weaker capacity may prevent ODA-receiving countries from applying new knowledge and technologies

• Donor country policy-makers may question the value of research programmes when concrete results are not evident

• Funded projects may lack direct relevance to ODA-eligible issues

• Maximizing participation from ODA-receiving countries can enhance development relevance

• Collaboration with ODA-receiving country partners can increase capacity-building outcomes

• Strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should be built in to maximize development impact and ensure ODA compliance

Efficiency

• Programmes delivered by research funders can produce high-quality projects and increase the prestige of development research

• Research can provide an evidence base for the work of development actors

• Redundancies may emerge among funders working on the same topic or in the same partner country

• Research may fail to be translated into knowledge that development actors use

• Coordinating with research funding institutions in recipient countries can increase efficiency

• Regular channels for exchange should be established among researchers, policy-makers and development actors

Equity

• Programmes have increased partnerships between ODA donor and recipient countries

• Capacity-building in ODA-receiving countries can help to address structural inequalities

• Partnerships can be imbalanced from the outset due to funding arrangements and priority-setting processes

• A lack of resources may prevent donor country research councils from addressing capacity-building in recipient countries directly

• Long-term capacity-building may not be sustainable once project funding expires

• Structures to ensure equity should be built into programmes

• Additional provisions on equity should be included in project calls, review processes and partnership agreements

• Capacity-building goals should be made explicit and supported by specific programme provisions

• Projects’ potential for continued impact should be assessed during the application process

Political feasibility

• Donor country policy-makers need evidence of impact to understand programme value

• Recipient countries welcome programmes that include collaboration, co-development and capacity-building

• Politicians may not see the value in supporting research programmes that have longer timelines for results than the shorter-term electoral cycles

• Co-funding models may be a challenge in ODA-receiving countries where resources for research are limited or under pressure

• Concrete examples and instances of international uptake can demonstrate value to policy-makers

• Donor countries should take careful stock of the financial and political situation in partner countries and, with their input, design programmes accordingly

Management processes

• Broad priorities are often set by donor country ministries, but research funders have flexibility at the call level

• Orienting development research to GPGs and other areas of mutual benefit may displace local development agendas

• Input from ODA-receiving countries should be integrated at as many levels as possible during programme, call and project development