Reciprocity in international interuniversity global health partnerships

Abstract

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.

Characterising transnational ophthalmic surgical partnerships by engagement and training

“…Same‐income level stakeholder contributions can provide a region with a greater depth of partnership involvement and facilitate new LMIC partnership actors' entry. In particular, LMIC‐LMIC partnerships might better model the provision of equitable ophthalmic care in low‐resource settings 28,29 . Additionally, HIC‐based coordinating agencies can provide LMIC‐LMIC partnerships with technical support and financial investment.…”

Nodal heterogeneity may induce ghost triadic effects in relational event models

“…Behavioural studies indicate that an individual's cooperative behaviour can be based on prior experiences, regardless of the identity of the other party [24,6,9]. This mechanism, called generalised reciprocity [22] (also referred to as "tit-for-tat" [1] or indirect reciprocity [34]), assumes that previous receipt of help increases the propensity to help a stranger. Transitive closure describes the process of path shortening, whereby indirect connections between individuals tend to become direct ties over time.…”

Human Resources for Global Health

“…The notion of reciprocity is central to equitable partnerships. However, this is currently not being achieved across the global health community including inequities in opportunities for student and staff exchanges and publication authorship (Yarmoshuk et al 2020). Barriers to and enablers of reciprocity that have been cited include funding for bi-directional exchange and mobility, political landscape (global health and science visa restrictions advocacy), and asymmetries in professional registration to practice (Pai 2020).…”