Synthesis paper
June 2024

Envisioning anequitable future
for researchacross theNorth-South
DivideAndrea Ordóñez Llanos, Peter Taylor,
Geetika Khanduja, Erica Nelson andTracy Mamoun

Abstract
This synthesis paper brings together perspectives from across the Global South and North to explore thecomplexities and challenges of promoting equity in research. Drawing on separate inquiry tracks fromthese regions, it contrasts the approaches, framings, and main concerns identified by stakeholders in bothsettings. Findings reveal that while actors in the Global North—particularly research for development
funders—most often focus on reshaping research partnerships and advancing equity as an end goal in
itself, those in the Global South view equity as integral to broader systemic transformations within thedevelopment knowledge ecosystem. Despite substantial variations in agendas, objectives and approaches
to research collaboration between contexts, finding common ground is crucial to fostering cross-cutting,critical dialogue in Global South and North, and developing a joint action agenda for power-aware, pro-equity
change. The synthesis paper proposes a framework grounded in Southern priorities to strengthen agency,align objectives, and identify spaces for transformative change within the research landscape.

1Introduction
The
conceptof‘equitablepartnerships’(Citizenship DRC, 2003, p.5) has been circulatingin the research for development1 field for a numberof decades. Indeed, acknowledgement of ‘newpartnerships’ in research for development dates
back to the 1972 OECD Conference of Directors ofTraining and Research (Bradley, 2017, p. 39). Morerecently, the demand for equitable partnerships
to be ‘everyone’s business’ has gained significant
traction amongst leading Northern institutions
and funders in this field (UK Collaborative on
Development Research, 2023).
So while research partnerships between ‘Northern’and ‘Southern’ actors have long been understoodas necessary to achieve development objectives,
the power dynamics and politics shaping thesepartnerships have come under increasing scrutiny.
For the purposes of this discussion, and fromthe perspective of a research organisation, apartnership can be broadly understood as “anintentional relationship with private sector, public
sector, academic, or civil society organisations
at national, regional and/or international levels toachieve common aims” (CGIAR, 2022). In practice
however, there is variation in terms of whose
aims count most across the spectrum of possible
partnership configurations.
The current push towards equity is evidenced by anotable increase in the proliferation of guidelines,
funder requirements, workshops, and conferencesthat focus on achieving a greater degree of
localisation, reshaping and reconfiguring unequal
power dynamics in the research for development
field, or working differently in ways that
acknowledge past harms, in some cases calling forreparations that address colonial injustices. Yet,if partnerships in research for development are an‘old’ idea, what has changed to bring about thisfocus on equity? Underlying this more recent
push are two clear agendas: 1) the drive to achieve

1measurable research impacts and increase theefficiency of research for development; and 2)
a moral and political imperative to ‘decolonise’development structures and challenge unequal
power dynamics.
Given the contested power dynamics in research
for international development, and the tendency
towards “buzzwords as fuzzwords” (Cornwall,
2007, p. 474) that can obscure these dynamics inpractice, it is perhaps not surprising that someof the loudest voices championing equitablepartnerships are coming from Northern funders,institutions and agencies. This ‘laying claim’ tothe language of empowerment, without putting
into practice actions that can actually shift power
dynamics within knowledge ecosystems, hasalready been the subject of significant andmeaningful critiques (Fransman et al., 2018).
However, we continue to find that the perspectivesof Southern actors and institutions are given
insufficient priority, and there is still a lack ofopportunity for Southern leadership to articulatea change agenda in research for development.
In this context, Southern Voice, in collaboration
with the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) andwith the support of the International Development
Research Centre (IDRC), has sought to explore andunderstand North-South partnerships in researchfor development. The aim is to better align debatesand ensure that priorities emerging from the Southare adequately heard and prioritised.

ApproachThis project has aimed to foster a broader foundationof shared understanding and collaborative action
on power-aware approaches to research fordevelopment across and within South-North divides,
while acknowledging that this is an imperfectbinary with many nuanced differences withinboth South and North. Recognising that unequal
power shapes what is silenced and what can be
spoken about in mixed groups, and recognising theThis synthesis paper focuses on ‘research for development’, understood as studies and analyses that
address critical development challenges and aim to uplift disadvantaged communities. This research
usually blends academic research with practical interventions, and is generally funded by international
development aid or philanthropy. Some issues raised in this arena may, however, resonate across otherresearch communities beyond the field of global development.

2

problematic and tokenistic inclusion of Southern
actors in consultations dominated by Northern
actors, we decided to take a different approach.
For this project’s first year, which is the basis of
this report, we engaged in separate inquiry tracks
between the Global North and the Global South(see methodological note in Annex 1). This strategic
choice sought to uncover commonalities anddisparities in approaches, concerns, and challenges
encountered by experts and practitioners in bothsettings, without inadvertently pushing a Northern
agenda for these dialogues into Southern spaces.

based in institutions in the Global South.
The Northern track engaged primarily withfunders and key actors in the research fordevelopment sphere and, to a lesser extent,with researchers. The Northern track literature
review focused particularly on understanding the‘equitable partnerships’ discourse. As noted earlier,the divide between Global South and North isa generalisation that, while useful, comes withcaveats. In this way, taking into account individual
differences and nuances within groups, thesefindings must be used thoughtfully and critically.

What this enabled in practice was thefacilitation of honest conversations and reflections
on the challenges, frustrations, critiques, andopportunities in research for development, a spherethat is currently asking difficult questions about
its future. The findings from this inception stage
provide important input in identifying areas ofcontention and consensus, laying the groundworkfor future encounters where Global North andSouth actors can come together to build a joint,
more concrete action agenda to transformresearch systems.

Approaches and framings

In the following sections, we explore the different
perspectives and main issues and concerns
prioritised by stakeholders in the Global North andSouth. On this basis, we propose a framework tobridge these perspectives and stimulate action.

Global South and North: Two pathsof inquiry
This section compares understandings of equity inresearch among Northern and Southern actors, andtheir key concerns over current conditions in the
sector (Figure 1). In practical terms, the Southern
track focused primarily on researchers engaged
in research for development activities within
universities and think tanks, and to a lesser extent,other actors such as funders or intermediaries.
The literature review from the Southern track
focused mainly on sources published by authors

2

Individuals and organisations approached inthis project across both Global South and North
communities acknowledge that unequal power inknowledge systems is at the core of many of theobserved and experienced inequalities. However,there are significant differences in terms of
how issues relating to inequalities and unequal
power distribution are framed and understood.
Broadly speaking, in the Global North actors
focused more on specific relationships orpartnerships. In the Global South, equity is often
perceived as one facet of a broader agenda of inquiry
into the performance of knowledge systems.2
Indeed, a review of Global South literature reveals
that this scholarship does not tend not to focus
on the specificity of research partnerships, butrather on systemic issues such as incentives andinstitutional or public policies. While there are somerecommendations scattered across this broad bodyof knowledge, these are not brought together in aconsolidated Southern agenda. Actors in the Global
South remain unsatisfied with current research
structures and arrangements as they experience
them, but focus on how to best navigate theselimitations in practice.
The way in which different actors frame the issue
narrows down the solutions identified. Concerns
about ‘equity’ amongst Northern actors and“Knowledge systems include the practices, routines, structures, mindsets, values and cultures affecting what
and how knowledge is produced and used, and by whom. Formalised knowledge systems are associated with
universities, research institutes, non-government and government organisations” (Fazey et al., 2020, p.5).

