How are Research for Development Programmes Implementing and Evaluating Equitable Partnerships to Address Power Asymmetries?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41287-023-00578-w.
SUBMITTER: Snijder M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9947878 | biostudies-literature | 2023
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
How are Research for Development Programmes Implementing and Evaluating Equitable Partnerships to Address Power Asymmetries?
Snijder Mieke M Steege Rosie R Callander Michelle M Wahome Michel M Rahman M Feisal MF Apgar Marina M Theobald Sally S Bracken Louise J LJ Dean Laura L Mansaray Bintu B Saligram Prasanna P Garimella Surekha S Arthurs-Hartnett Sophia S Karuga Robinson R Mejía Artieda Adriana Elizabeth AE Chengo Victoria V Ateles Joanes J
The European journal of development research 20230223 2
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 ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Equitable health research requires actively engaging communities in producing new knowledge to advocate for their health needs. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) relies on the coproduction of contextual and grounded knowledge between researchers, programme implementers and community partners with the aim of catalysing action for change. Improving coproduction competencies can support research quality and validity. Yet, frameworks and guidance highlighting the ideal competencies and conditions needed for all research partners to contribute meaningfully and equitably are lacking. This paper aims to advance CBPR by laying out seven core competencies and conditions that can promote power sharing in knowledge production, application and dissemination at the individual, community, organisational and systems levels.Competencies were developed through an iterative process, that synthesised pre-existing literature and frameworks with a wide range of tacit knowledge from researchers, activists, implementation partners and community researchers from Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Sierra Leone and the UK.The seven core competencies and conditions are: (1) capacity to interpret and respond to individual and relational identity, connection, uniqueness and inequities; (2) ability of communities and partners to work in the most suitable, inclusive and synergistic way; (3) aptitude for generating safe and inclusive spaces for multidirectional knowledge and skills exchange that goes beyond the research focus; (4) expertise in democratic leadership and/or facilitation to balance competing priorities and ensure shared decision-making; (5) capacity to analyse readiness for action, successes and areas for improvements throughout the research process; (6) ability to instigate sustainable change processes within the political dimensions of systems, policies and practices using advocacy, lobbying or activism approaches and (7) skills to interpret and disseminate findings and outputs that are understandable, respectful and promote community ownership. We present core competency and condition areas, individual and collective expertise associated with competencies, likely outcomes, examples of activities and sources of evidence.
| S-EPMC11574420 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antimicrobial Resistance is recognized as a major threat to global health security. The WHO Southeast Asia region is dubbed a "global hub for AMR emergence", as it runs the highest risk for AMR emergence among all WHO regions in Asia. Hence, there is a need for Asia-centric, collaborative AMR research aligned with the true needs and priorities of the region. This study aimed to identify and understand the challenges and opportunities for such collaborative endeavors to enhance equitable partnerships. This qualitative study adopted an interpretative approach involving a thematic analysis of 15 semi-structured interviews with AMR experts conducting research in the region. The study identified several factors influencing research collaborations, such as the multi-dimensional nature of AMR, limited or lack of funds, different AMR research priorities in Asian countries, absence of Asia-centric AMR leadership, lack of trust and, unequal power relationships between researchers, and the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in research collaborations. It also identified some opportunities, such as the willingness of researchers to collaborate, the formation of a few networks, and the prioritization by many academics of the One Health paradigm for framing AMR research. Participants reported that the initiation of stronger cross-discipline and cross-country networks, the development of Asia-centric AMR leadership, flexible research agendas with shared priorities, transparent and transferable funds, and support to enhance research capacity in LMICs could assist in developing more equitable collaborative research in Asia.
| S-EPMC9219997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe effectiveness of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships to address health inequities is well documented. CBPR integrates knowledge and perspectives of diverse communities throughout the research process, following principles that emphasize trust, power sharing, co-learning, and mutual benefits. However, institutions and funders seldom provide the time and resources needed for the critical stage of equitable partnership formation and development.MethodsSince 2011, the Detroit Urban Research Center, collaborating with other entities, has promoted the development of new community-academic research partnerships through two grant programs that combine seed funding with capacity building support from community and academic instructors/mentors experienced in CBPR. Process and outcomes were evaluated using mixed methods.ResultsFrom 2011 to 2021, 50 partnerships received grants ranging from $2,500 to $30,000, totaling $605,000. Outcomes included equitable partnership infrastructure and processes, innovative pilot research, translation of findings to interventions and policy change, dissemination to multiple audiences, new proposals and projects, and sustained community-academic research partnerships. All partnerships continued beyond the program; over half secured additional funding.ConclusionsKeys to success included participation as community-academic teams, dedicated time for partnership/relationship development, workshops to develop equity-based skills, relationships, and projects, expert community-academic instructor guidance, and connection to additional resources. Findings demonstrate that small amounts of seed funding for newly forming community-academic partnerships, paired with capacity building support, can provide essential time and resources needed to develop diverse, inclusive, equity-focused CBPR partnerships. Building such support into funding initiatives and through academic institutions can enhance impact and sustainability of translational research toward advancing health equity.
