‘Capacity for what? Capacity for whom?’ A decolonial deconstruction of research capacity development practices in the Global South and a proposal for a value-centred approach

Abstract

Whilst North to South knowledge transfer patterns have been extensively problematised by Southern and decolonial perspectives, there is very little reflection on the practice of research capacity development (RCD), still strongly focused on technoscientific solutionism, yet largely uncritical of its underlying normative directions and power asymmetries. Without making transparent these normative and epistemological dimensions, RCD practices will continue to perpetuate approaches that are likely to be narrow, technocratic and unreflexive of colonial legacies, thus failing to achieve the aims of RCD, namely, the equitable and development-oriented production of knowledge in low- and middle-income societies. Informed by the authors’ direct experience of RCD approaches and combining insights from decolonial works and other perspectives from the margins with Science and Technology Studies, the paper undertakes a normative and epistemological deconstruction of RCD mainstream practice. Highlighting asymmetries of power and material resources in knowledge production, the paper’s decolonial lens seeks to aid the planning, implementation and evaluation of RCD interventions. Principles of cognitive justice and epistemic pluralism, accessibility enabled by systems thinking and sustainability grounded on localisation are suggested as the building blocks for more reflexive and equitable policies that promote research capacity for the purpose of creating social value and not solely for the sake of perpetuating technoscience.

National capacity strengthening within the context of an international vector control partnership: findings from a qualitative study conducted within the Ugandan ‘Tiny Targets’ programme

“…23 Traditional notions of capacity strengthening have been critiqued in the Global Health literature on the grounds that they perpetuate assumptions of 'Northern' superiority over 'Southern' counterparts and/or Southern knowledge systems. 24 As such, the notion of bidirectionality or multidirectionality in capacity strengthening which recognises all members of any partnership, irrespective of their respective location or existing capacities, gain new knowledge, skills or experience as a result of the partnership is increasingly promoted 22 ; although recognising that within an equitable partnership, some members may require additional capacity strengthening support as compared with others. While our study focuses solely on the capacity strengthening process, experience and outcomes of Ugandan partners within a UK-Uganda partnership, we wholeheartedly recognise that the capacity gains were bidirectional.…”

Examining the involvement of guardians of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Tanzania as public contributors to inform the design and conduct of the GuardiansCan project: A mixed‐methods study protocol

“…Research in LMICs has been heavily influenced by the Neocolonialist model, 30 whereby Western epistemologies have dominated research capacity building. 31 However, this focus may fail to generate contextualized knowledge. 32 Neglecting to contextualize research, for example, ignoring sociocultural and economic factors and local needs and preferences, may hinder research success in LMICs.…”

“…Identified impacts in HCs may be amplified when used in settings less used to these approaches. Research in LMICs has been heavily influenced by the Neocolonialist model, 30 whereby Western epistemologies have dominated research capacity building 31 . However, this focus may fail to generate contextualized knowledge 32 .…”

Global partnerships on paper and in practice: Critical observations from inside a Global Challenge Research Fund capacity‐development project

“…Though mutual benefit may be realised through participation in North–South academic collaborations, these partnerships are not without tensions and challenges. Seeking to decolonise international partnerships, an emerging critique points to the hierarchies and inequalities that have defined relationships between Northern and Southern partners (Istratii & Lewis, 2020; Mormina & Istratii, 2021). The inherent inequalities between partners in the Global North and the Global South—differences in access to funding, resources and networks—allow European or North American partners to dominate research agendas and define the parameters of resulting programmes (see, among others, Barrett et al, 2011; Bradley, 2017; Dodsworth & Cheeseman, 2018; Grieve & Mitchell, 2020; Ishengoma, 2016; Mlambo & Baxter, 2018; Tabulawa, 2017).…”