3

institutions are expressed predominantly in thelanguage of ‘relationships’ and ‘partnerships’, andfocus on shifting the composition and functions ofthese. The proliferation of guidelines and principles
shows a willingness among many Northern actors
and institutions to take part in changing the
dynamics of research relationships. Still, identifiableactions have tended to stop short of more
substantial challenges to systems and structures ofunequal power. It is concerning that in many cases,
even the guidelines and principles sideline theopinions of actors from the Global South. At best,
the guidelines draw on these perspectives as partof consultations by Global North actors, who may
or may not engage further with Global South actors
after the consultation.

On the other hand, the perspectives of Global
South actors transcend immediate concerns ofequity to address broader issues. They are often
concerned with the limited ways in which knowledge
generated under the current ‘rules of the game’ of
research is truly transformative in terms of shaping
the realities and needs of their own countries.
They also highlight the multiple ways in which
inequities in power, resources, and access constrain
the positive impacts of research on outcomes
associated with progressive social, economic,
and environmental change, especially for thoseindividuals and communities who are at most risk ofbeing left behind by wider development processes.

Figure 1. Summary of two-track findings

Approach

GlobalSouth track

GlobalNorth track

Focus on broader system over speciﬁc
relationships.
No traction of the 'equitable partnerships'
discussion.
Guidelines and principles are less relevant.
A common agenda on equity is missing,recommendations are scattered.
Literature identiﬁed focuses on broad
performance of knowledge system

Signiﬁcant focus on the relationships
themselves.
Traction of concepts such as equitablepartnerships.
Guidelines and principles are a main
outcome.
There is literature focused on equity
speciﬁcally.

Approach

Main concerns
Value and recognition
Agenda setting and leadership
Competing incentives
Sustainability of research institutions

Limitations due to risk management
Over-reliance on project funding
Limiting perspectives on research
excellence
Lack of accountability mechanisms

Main concerns

Note. Elaborated by the authors.

4

Main challenges and issues: Global SouthThe main concerns detailed here emerged througha literature review and engagements with Global
South research actors.
1. Relatively low recognition accorded to researchoriginating from the Global South within the
global development knowledge ecosystem:
Researchers from the Global South frequently
describe practices that undervalue and exploit
their work. For example, they often find themselves
relegated to data collection tasks without
opportunities for meaningful engagement in thetheoretical and conceptual aspects of the research.
Furthermore, their work is often unrecognised
through authorship or acknowledgements in the
final research outputs. The dominance of certain
research and knowledge paradigms originating in
the Global North that have spread throughout theentire knowledge ecosystem exacerbates this, asinnovative proposals outside these paradigms areless valued.
2. Limited role of researchers from the Global
South in setting knowledge agendas: Many actors
from the Global South highlight their limited
participation in setting research agendas and in
exercising leadership within specific projects andbroader funding structures. Despite their expertise,
Global South researchers often find themselves
marginalised in decision making throughout
the research process. Research institutions also
sometimes make a deliberate decision not tochallenge the power that funders hold, since these
institutions are often in a precarious position, andmay risk disappearing if funding dries up when
they are perceived by funding agencies as being‘difficult’. The marginalisation of Southern
researchers limits the extent to which the research
produced is aligned with context-specific needs
which, in turn, limits its impact.
3. Competing incentives: The various incentives
researchers respond to may lead to less impactful
collaborations. For example, Northern researchers
often need to publish in reputed international
journals, which drives research collaborations
in which Southern researchers are involved
purely in data collection roles, as noted above.
Southern researchers face similar pressures within
their institutions, which may lead them to engage

in projects focused on publishing internationally,
even if they do not feel the project is relevant to
the priorities of their context. Researchers saw
this lack of clarity regarding research aims asstemming from contradictions at the policy level,as many countries have policies that highlightthe social value of research, but at the same time
fund incentives at the institutional and personallevel to publish internationally. At the end of theday, these contradictions limit the impact of
research endeavours, the capacity of researchers
to develop independent research agendas, and thedevelopment of nationally relevant knowledge
sectors.
4. Partnerships that do not increase thesustainability
andlong-term
impactoforganisations and institutions in the Global
South: Global North-South collaboration may be
extractive or increase dependence on Northern
funding and expertise. Consequently, researchcollaborations rarely bring benefits that directly
strengthen research institutions within the
Global South. Furthermore, collaborations canpotentially increase the dependence of research
institutions on Global North resources, including
funding, equipment, and methodological andtheoretical skills. Furthermore, the usual short-term
contracting arrangement keeps researchers andinstitutions in a constant fundraising cycle for
specific projects and responding to the priorities of
Global North organisations.

Main challenges and issues: Global North
The parallel approach in the Global North focused
mainly on research funders, and identified thefollowing concerns:
1. Limitations posed by risk management:
Global North actors interviewed viewed ‘risk
management’ as a significant barrier to innovationand transformative change. Specifically, there areentrenched risk-averse tendencies within donororganisations and established research institutions.
These stem from, for example, concerns around
avoiding misuse of funds through corruption or
the use of resources for unintended purposes,
avoiding association with organisations involved in
terrorism or crime, or more basic concerns aroundachieving value for money for key stakeholders.
While the ever-growing array of policies and5practices intended to manage and mitigate risk areimportant, they are also perceived as presenting
obstacles to achieving greater equity. Changing corepolicies and practices appears to be more difficult
when the organisations involved in supporting or
undertaking research for development are inherently
risk averse.

and institutions. Calling for ‘more accountability’is insufficient; instead what is needed are new
accountability processes that target the systemic
and structural drivers of inequity in knowledge
ecosystems, and that involve Southern researchersand communities more directly as agents of change(Nelson et al., 2018).

2. Overreliance on a project-based model tofund and organise research activities: Funding
arrangements linked to aid programmes and the‘projectisation’ of research remain key determinantsof equity in partnerships. Several Global North
research actors lamented the practical challenges
inherent in such approaches, particularly concerning
coordination, policy impact, bureaucratic hurdles,
and accountability mechanisms. Project-basedmodels, where funds are mainly administered by
Global North institutions, face time and budget
constraints. This reduces policy impact byhampering cutting-edge research that requires amore flexible and adaptive approach from funders.
Bureaucratic proposal requirements, lengthy bidding
processes, and opaque funding application processes
pose significant challenges for researchers globally.