| S-EPMC9879886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionParticipatory health research (PHR) as a research paradigm, guides the research process and strives to achieve positive change in society in the interest of people's health. In this scoping review, PHR will be used as an umbrella term considering a wide range of collaborative research approaches in the health context. PHR is conducted 'with' or 'by' those it intends to benefit, as opposed to 'on' and 'for' them. Their involvement throughout the research process seeks to shift power and decision-making from where they traditionally lay within academia toward community, patient and public end-users. Research cannot be truly participatory without concurrently addressing power dynamics within the partnership and power imbalances in decision making. Therefore, power sharing can be defined as a major factor in building effective academic-community collaborations. This scoping review aims to identify, clarify, and map existing literature on power and power sharing in PHR from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Specifically, we will explore how power is conceptualised throughout the literature, and how power and power sharing are applied and addressed in real-life PHR partnerships.Materials and methodsThis scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewer's Manual. This scoping review will consider both empirical and non-empirical research that report on understanding power and power sharing in participatory health research partnerships. All appropriate studies will be retrieved from the following five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, SocIndex. This review will be limited to articles published in English and from January 1998 to March 2024. As the scoping review aims to capture more than peer-reviewed and published literature, it will also include grey literature such as theses and dissertations, reports, conference proceedings, and editorials. Data from the included literature will be extracted based on the data extraction tool, defined in advance.Ethics and disseminationAs primary data will not be collected, ethical approval is not required to conduct the scoping review. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.
| S-EPMC11257268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the acknowledged injustice and widespread existence of parachute research studies conducted in low- or middle-income countries by researchers from institutions in high-income countries, there is currently no pragmatic guidance for how academic journals should evaluate manuscript submissions and challenge this practice. We assembled a multidisciplinary group of editors and researchers with expertise in international health research to develop this consensus statement. We reviewed relevant existing literature and held three workshops to present research data and holistically discuss the concept of equitable authorship and the role of academic journals in the context of international health research partnerships. We subsequently developed statements to guide prospective authors and journal editors as to how they should address this issue. We recommend that for manuscripts that report research conducted in low- or middle-income countries by collaborations including partners from one or more high-income countries, authors should submit accompanying structured reflexivity statements. We provide specific questions that these statements should address and suggest that journals should transparently publish reflexivity statements with accepted manuscripts. We also provide guidance to journal editors about how they should assess the structured statements when making decisions on whether to accept or reject submitted manuscripts. We urge journals across disciplines to adopt these recommendations to accelerate the changes needed to halt the practice of parachute research.
| S-EPMC9293237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Equitable global health partnerships are essential to promote innovative research and strengthen research capacity to address critical public health challenges, but how to optimally evaluate such collaborations is unclear. This was a sequential, multi-method study that utilized an electronic survey informed by the literature followed by semi-structured interviews to comprehensively evaluate the experience of participating in a global research-capacity building collaboration between Nepal and U.S. clinicians and investigators. De-identified quantitative survey were analyzed to calculate descriptive and summary statistics, along with crosstabs of each variable by group. Groups were defined based on country-of-origin and Chi Square statistics calculated to assess for statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between groups. Interviews were analyzed using a descriptive qualitative approach to develop an overall thematic map. 22 survey responses (52.4% response rate) were analyzed; 13 (59.1%) from Nepal, 9 (40.9%) from the U.S. Eight participants (4 Nepal; 4 U.S.) were interviewed. Over the course of the project, all participants reported gaining experience and confidence with research. The majority of participants "strongly agreed" there was a shared understanding of goals, priorities and strategies (Nepal, 58.3%, n = 7; U.S., 88.9%, n = 8;) and that power was shared equally (Nepal, 58.3%, n = 7; U.S., 55.6%, n = 5). The over-arching theme that emerged from the interviews was the importance of 'establishing community' which participants discussed within the broader context of COVID-19. Overall, team members reported strong bi-directional benefit and a greater emphasis on perceived benefits versus challenges. Our survey tool and interview guide, designed to holistically evaluate the impact of a global partnership across various levels of the Social Ecological Model, with particular attention to power dynamics and equity, can be adapted and used by others engaged in similar research capacity collaborations.
