The Challenges of Making Research Collaboration in Africa More Equitable

Abstract

Collaborative research has a critical role to play in furthering our understanding of African politics. Many of the most important and interesting questions in the field are difficult, if not impossible, to tackle without some form of collaboration, either between academics within and outside of Africa—often termed North–South research partnerships—or between those researchers and organizations from outside the academic world. In Africa in particular, collaborative research is becoming more frequent and more extensive. This is due not only to the value of the research that it can produce but also to pressures on the funding of African scholars and academics in the Global North, alongside similar pressures on the budgets of non-academic collaborators, including bilateral aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and national and international non-government organizations. Collaborative projects offer many advantages to these actors beyond access to new funding sources, so they constitute more than mere “marriages of convenience.” These benefits typically include access to methodological expertise and valuable new data sources, as well as opportunities to increase both the academic and “real-world” impact of research findings. Yet collaborative research also raises a number of challenges, many of which relate to equity. They center on issues such as who sets the research agenda, whether particular methodological approaches are privileged over others, how responsibility for different research tasks is allocated, how the benefits of that research are distributed, and the importance of treating colleagues with respect despite the narrative of “capacity-building.” Each challenge manifests in slightly different ways, and to varying extents, depending on the type of collaboration at hand: North–South research partnership or collaboration between academics and policymakers or practitioners. This article discusses both types of collaboration together because of their potential to overlap in ways that affect the severity and complexity of those challenges. These challenges are not unique to research in Africa, but they tend to manifest in ways that are distinct or particularly acute on the continent because of the context in which collaboration takes place. In short, the legacy of colonialism matters. That history not only shapes who collaborates with whom but also who does so from a position of power and who does not. Thus, the inequitable nature of some research collaborations is not simply the result of oversights or bad habits; it is the product of entrenched structural factors that produce, and reproduce, imbalances of power. This means that researchers seeking to make collaborative projects in Africa more equitable must engage with these issues early, proactively, and continuously throughout the entire life cycle of those research projects. This is true not just for researchers based in the Global North but for scholars from, or working in, Africa as well.

A systematic review on ethical challenges of ‘field’ research in low-income and middle-income countries: respect, justice and beneficence for research staff?

“… 39 Non-local research staff, on the other hand, will likely be less familiar with specific security threats and necessary safety precautions and may additionally have a high visibility due to their foreigner status. 72 Similarly, local researchers may also be asked to collect data in settings that they are not necessarily familiar and comfortable with, including for examples vulnerable and marginalised communities, 50 hospitals 73 or displaced person camps, 42 as well as in locations that deviate from their own in terms of language, ethnicity, culture or religion. 74–76 One study suggested that project timelines, interview targets and budget constraints may further lever out necessary security precautions.…”

Towards Ethical International Research Partnerships in Gender-Based Violence Research: Insights From Research Partners in Kenya

“…Most of the participants we interviewed did not implement their own research projects--not even in the case of the academic researcher—reflecting global inequalities in terms of research funding, as African academics often have little access to funding to conduct academic research ( Dodsworth, 2019 ). Nevertheless, many of the interviewed persons and organizations had been involved in research indirectly, for example, having been approached by HIC researchers looking for GBV survivors to participate in their research.…”

“…The focus on international priorities driven by funding inequalities is not unique to Africa; it is also seen in research in the Middle East, where research assistants feel exploited by the many international research projects on migration, which are presented as “noble” ( Sukarieh & Tannock, 2019 ). This approach maintains relations of global inequality in which LMIC participants and researchers must adapt to HICs priorities, reminiscent of colonial times in which Africa was used as a living laboratory ( Dodsworth, 2019 ).…”

“…This enables an exchange of skills and knowledge that can be highly beneficial. The partnership should also identify which skills people would like to develop and how they can learn from each other, in a two-way process instead of the common assumption that capacity-building only runs North-South ( Dodsworth, 2019 ). Ultimately, all people involved in the research can then learn new skills throughout the process and become better researchers as a result.…”

Case study of participatory action research for wildlife conservation

“…The researchers did not benefit from any of the agricultural practices, and all products were the property of the community members. These methods are part of the Participatory Action Research approach and are important for sustainable and equitable conservation work (Dodsworth, 2019; Ferré et al, 2010; Keahey, 2020). In this way, the project differs from some other land‐use change projects that require and coerce the cultivation of certain crops as part of a larger agro‐business operation (e.g., Mc Guinness, 2016).…”