Converging inquiries: Where
Southern and Northern perspectivesmeet

3. Constraints imposed by perceptions and metricsof research excellence: Conceptions of research
excellence shape how partnerships are assessed
and funded. Research for development tends
to be ‘impact driven’ and linked to aid priorities.
These tend to favour those who have successfully
accessed resources previously and met longstanding definitions of ‘excellence’. This situation is
maintained through biases in review panels andprocesses. Persuading research funders to change
their core policies and practices around research
excellence requires (again) reimagining andembracing different understandings of risk.
4. Lack of robust accountability mechanisms
and avenues for evidence and feedback: Thereis very little tangible information regarding thepractical application of the guidelines and principles
developed by various organisations, highlighting theneed for enhanced transparency and accountability
in promoting equitable research practices.
Current accountability mechanisms in the researchfor development field tend to serve the needs offunders and powerful institutions and organisations
based in the Global North much more than it
does the needs and demands of Southern actors

While differences exist between how the broad
Global South and North communities understand theissues, aiming for consensus does not necessarily
offer the most productive way forward. Instead, aframework that enables a range of actors to aligntheir actions, while keeping the focus on Southernpriorities, may equip them—as a collective—toengage in proactive conversations about potential
avenues for change.
Many actors across different roles andorganisational types are concerned with power
imbalances between the Global South andNorth. Equally, there is a growing sense thatthese power imbalances need to be addressed.
Acknowledgement that the unequal distributionof power remains a key underlying feature ofknowledge systems sets the scene for possible
collaborations and opportunities for change.
Power in this context refers to the ability to act andenforce a decision, and to influence the outcomesof a specific partnership or the broader system.
Different actors exert power through formal
authority, controlling resources, and participatingin agenda-setting processes. Powerful actors seethemselves as a legitimate voice in these processes.
Rebalancing
power
involves
redistributing
authority, resources, and opportunities for engaging
in agenda-setting processes. Southern actors andinstitutions must see themselves as part of thischange agenda. We describe this as system-levelchange, which requires long-term effort, coalitions
and new investments. The question of individual
and institutional agency is crucial, and our study has
revealed that actors in the Global North and South
perceive their roles, prospects for participationand leadership, and ability to effect change,
very differently.

6

In the Global North, many actors focused on theirlimited agency, regardless of the level of power
they held, to make decisions and contribute tochange. In interviews and consultations, we foundthat even those individuals with an ostensibly highdegree of decision-making power within fundingorganisations understood themselves as having
limited ability to effect meaningful institutionalchange, and even less so system-level change. In a
Southern context, we found that actors were highly
skilled in ensuring the survival of their organisations
in a competitive and precarious landscape,expressing their agency and sense of empowerment
most clearly in their capacity to form coalitions
and develop solidarity with similarly positioned
institutions to push for substantive change.
Our study revealed a range of tactics used
to overcome the limitations imposed by an
inequitable system that restricts their ability to domeaningful work.
In sum, regardless of the authority an individual
may hold within their institution, and the degree ofchange they might be willing to drive, a core power
differential between countries and institutions
persists, which perpetuates systemic inequalities.

Propelling change: A framework
grounded in Southern priorities
Rethinking current approaches through aframework developed in the South, grounded in
the perspectives of those who have often been
excluded from the ‘equitable partnerships’
conversation in the past, could allow moresignificant transformation to take place in the
research for development sphere and beyond.
This framework must also give room to actions
across various organisations and communities
in both the Global South and North. Therefore,
it must provide several entry points to a rangeof stakeholders committed to collaboratively
rebalancing power in the knowledge ecosystem.
Figure 2 summarises the two strands of inquiry
and proposed framework for future action.

Figure 2. Framework summary

Ultimate Purpose

Objectives

Research that is relevant to society and contributes to improving the lives of
those marginalised and excluded.

Strengthen Agency
GS actors have larger say in the agenda-setting.
GS has more leadership in research endeavours.
GS Institutions are stronger, and more sustainable.

Spaces of Change

Funding

Academic rules and initiatives

Publication and dissemination

Joint and coordinated actions

Note. Elaborated by the authors.

7

Ultimate aim: Research with a purpose
The foundation of this framework is a joint purpose.
Contrary to frameworks focused on equity as
an ultimate goal, one grounded in Global Southpriorities must prioritise the advancement ofresearch ecosystems that are socially relevant
and that uplift marginalised communities.
Improving equity within the research fordevelopment ecosystem is a stepping stone toachieving broader societal goals. A common
framework for action is needed to encourage
stakeholders to unite around an overall goal which
has not been predetermined by the priorities ofNorthern actors, particularly funders. At its core is
the generation of evidence that is better able to havean impact on policy and practice, and to support
citizens worldwide, particularly in the Global South.

Collective objectives: Strengthen agency
To achieve the aims of this new framework, progressneeds to be made on the redistribution of power.
This means resources, authority, and access being
better distributed between Global North and South,
through actors engaging and cooperating acrossthe North/South divide. Change in this regard,
which depends on structural changes that help
to rebalance power asymmetries, is observable inthe more robust agency of Global South research
actors, for example:• Global South actors have an honest andpragmatic role in defining research agendas
and priorities at different levels.
• Southern leadership is more frequently
observed in institutions, projects, and spaces
where evidence is generated, shared, debated,and communicated.
• Research institutions in the Global South arestronger, more sustainable, and have greater
decision-making independence. They arealso able to develop and strengthen theirposition within national, regional, and global
knowledge ecosystems.

Spaces of change
Moving from a framework for action towards
concrete change requires identifying spaces
where actions can occur and are most likely tohave a positive effect. This is the core principle ofagency. The vision of a more balanced distributionof power among Global North and South actors
requires focusing on the underlying structuresthat currently enable, perpetuate or evenpromote inequitable relationships and practices.
Focusing on these structures acknowledges
that current inequities are not only caused by an
institution or actor making specific choices, but
are fundamentally all driven by structural causes.
Through an analysis of the perspectives gathered
through the present initiative, three key spaces ofchange emerge:• Research funding• Academic rules and incentives• Dissemination of research and publications
It appears possible to bring about broader
systemic changes aimed at the redistributionof power within the knowledge ecosystem bypinpointing specific opportunities for change
within these spaces. The development of indicatorsthat can help to demonstrate the extent to whichchange has happened is also essential as a basis
for accountability, learning and adaptation.
These spaces are invaluable entry points foractionable initiatives to reshape power dynamics
and foster greater inclusivity. It may then be possible
to influence the existing ‘rules of the game’ andprofoundly impact how relationships unfold andstrengthen, based on building key actors’ agency.
We understand agency and structure as dynamicallyinterconnected, so that while initial changes inthese spaces for change can spark an increase inagency, proactive actors in the Global South can also
support systemic changes. To address deeper
structural issues and power imbalances we needto transform the sector through reflective andaction-oriented thinking aimed at bringing about
concrete changes. Since the ultimate goal is to havea research space that is contextually relevant, there
is a need for a synergistic approach. Collaborative
efforts can help achieve the desired shift throughbuilding coalitions, and bringing together andsteering discourse, particularly towards Global
South priorities. This all requires effective
engagement, debate, and collective reflective
actions across spaces of change.