| S-EPMC10593218 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch partnerships in conflict-affected and humanitarian settings can reveal complex power hierarchies between academics and NGOs. During the process of research, decision-making may skew in favour of more powerful actors, who often direct the scope of the research, hold the budget and lead the analysis. Co-production is increasingly emerging as a helpful approach that attempts to equalise power dynamics during research. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the main challenges associated with a "research as usual" approach to research partnerships in humanitarian settings, as power hierarchies may be particularly magnified in these settings.MethodsThis paper is based on a comprehensive literature review and 32 semi-structured interviews with academics and practitioners from non-government organisations. Participants were selected purposively based on their experience in co-producing research or working within research partnerships. Some participants had worked in humanitarian settings while others had experience co-producing research in non-humanitarian contexts. We used Nvivo to thematically code data.ResultsThis paper documents the problems with "research as usual" partnerships in humanitarian settings, specifically: the burden on communities as merely sources of data, certain forms of knowledge being valued over others, lack of reflection on the power hierarchies structuring research partnerships, top-down decision-making and lack of transparency, one-way "capacity-building", lack of mutual benefit, and rigid research processes and timeframes.ConclusionThis paper highlights key challenges with standard research practices in humanitarian settings and identifies seven key principles of co-production that can be helpful in attempting to equalise power dynamics within research partnerships, specifically in conflict-affected and humanitarian settings.
| S-EPMC8390113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The need for competent research managers and administrators (RMAs) has increased due to the complexity in managing research projects between disparate and international partners. To facilitate the creation of robust training and professional development programmes it is essential to first understand the status quo. A collaborative project, Sustainable Management and Administration for Research: Training across the project Lifecycle (SMARTLife), made up of RMAs from South Africa, Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom (UK) developed a set of competencies to conduct an RMA competency-based training needs assessment scoping tool. Method: Nine areas were identified: Equitable partnership; Finance Management; Project Management; Monitoring and Evaluation; Reporting and Communications; Equity, Diversity & Inclusion; Training and Capacity Development; Impact a& Sustainability; and Ethical, Social, Legal a& Social Implications. Tasks for each competency area were identified to develop an scoping tool that had 168 data collection points. The tool was advertised through press releases, mailing lists and social media. Results: 108 responses were obtained: with 49% from 15 Africa countries/the remainder from the UK. The UK (71%) had more permanent RMA staff members compared to Africa (39%). There were more respondents in Africa with the title of Research Manager/Coordinator(p=0.0132) compared to the UK where most of the RMAs were employed as Finance/Contract officers. 60% of respondents from the UK had more than three years experience while only 35% from Africa had experience. While most RMAs had formal higher education qualifications, their training was not in research management and administration, which requires a diverse range of skills. Confidence in specific tasks varied between the UK and Africa whereas collaborative partnerships challenges and enablers were similar. Conclusion This work highlights differences in RMA training and experience RMA between Africa and UK, this work could inform much needed competency-based training for RMAs and partnership strategies that aid mutual-learning.
| S-EPMC9648359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe English National Health Service has made a major investment in nine partnerships between higher education institutions and local health services called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). They have been funded to increase capacity and capability to produce and implement research through sustained interactions between academics and health services. CLAHRCs provide a natural 'test bed' for exploring questions about research implementation within a partnership model of delivery. This protocol describes an externally funded evaluation that focuses on implementation mechanisms and processes within three CLAHRCs. It seeks to uncover what works, for whom, how, and in what circumstances.Design and methodsThis study is a longitudinal three-phase, multi-method realistic evaluation, which deliberately aims to explore the boundaries around knowledge use in context. The evaluation funder wishes to see it conducted for the process of learning, not for judging performance. The study is underpinned by a conceptual framework that combines the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services and Knowledge to Action frameworks to reflect the complexities of implementation. Three participating CLARHCS will provide in-depth comparative case studies of research implementation using multiple data collection methods including interviews, observation, documents, and publicly available data to test and refine hypotheses over four rounds of data collection. We will test the wider applicability of emerging findings with a wider community using an interpretative forum.DiscussionThe idea that collaboration between academics and services might lead to more applicable health research that is actually used in practice is theoretically and intuitively appealing; however the evidence for it is limited. Our evaluation is designed to capture the processes and impacts of collaborative approaches for implementing research, and therefore should contribute to the evidence base about an increasingly popular (e.g., Mode two, integrated knowledge transfer, interactive research), but poorly understood approach to knowledge translation. Additionally we hope to develop approaches for evaluating implementation processes and impacts particularly with respect to integrated stakeholder involvement.
| S-EPMC3168414 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study investigated health sciences librarians' knowledge and skill-based readiness to partner on sponsored research involving human participants. The authors developed and deployed, at two time points, a web-based survey on nine indicators of research activities with response choices reflecting the transtheoretical model of stages of behavior change. Librarians with research experience or membership in the Medical Library Association Research Section reported higher levels of having completed indicators. Our results suggest that creating awareness in precontemplation responders could encourage skill development. Mentoring and continuing education could support librarians who are contemplating or preparing to perform indicator activities.
| S-EPMC4404862 | biostudies-literature