Mapping International University Partnerships Identified by East African Universities as Strengthening Their Medicine, Nursing, and Public Health Programs

Yarmoshuk, Aaron N.; Guantai, Anastasia Nkatha; Mwangu, Mughwira; Cole, Donald C.; Zarowsky, Christina

doi:10.1016/j.aogh.2016.07.006

Cited by 9 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study, conducted in three distinct phases, used multiple methods to explore the practice of reciprocity in 125 partnerships of four focus universities-see Yarmoshuk et al (2016Yarmoshuk et al ( , 2018 and Yarmoshuk et al (2019). The analysis reported here is a secondary qualitative analysis of data collected to examine how international interuniversity partnerships contribute to developing the health professional programmes (HPPs) of four East African universities.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All four universities have schools or programmes of medicine, nursing and public health and teaching hospitals, so can be considered Academic Health Science Centres (AHSCs). The reasons for selecting these four universities have been fully described previously (Yarmoshuk et al 2016). These four universities are referred to as the focus universities of this study since it was interested in learning how international partners supported their capacity development in medicine, nursing and public health programmes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of international interuniversity health partnerships has continued to grow, between universities in HICs and LMICs, and among LMICs (Yarmoshuk et al 2016). Partnership guidelines and toolkits have been developed to guide the development and management of global health partnerships (Afsana et al 2009;IJsselmuiden et al 2004;Stöckli et al 2014;KFPE 1998), but they tend to focus on process and perceptions, like setting objectives together, the importance of building trust and having good communication, rather than the outputs, outcomes or composite picture of results achieved.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As part of a multiple case study of four focus universities in East Africa, we previously mapped the partnerships and identified the range and types of activities and outputs within all partnerships (Yarmoshuk et al 2016). University representatives identified a total of 21 activities within four groupings-(i) education, (ii) research, (iii) service (care) and (iv) infrastructure development, including the provision of equipment and supplies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reciprocity in international interuniversity global health partnerships

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interuniversity global health partnerships are often between parties unequal in organizational capacity and performance using conventional academic output measures. Mutual benefit and reciprocity are called for but literature examining these concepts is limited. The objectives of this study are to analyse how reciprocity is practiced in international interuniversity global health partnerships and to identify relevant structures of reciprocity. Four East African universities and 125 of their international partnerships were included. A total of 192 representatives participated in key informant interviews and focus group discussions. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically, drawing on reciprocity theories from international relations and sociology. A range of reciprocal exchanges, including specific, unilateral and diffuse (bilateral and multilateral), were observed. Many partnerships violated the principle of equivalence, as exchanges were often not equal based on tangible benefits realized. Only when intangible benefits, like values, were considered was equivalence realized. This changed the way the principle of contingency-an action done for benefit received-was observed within the partnerships. The values of individuals, the structures of organizations and the guiding principles of the partnerships were observed to guide more than financial gain. Asymmetry of partners, dissimilar perspectives and priorities, and terms of funding all pose challenges to reciprocity. In an era when strengthening institutions is considered crucial to achieving development goals, more rigorous examination and assessment of reciprocity in partnerships is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reciprocity in international interuniversity global health partnerships

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature emphasizes the need for partnership, and its related principles, for researchers between developed countries and the rest of the world, whilst its critics highlight the problematical context of structural inequality and historical legacies which are antithetical for the development of mutually beneficial collaborations (Koch-Weser and Yankauer, 1993). More recently, Yarmoshuk et al (2016) alluded that current systematic mappings of the basic, common characteristics of North-South research partnerships are scarce. This state of affairs, therefore, presents an open space for investigation within lion conservation research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Review of Lion Research in South Africa: The Impact of Researcher Perspective, Research Mode, and Power Structures on Outcome Bias and Implementation Gaps

Sobratee

Slotow

2019

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the state of research, and its effectiveness, in a predominantly Life Sciences sphere, requires an assessment of knowledge growth dynamics, and the associated scientific and bibliometric impacts. We aim to create and evaluate, in a systematic review process, a macro-structure of the science generated in lion research in South Africa (SA) from 1990 to 2018. First, we classified the evidence architecture of lion research data extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection. Then, we identified prominent features that the datasets reveal in terms of authorship and ownership, as defined by first author affiliation and geographical location. Fifteen sub-disciplines were identified to characterize the topics. From 2000 onwards, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary contributions started to emerge, catering for research problems defined at the interface of the academic-practitioner domains. These included social and economics components, and were aligned with conservation framings that seek to evaluate conservation within market-based vs. people-based approaches. Study areas were concentrated within SA (61.8%) and the remainder was either conducted in the rest of Africa (22.9%), or in various combinations of geographical focus. Author affiliation indicated that 63.1% of first authors had a South African affiliation. The rest of Africa was poorly represented at 2.4%. The majority (57.1%) of the first authors was male, but from 2014 to 2018, female researchers outnumbered males; however, male first authors continued to be cited more frequently. Furthermore, we provide a systemic analysis of the way in which research contributes to lion conservation. Overall, three voices dominate this area. Firstly, Mode 1 research has been driving research output in a "vicious circle," motivated by researchers' quest for accumulating academic rewards. Secondly, the citation impact shows a gender disparity against the recognition of female researchers. Lastly, a power imbalance against authors from the rest of Africa became apparent, whereby their role is mainly shaped toward being team contributors. This research shows Sobratee and Slotow Conservation Research Mode and Agenda that effective conservation requires appropriate knowledge to be generated, and this to be effectively translated into practical applications, while considering all perspectives in order to provide the opportunity for balanced contributions and influences. Imbalances such as the ones revealed above are likely to prevail more broadly.

show abstract