8

Action within spaces of change
Research is produced through actions and decisions
across a complex knowledge system. The threespaces of change presented are amenable toactions that can lead to structural changes whichhave a long-term impact on the equity of researchsystems, and in turn support greater agency ofsouthern actors. These spaces are interconnected,
but we present them here separately to organise
discussions and actions moving forward. These
are spaces of interaction between different actors
in the system, and as such, all these actors could
directly or indirectly affect these spaces andpromote reform. For example, while their main roleis in the funding space, funding institutions also

impact academic rules and incentives, and how
research is disseminated and published, through therules embedded in their funding practices.
In the same way, researchers can influence
academic rules and incentives and help shapefunding practices. Through conversations anddiscussions held through this initiative with actors
from both Global South and North over the last year,
we identified several ongoing actions. Each spaceis active, and stakeholders work to evolve or reformit. However, these actions are not always explicitly
linked to an equity in agency agenda. Ensuring thatreforms recognise the need for equity is essential
for promoting change.

Actions relating to research funding“If funding is not domestic, how can we think of it being equitable? It’s not equitablefrom the moment it comes from outside!” (Frejus Thoto, co-founder and director of
ACED at SV Conference Nairobi, 2023)

An ultimate goal within the funding space would
be to expand and diversify funding sources forresearch for development, including increased
spending from public and private actors in the
Global South. The low spending on research in
the Global South is a barrier to adequate support
being given to research which is relevant to thesesocieties. This low spending poses a challenge
for Southern researchers with limited resources,
often raising doubts as to the sustainability of
research. While some government structures exist
for research funding, these are usually insufficient,leading to dependency on external sources which
are discretionary and tied to geopolitical narratives.
However, the goal of increasing Southern researchfunding will take time to put into practice. In themeantime, funding practices in the Global Southcan evolve within the current structures, and inways that avoid replicating the common power
imbalances experienced by Southern researchers
when receiving support from Northern funders.

within funder organisations, research institutions,and intermediaries to reduce the gap between
donors and research organisations in the Global
South, enabling more direct and equitable funding
and more inclusive priority setting, and include:• Alternative agenda-setting mechanisms
The African Education Research Funding
Consortium (2022) developed its coreagenda through extensive consultation withresearchers from a range of backgrounds
and career stages. The consortium’s current
agenda and joint work are based directly on
the priorities identified with African
researchers. While this process did not
identify thematic priorities, this initiative
exemplifies
alternative
mechanismsthat funders can adopt to broaden theirunderstanding of critical issues and effectively
prioritise actions.

Some practical avenues for action have alreadybeen explored and mapped, with exciting examples
emerging. They represent opportunities for change

9• Knowledge intermediaries to reduce thegaps between funders and researchers
There are a number of intermediaryorganisations that exist as standaloneorganisations, networks or partnerships
and can play a crucial role in knowledge
co-creation, demand-driven capacity building,managing consortia, and de-risking work.
Examples identified include the Global
Development Network, the Partnership for
African Social and Governance Research,
the African Economic Research Consortium,
the Economic Research Forum, UNESCO
Knowledge for Change, the K4C Consortium,
On Think Tanks, the African Populationand Health Research Centre, the Climate
and Development Knowledge Network,
scalingXchange, INASP, START, the Adaptation
Research Alliance (ARA) and the Latin
American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO)(Obino, 2023; de Haan, 2023).
• Proactive Southern agendas
Researchers in the Global South have also
proactively promoted dialogue among
themselves to identify shared, relevant
agendas and communicate them to funders.
For example, the research team of the study“Landscape analysis to inform international
evaluation in the service of equity” (Global
Change Center, Praxis UK, & Praxis Institutefor Participatory Practices, n.d.) involved only
Southern researchers and consulted witha broader group of Southern stakeholders.
Based on this, they present an agenda toreform evaluation practices. The recently
launched Africa Charter for Transformative
Research Collaborations (2023) is aninteresting ‘border-crossing’ example where
African scholars based in a UK university havedeveloped an initiative to decolonise researchfor development, in close collaboration with
African academics.
• Funding Southern institutions directly
to challenge the primacy of research
partnerships
Some funders have challenged theassumption that research partnerships are

the sole means of achieving quality research,and have instead begun experimenting withdirect and flexible funding. One model of thisis the Think Tank Initiative (2009-2018), which
provided flexible financing for a group of thinktanks across Africa, Asia and Latin America(Think Tank Initiative, n.d.). In the same vein,
the African Union, with a 50 million USD
grant from the World Bank, is setting up
a platform to help think tanks across thecontinent produce policy-relevant research on
critical cross-border priority issues (African
Union, 2024).
Additionally, the Rethinking Research
Collaborative (RRC) was a global multistakeholder network that aimed to promote
more inclusive and responsive collaborative
research. Those involved decided to end thisinitiative for the following reasons: “Building
on our collective commitment to decolonisinginternational development as well as ourresearch, which increasingly called into
question the value of ‘research partnerships’
over and above more sustained investment inresearch systems in the global South, in 2021
we took the decision to disband the RRC asan expert network and instead to support theongoing work of our southern-based partners”(RRC, 2023).
• New or reformed funding mechanisms
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research(CIHR) has restricted funding pools targeting
early career researchers so they candevelop authentic partnerships. They also
create openings for researchers who were
unsuccessful with a proposal to bid to gain
funding for a year of work, during which they
can develop an idea and relationships withpartners before submitting another proposal(key informant interview, 7th July 2023).
The UK’s Arts and Humanities ResearchCouncil has introduced practical ways toachieve greater inclusivity in responses tocalls. They believe that there is not a linear
relationship between age and expertise (sinceequating age with expertise may be one
factor that promotes inequitable partnerships
across age groups), and so have changed thequalifications required for proposals, allowing

10

for diversity in people’s lives and realities,
including along lines of class, gender, age,ability, income, location, mental ill-health,and other factors. They are also changing how
much funding goes towards non-academic
institutions, aiming to eventually allocate up
to 50% of research funding to non-academic
partners (key informant interview, 2023).
• Build trust through common standards

The standard is already showing exciting
results but requires wider adoption, including
among organisations in the Global Northand other regions of the Global South (Harste
et al., 2021).
• Emphasising the positive benefits of taking
risk with new partnerships at the grantmaking phase
The Research Council of Norway has, forthe last four years, addressed the risk that
research
partnerships
may
becomeinequitable. They have approached this byincluding in their calls requirements that
researchers submitting bids show clearly:
1) how they plan to share the budget, with anequitable sharing of funds and costs; 2) theirplans for equitable sharing of intellectual
property and credits; 3) concrete plans forstrengthening individual competence andindividual capacity in the partner institutions;and 4) co-leadership with scientificresearchers (KII Norwegian Research Council
23 June 2023).

The Global Grant Community, a platform of theAfrican Academy of Sciences, revolutionises
the traditional grant funding model bystreamlining the process for funders to
identify reliable partners. The implementationof the world’s inaugural international
StandardforGood
Financial
Grant
Practice (ARS 1651) establishes a universal
benchmark for effective grant management
practices, ensuring that recipients haverobust practices. Beyond increasing trust
between funders and recipients, adopting a
global standard empowers grant recipientsto improve their grant management systems.

Actions relating to academic rules and incentives“In universities, promotions are pegged on Northern journals, or they score higher than
Global South journals. This is changing in some African countries like South Africa
and Kenya, where lecturers are advised to have 50% of the reference lists on course
outlines from African scholars to promote African scholarship, internationalise higher
education and decolonise erroneous notions held about African publications being
mediocre.” (Truphena Mukuna, Executive Director OSSREA, Workshop in Nairobi, 2023)

The incentives and rules applied in universities
across the Global North impact Global Southknowledge systems in at least two ways. First, theserules and incentives permeate research systems
in the Global South through national policies onscience and technology, or where internal policies
in research institutions copy the incentives in the
Global North. Second, researchers in the Global
North, incentivised by the current expectations andrequirements, perpetuate unequal relationships
through practices geared toward the career
incentives they face. In essence, many incentives
normalise an unfair division of labour where many

Southern scholars are, for example, tasked only withdata collection. At the same time, their Northerncounterparts define research questions, selectmethodologies and theories, and ultimately author
research papers (the majority of which are written
in English) that can advance their careers. It is likelythat unless these incentives and rules are changed,
the guidelines and principles for equity promoted
by organisations in the Global North will havelittle impact.
Some practical avenues of action have alreadybeen explored and mapped, with exciting examples

11emerging. They exemplify how greater diversityof knowledge, voices, methods, and approaches
in assessing research proposals can avoid
transmitting risks to researchers. This debate istaking place worldwide, where clear opportunities
for collaboration exist across the Global Southand North:• Research assessment practices that define
the impact from the Global SouthIn Latin America, there are different
initiatives that reframe research evaluation.
For example, the Latin American Forum on
Research Assessment (FOLEC-CLACSO) is aspace for debate on the meanings, policies andpractices of research assessment processes
in the region (Vélez Cuartas et al., 2021).
The Centre for the Study of the Circulationof Scientific Knowledge (CECIC-Argentina)
has developed a set of analytical indicatorsof research circulation included in the “Cuyo
Manual” (Algañaraz et al., 2023).
• New quality and excellence frameworks
among funders
IDRC has generated “Research Quality Plus,”(Ofir et al., 2022), a valuable framework for
expanding understandings and assessmentsof research quality. Some funders, suchas the CIHR in Canada, and a wide range ofacademic institutions, have also signed up
to the Declaration on Research Assessment(DORA), which recognises the need to improve
how researchers and the outputs of scholarly
research are evaluated.

system by setting up mirror institutes in
the partner country, often run by a white
European. Indeed, this is another reason forpeer monitoring to be an important tool forbuilding mutual accountability mechanisms,
for example Northern institutions may act as‘watchdogs’ for each other, alongside efforts
to shift polarities of accountability, withgreater accountability of institutions in the
global North to those in the South.
• Accountability towards users whose
interests research is intended to serve
In the UK, efforts are currently being madeto influence how funders perceive quality,
particularly in the Global South. Southern
researchers are often contracted on a
consultancy basis and may be at the mercyof the decisions and practices of funders andGlobal North research partners who do nottreat them as equals, and feel they have little
power to set their priorities. It is importantto reflect on how quality is captured inresearch processes as well outputs, especiallyin engaged research with communities.
This would require a shift in accountability‘downwards’ around intentions, values andethics, broader interpretations of excellence,and shifting accountability towards theultimate purpose of the work—the community
who experience the challenge—rather than
‘upwards’ to the funder who commissions
the research.

• Addressing accountability mechanismsA
positive
step
towards
improvedaccountability
may
involve
removing
disincentives in institutions that discourage
equity (e.g. career pathways in higher
educationsystems,orindividualised
entrepreneurialismthat
discourages
collective approaches). In the Netherlands,
funding policies for collaborative research
aim to promote joint research initiatives,with equal or substantial shares in Southerncountries. However, it was noted that
Northern universities may try to play the12Dissemination of research and publications“It no longer matters what your research content is; what matters is where it ispublished.” (Interview with researcher in the Global South)
The dissemination of research and the rules of
the game around academic publications mediate
which knowledge is made visible, how it is used,
and by whom. It is also a space in which a small
number of companies based in the Global North
have consolidated a large amount of power in a
primarily commercial enterprise, which reduces
opportunities for actors in the Global South toget published and to access knowledge, evenknowledge produced within their countries.
In fact, “five for-profit publishing companies—
Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley Blackwell, Taylor
and Francis, and Sage Publications—dominate themarket, generating more than 50% of revenues (over7 billion USD in 2022) with profit margins up to 38
percent higher than big tech companies” (Gulliver &Drake, 2024). Moreover, most of these publications
are predominantly in the English language, leading
to an active exclusion of ideas, knowledge andperspectives coming from other languages.
Furthermore, given that the editorial boards ofjournals considered high impact are primarily
from academic communities in the Global North,concerns emerge around how far the research
published aligns with policy priorities in the
study regions. With publication in these journals
increasingly tied to career advancement, Southern
researchers face an unfortunate trade off between
working towards societal change or prioritising
their academic careers, and sometimes findthemselves achieving neither. Furthermore,
publishers also develop databases to provide accessto academic literature and track research outputs.
Many scientific production and collaboration
metrics rely on these databases which are skewed
towards Northern publications. For example, theOECD bibliometric indicators use Elsevier’s Scopus
database data (OECD, n.d.). Worryingly, these
metrics inform policy development and assessment
worldwide, which only exacerbates existing biases.
While movements such as open access and open
science are revolutionising practices in thesespaces, these movements have traditionally been
disconnected from discussions around equity.
Only some actors involved in equity debates were
aware of the actions taking place in the open accessspace, highlighting the importance of working
across these spaces of change. Transformative
actions in this space include:• Shift funding away from for-profit publishers
For profit publishers have been charging
article processing charges for open accesspublications, and so the objective of reducing
the barriers to access to knowledge havebecome barriers to publishing. The Bill andMelinda Gates Foundation has announced achange in policy, and will no longer cover fees
known as article processing charges (APCs)
for publishing open access (Torok, 2024).
Instead, they will require that grantees sharefree preprints of their articles. This policychange has the potential to drive changes in thescience dissemination space by encouraging
the development and use of non-commercial
research dissemination infrastructure.
• Alternative infrastructure to replace largescale, for-profit publishers
Increased investment in alternatives to
paywall databases, including open repositories
held within libraries, universities, andresearch institutions worldwide could beparticularly useful. There is a long traditionof open-access repositories in the Global
South, including Redalyc and SciELO in Latin
America, and AJOL in Africa. Emerging
collaborations among these repositories
strengthen infrastructures to enhance
global access to research, and facilitate
easier discoverability across regions. In
Latin America, La Referencia brings together
open-access repositories in twelve countries,
while the Confederation of Open Access13

Repositories is enhancing collaboration at a
global level.
• New data sources for bibliometrics
Metrics used to assess career paths, scienceand technology policies, and research
activities need to be revised, challenging
reliance on centralised models of publishingby identifying and promoting new metrics
that provide a more comprehensive
understanding of research productivity andimpact. For example, OpenAlex is an open,
non-profit project, larger than other for-profit
databases, that currently indexes over 240
million scholarly works. A recent study foundthis open data performed well in representing
research, particularly that produced in the
Global South (De Castro, 2024).

Conclusions
Even though the need for evidence in tackling awide range of global development problems is
widely recognised, multiple structural challenges
still prevent the global knowledge ecosystem fromreaching its full potential. Fortunately, many key
stakeholders are committed to addressing thesechallenges and there is now real momentum forachieving change. However, entry points for thesestakeholders and their ability to act vary greatly
depending on context, and on the extent to which
they believe they have the agency required tobring about change in the face of myriad structural
constraints that perpetuate many forms of power
imbalance.
This synthesis paper has focused on the needfor a Southern-led set of perspectives and potential
actions to reshape the research for development
arena. The results of our two-strand inquiry haveshown that definitions of the problem and thecore objectives vary considerably according towhere actors are positioned in the system. In thecase of many Southern researchers, research fordevelopment is not even understood as a ‘fieldof practice’ in the same way that many Northern
actors and institutions frame it. The capacity tomake space for diversity and divergence inperspectives is crucial in developing the typesof collaborations and dialogues required formeaningful shifts in power, and the advancement ofequity in research.

A key challenge is sustaining the current drive tobring about structural and systemic change, inthe face of the common tendency to default totokenistic or superficial actions. There is much
still to explore in terms of the required actions
described above, yet it is encouraging to notethat changes are indeed taking place, albeit often
in disconnected ways and with little evidence ofoutcomes and learning stemming from specificactions. This is an area that needs continued
attention. Nonetheless, identifying spaces forchange within critical areas such as funding,academic incentives, and dissemination of researchoffers promising avenues for promoting equity andinclusivity within the research for development
knowledge ecosystem. Efforts to bring aboutchange will continue, and the chances of successwill depend greatly on the momentum createdthrough collective strategies and actions, andongoing mutual learning and knowledge exchange.
Significant systemic change will also take time,and identifying a series of iterative steps towards
a reshaping of the global knowledge ecosystem
may help by offering ‘lower-hanging fruit’ andshort- to medium-term goals which—if achieved—
can reinforce a sense that real change is indeed
within reach.

Bibliography
African Education Research Funding Consortium.
(2022). Transforming education through Africanled research and solutions. Imaginable Futures.
https://assets.imaginablefutures.com/media/
documents/Transforming_Education_Report_
Sept2022__FIN.pdf
African Union. (2024, February 17). The African
Union Commission and World Bank Seal a New Grant
Agreement to Foster Regional Integration. [Press
release]. https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20240217/
african-union-commission-and-world-bank-sealnew-grant-agreement-foster
Beigel, F. (2019). Indicadores de circulación: Una
perspectiva multi-escalar para medir la producción
científico-tecnológica latinoamericana. Ciencia,
Tecnología Y PolíTica/Ciencia, Tecnología Y Política,
2(3), 028. https://doi.org/10.24215/26183188e028
Bradley, M. (2017). Whose agenda? Power, policies,
and priorities in North–South research partnerships.

14

In L. J. A. Mougeot (Ed.), Putting Knowledge to
Work: Collaborating, influencing and learning forinternational development (pp. 37–70). Practical
Action Publishing, IDRC.
CGIAR.
(2022).
TowardGreater
Impact:A CGIAR engagement framework for partnerships&
advocacy.
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/
ser ver/api/core/bitstreams/a23b2acf-b2ff4156-8b4b-a03825df1c9c/content
Cornwall, A. (2007). Buzzwords and Fuzzwords:
Deconstructing
Development
Discourse.
Development in Practice, 17(4/5), 471–484.
De Castro, P. (2024, January 24). Choosing a data
sample provider for our study on the impact of Plan
S. Scidecode science consulting. https://scidecode.
com/2024/01/22/choosing-a-data-sampleprovider-for-our-study-on-the-impact-of-plan-s/de Haan, A. (2023). In focus: Stepping up support
for and use of Southern research. In Development
Cooperation Report 2023. OECD. https://www.oecdilibrary.org/sites/18914882-en/index.html?itemId=/
content/component/18914882-en
Dodson, J. (2017). Building partnerships of equals:
The role of funders in equitable and effective
international
development
collaborations.
UK Collaborative on Development Science (nowUKCDR).
https://www.ukcdr.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2017/11/Building-Partnerships-of-Equals_REPORT-2.pdf
Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Caniglia, G., Hodgson, A.,
Kendrick, I., Lyon, C. J., Page, G. G., Patterson,
J., Riedy, C., Strasser, T., Verveen, S., Adams, D.,Goldstein, B. E., Klaes, M., Leicester, G., Linyard,
A., McCurdy, A., Ryan, P., Sharpe, B., & Young, H.
(2020). Transforming knowledge systems for lifeon Earth: Visions of future systems and how to
get there. Energy Research & Social Science, 70,
101724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724
Fransman, J., Hall, B. L., Hayman, R., Narayanan, P.,
Newman, K., & Tandon, R. (2018). Promoting fair andequitable research partnerships to respond to global
challenges. Rethinking Research Collaborative.
http://oro.open.ac.uk/57134/
Global Change Center, Praxis UK, & Praxis Institutefor Participatory Practices. (n.d.). Equity-centeredevaluation of international cooperation efforts:
the urgent need to shift unfair power dynamics.
https://igd.org.za/publication/equity-centeredevaluation-of-international-cooperation-effortsthe-urgent-need-to-shift-unfair-power-dynamics/?
wpdmdl=13861&refresh=65a008e11bcdb1704986849
Gulliver, S., & Drake, T. (2024). The $1 Trillion
Paradox: Why Reforming Research Publishing
Should be a Global Priority (CGD Note 362). Center
for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/
publication/1-trillion-paradox-why-reformingresearch-publishing-should-be-global-priority
Harste, H., Kiff, G., Okeke, I. N., Adebiyi, A. O.,
Ravikumar, K. L., Nagaraj, G., Ajiboye, J. J.,
Castro, E. C. D. O., Herrera, E. M., Aanensen,
D. M., & NIHR Global Health Research Unit on
Genomic Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance.
(2021). Good Financial Grant Practice: a toolfor developing and demonstrating institutional
financial and grant management capacity inglobal health. Clinical Infectious Diseases/
Clinical Infectious Diseases (Online. University of
Chicago. Press), 73(Supplement_4), S275–S282.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab768
Nelson, E., Bloom, G., & Shankland, A. (2018).
Introduction: Accountability for Health Equity:
Galvanising a Movement for Universal Health
Coverage. IDS Bulletin, 29(2). https://bulletin.
ids.ac.uk/index.php/idsbo/article/view/2961/
Online%20article
Obino, F. (2023, August 15). Reflections on thevalue of ‘intermediaries’ for fair and practicalcollaboration in international development research.
UKCDR. https://ukcdr.org.uk/reflections-on-thevalue-of-intermediaries-for-fair-and-practicalcollaboration-in-international-developmentresearch/
OECD. (n.d.). Scientometrics. https://www.oecd.
org/innovation/inno/scientometrics.htm
Ofir, Z., Schwandt, T., Acevedo, M., & Feinstein, O.
(2022, January 1). International Development ResearchCentre’s Research Quality Plus (RQ+) assessment
instrument. IDRC Research Results. https://idl-bncidrc.dspacedirect.org/items/951a4bf9-5c2c-406aa622-149ed430f8a1

15

Perivoli Africa Research Centre. (2023). Africa
Charter. https://parc.bristol.ac.uk/africa-charter/
Rethinking
research
collaborative.
(2023,
February
9).
[Websitepost]
https://
rethinkingresearchcollaborative.com/
Soria, V., Prado, F. C., & Rossomando, M. P. (2023).
Indicators of research circulation: Localizationand internationalization under scrutiny—The Cuyo
Manual and its exploratory case study in Argentina.
Quantitative Science Studies, 4(1), 283–305.
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00229
Think tank initiative. (n.d.). IDRC - International
Development Research Centre. https://idrc-crdi.ca/
en/initiative/think-tank-initiative
Torok, E. (2024, March 27). Who loses when scientificresearch is locked behind paywalls? Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation. https://www.gatesfoundation.
org/ideas/articles/research-paywall-open-access
UK Collaborative on Development Research.
(2023). Lessons Learned from ODA Research Funds:
A synthesis report of GCRF and Newton Fundevaluations.
https://ukcdr.org.uk/publication/
lessons-learned-from-oda-research-funds-asynthesis-report-of-gcrf-and-newton-fundevaluations/Vélez Cuartas, G., Uribe Tirado, A., Restrepo Quintero,D., & Pallares Delgado, C. O. (2021). Hacia una
plataforma de métricas y evaluación para América
Latina en conocimiento especializado: Ciencias,
tecnologías, innovación, artes y humanidades.
In L. Córdoba, L. Rovelli, & P. Vommaro (Eds.).
Política, Gestión y Evaluación de la Investigación y laVinculación en América Latina y el Caribe, (pp. 727750). CLACSO.
World Bank. (2023). Project Information Document(PID). World Bank Africa Think Tank Platform Project(No. P179804). https://documents1.worldbank.
o rg /c u r a te d /e n / 0 9 9 0 7 1 1 23 0 9 4 5 3 0 6 2 0 /pd f/
P179804018ed1e070a01e00b2ca8e40ba0.pdf

Annex 1. Methodological noteThis paper uses the terms ‘Global North’ and ‘Global
South’, while recognising that these terms fail tocapture the complexity of research for development
relationships and networks that cross boundaries
between these divides. Nonetheless, this divisionenabled us to take distinct approaches that eachresearch team felt were the most meaningful. Here,
we summarise each approach.

Global South track
The review of literature from the ‘Global South’side was looked at from a regional perspective tocapture the different stages in which this discourse
has been evolving in the three regions. A rapid
literature review was undertaken to understandthe conversation and scholarly discourse on
related terms. Literature was analysed from theperspective of the current state of scholarship andits evolution through the years. Online available
resources in three different languages (English,
French and Spanish) were consulted. The diversityof languages provided an opportunity to capture
diverse perspectives from the three regions where
Southern Voice membership operates (Asia, Africa,
Latin America & the Caribbean). Some of the
keywords used to find relevant articles on Google
scholar and other open access digital libraries
were “research partnerships/collaborations’’, “stateof social science research in Asia/Africa/Latin
America”, and “decolonisation of knowledge”.
Primary data was also used to complement theliterature review exercise. The Southern Voice teamconducted a series of key informant interviews
and focus group discussions between May 2023
and September 2023. These online interviews
and discussions were conducted via Zoom andin three different languages - English, Spanish or
French depending on the primary language of theparticipants. In total, there were 18 respondents
from SV member think tanks, and 20 researchersand experts from across the Global South regions.
These respondents were selected based on theirexpertise and experience in the development
research space, including some specificrespondents who were experts on decolonisation
studies, research partnerships, development
cooperation, etc. These online consultations, whichlasted from 1 to 1.5 hours, were conducted by Andrea

16

Ordóñez, Geetika Khanduja, and Tracy Mamoun andwere semi structured. Topics covered included
general perceptions about research partnerships
with Global North partners, challenges therein andrecommendations to improve partnerships and thedevelopment research space.
Southern Voice also conducted two in-person
events during the Southern Voice Conference heldin Nairobi in October 2023. The workshop and theparallel sessions brought together Southern Voicemembers, researchers working on similar topics
on IDRC supported projects from East Africa, andrepresentatives from key funding organisations.
These sessions provided useful feedback as well as
additional insights to enrich the findings before thefinal analysis of the scoping phase.
Some of the key limitations of the scoping phasewere the rapid nature of the literature review
exercise, and the limitations posed by conducting
the interviews online. Online interaction sometimes
made it difficult for respondents to really open up
and talk about their experiences. Also important tobear in mind is that Global South can not be taken as
a monolithic entity; there are variations throughout
the region, as evidenced in the literature review aswell as the interviews.

Global North track
A rapid review and institutional mapping were
undertaken to determine how key funders andresearch institutions in the Global North are
currently framing ‘equitable partnerships’ and related
terms. The rapid review was undertaken using the
University of Sussex Open Search Engine, Pub
Med and Project Muse using keywords such as“decolonising development”, “power + research +development”, “localization of research”, “epistemic
justice”, among others. Google searches werealso used to supplement these searches toensure relevant grey literature was also captured.
Snowballing was also utilised, looking at referencesof references. Results were filtered by date range(2010 to present), to ensure a focus on Northern
institutions and Northern authors, and to focus
on the relationship between research partners(including donors and decision-makers and theirpartners), not between researchers and researchsubjects. A total of 50 papers were identified, of
which 20 were selected as most relevant to theaims of this rapid review after a scan of the title
and abstract.
The institutional mapping exercise looked at key
donors, research organisations and think tanks
in the Global North. Organisations were identified
through discussions with partners and relevantorganisations, as well as through the team’s
knowledge. Institution web page searches were
undertaken using keywords to identify relevant
documents and information. Only English-language
resources were explored in both the literature
review and the institutional mapping, which may
have limited the results. The authors also recognise
the limitations of looking at a single snapshot ofan organisation to explore these complex issues,
as many funding organisations may be reacting torecent events, as is evidenced in the adoption ofequality, diversity and inclusion-related strategies
and language by institutions in the last few years.
The results of the literature review and institutional
mapping were complemented by a series of
key informant interviews conducted via Zoom
between April and September 2023, with a totalof 18 individuals. These individuals were selected
because of their positions as leaders within
the research for development space (within
their institutions, and as named authors within
key documents and guidelines reviewed or asrecommended by other key stakeholders in the
research for development space). These interviews
lasted on average from 1 to 1.5 hours, and wereconducted by Prof. Peter Taylor and Dr. Erica
Nelson; they were semi-structured and covered
questions relating to power dynamics, actions
for change, lived experience and reflections
on discourse and language in the research fordevelopment field of practice.

17

Acknowledgements
The authors extend their heartfelt gratitude to the diverse range of stakeholders who actively participatedthroughout the research process. This synthesis paper greatly benefited from the insightful feedback
collected during various online and offline convenings held throughout 2023-2024. Special thanks are due
to Poppy Bardwell (IDS) and Alberto Cajavilca (Southern Voice) for their invaluable project support, to Iliana
Ninahualpa and Angélica Suárez (Southern Voice) for ensuring the publication of this study, to Ailsa Winton
for her editorial support, and to Santiago Pacheco for his design work.
The following stakeholders contributed to the study through interviews, consultations, online and offline
discussions and feedback sessions.
Name

Affiliation

Adedeji Adeniran

Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa, Nigeria

Aislin Baker

Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), UK

Alessandro Meschinelli

Consultant, Italy

Alice Chadwick El-Ali

UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR)

Alison Bourgon

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canada

Ama Fenny

Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research, Ghana

Andrea Padilla

UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR)

Andrew Shaw

Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), UK

Andy HinsleyForeign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), UK

Angela Bendarek

The Pew Charitable Trusts, USA

Anisa Muzaffar

UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR)

Anja Bretzler

Commission for Research Partnerships with Developing Countries
KFPE), Switzerland

Anuja Desai

British Council, UK

Arup Nandi

Center for Study of Science, Technology & Policy, India

Bitrina Diyamett

Science, Technology, Innovation, Policy Research Organization, Tanzania

Camila Exposito(then) Caribbean Policy Research Institute, Jamaica

Cathrine Brun

Centre for Lebanese Studies, Lebanon & United Kingdom

Cecilia Milesi

Global Change Center

Christine Wilson

British Council, UK

18

Clémence Petit-Perrot

Pivot Collective, South Africa

Dena LomofskySouthern Hemisphere, South Africa

Diana Thorburn

Caribbean Policy Research Institute, Jamaica

Dirk-Jan Koch

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands

Eduardo Aguado Lopez

The Network of Scientific Journals of Latin America and the
Caribbean, Spain and Portugal, Mexico

Eva Islimye

UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)

Eyob Balcha Gebremariam

University of Bristol, Perivoli Africa Research Centre, UK

Fabian Käser

Commission for Research Partnerships with Developing Countries(KFPE), Switzerland

Felix AsanteInstitute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research, Ghana

Fernanda Wanderley

The Institute of Socio-Economic Research of the Bolivian
Catholic University of Saint Paul, Bolivia

Francesco Obino

Global Development Network (GDN), Italy

Frejus Thoto

African Center for Equitable Development, Benin

Gabrielle Andela Kelle

The Okwelians, Cameroon

Garry Aslanyan

World Health Organization Special Programme on Research andTraining in Tropical Diseases (TDR), Switzerland

Giulia Lanfredi

UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR)

Haidee Bell

Wellcome Trust, UK

Ibrahim Kasirye

Economic Policy Research Centre, Uganda

Jai AsundiCenter for Study of Science, Technology & Policy, India

Jaideep Gupte

Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK

Jamal Msami

Research on Poverty Alleviation, Tanzania

James Georgalakis

Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK

Jo Zaremba

Blue Lemur, UK

Jonathan Underwood

Wellcome Trust, UK

Jude Fransman

Open University, UK

Julia Lowe

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USA

19

Jyoti Sharma

Department of Science and Technology, India

Karen Wong-Perez

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), UK

Karin Fernando

Centre for Poverty Analysis, Sri Lanka

Karine Kalsas

Norwegian Research Council

Kate Newman

Intrac, UK

Kelly Brito

Finnish University Partnership for International Development/University of Helsinki

Kit Dorey

Peace Direct, UK

Kleinsy Bonilla

Rainforest Foundation, Norway

Lindsey Reynolds

Pivot Collective, South Africa

Lisdey Espinoza

British Council, UK

Lorena AlcázarGroup for the Analysis of Development, Peru

Maggi Leung

University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Maggie Gorman Velez

International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada

Maggy Heintz

UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR)

Maha Shuayb

Centre for Lebanese Studies, Lebanon & United Kingdom

Marc Cohen

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canada

Marcus Wilms

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Germany

Margarita Beneke de Sanfeliú

Salvadorean Foundation for Economic and Social Development,
El Salvador

María Caridad Ortiz

Grupo Faro, Ecuador

Marianne Jensen

Norwegian Research Council

Martha Garrett

UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)

Meena Nair(then) Public Affairs Centre, India

Merlin Flaig

German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), Germany

Michah Gellman

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USA

Michelle Veilleux

Global Affairs Canada

Miguel VeraARU Foundation, Bolivia

20Mikatekiso Kubayi

Institute for Global Dialogue, South Africa

Mudar F Kassis

Birzeit University, Palestine

Mustafizur Rahman

Centre for Policy Dialogue, Bangladesh

Nelius Boschoff

Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology,
South Africa

Nguyen Minh Doi

Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Vietnam

Nicol Walker

Caribbean Policy Research Institute, Jamaica

Nisha Arunatilake

Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka

Oscar Yandy Romero Goyeneche

Utrecht University, Netherlands

Pablo Soriano Mena

UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR)

Raaval Bains

Peace Direct, UK

Rachel McIntosh

Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), UK

Rasheeda Nalumoso

British Council, UK

Richard Sambaiga

University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Rima Majed

American University of Beirut, Lebanon

Roseanna Avento

University of Eastern Finland

Rumeli Banik

The Pew Charitable Trusts, USA

Sabelo Ndolovu-Gatsheni

University of Bayreuth, Germany

Santiago Cueto Caballero

Group for the Analysis of Development, Peru

Sarah Giles

British Council, UK

Sarah Puddicombe

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), UK

Saumu Lwembe

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), UK

Smita Srinivas

Technological Change Lab, India, Global

Sonal Zaveri

Gender and Equity Network South Asia, India

Tawfique M. Haque

North South University, Bangladesh

Teresa Cisneros

Wellcome Trust, UK

Thenjiwe Major

University of Botswana, Botswana

Tracy Kajumba

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), UK21

Truphena Mukuna

Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern andSouthern Africa, Ethiopia

Vivian Kazi

Economic and Social Research Foundation, Tanzania

William John Walwa

University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Wilson Jiménez

ARU Foundation, Bolivia

Yentyl Williams

Caribbean Policy Research Institute, Jamaica

22

Synthesis
paperFounded in 2013, Southern Voice is a network of
think tanks from Africa, Asia and Latin America & the
Caribbean. It contributes to the global dialogue
on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Southern Voice’s ultimate aim is to address the existing‘knowledge asymmetry’ and ‘participation deficit’ inthe development dialogue. It does this by producing,promoting, and disseminating evidence-based policy
analysis by researchers from Global South countries.
Copyright © 2024 Southern Voice
Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International
Licence (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/
This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from theInternational Development Research Centre (IDRC, Ottawa,
Canada).
Disclaimer: The views expressed herein do notnecessarily represent those of IDRC or its Board ofGovernors. This study represents the views of theauthor(s) alone and does not necessarily reflect the viewsof Southern Voice or any other organisation(s) with which
the authors are affiliated.

For more information and publications visit

www.southernvoice.org