Wageningen Portals | - Improving Impacts of Research Partnerships · 2012. 7. 17. · different...

Improving Impacts

of Research Partnerships

© 2004 by Daniel Maselli, Jon-Andri Lys, Jacqueline SchmidSwiss Commission for Research Partnerships with Developing Countries, KFPE

ISBN 3-906151-83-2GEOGRAPHICA BERNENSIA, Berne

CitationMaselli D, Lys J-A, Schmid J. 2004: Improving Impacts of Research Partnerships.Swiss Commission for Research Partnerships with Developing Countries, KFPE.GEOGRAPHICA BERNENSIA, Berne, 86 pp.LayoutGrafikatelier Max Urech, Beatenbergstrasse 4, 3800 Unterseen/Interlaken, Switzerland [email protected] bySchlaefli & Maurer AG, Bahnhofstrasse 15, 3800 Interlaken, Switzerland [email protected]; www.schlaefli.chEnglish Editing byTheodore Wachs and Anne Zimmermann (Centre for Development and Environment)

About the authorsDaniel Maselli, is a senior research scientist at the Centre for Development and Environment of the University of Berne, and a programme coordinator for the National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South (www.nccr-north-south.unibe.ch).

Jon Andri Lys ist the Executive Secretary of the KFPE (www.kfpe.ch).

Jacqueline Schmid is head of the Research sector at the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) (www.deza.admin.ch)

La KFPEKFPE is dedicated to promoting research partnerships with developing and transition countries. In this way, it wishes to contribute to sustainable development.It is engaged in Swiss scientific policies and is committed to promoting the interests of researchers and their affiliated institutions on both a national and international level. It furthers development-oriented research and elaborates research-strategic concepts. In this context, it ascertains that partnership principles are followed, that the quality of research is assured, and that the interests of all partners are respected. KFPE is a commission of the four Swiss Scientific Academies.

Address: Schwarztorstrasse 9, CH-3007 Bernphone +41 31 311 06 01, fax +41 31 312 16 78 [email protected], www.kfpe.ch.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Foreword 7

Acknowledgements 8

Acronyms used in Parts I to III 8

List of Boxes, Figures and Photos 9

Part ISetting the stage

1 Background 13

2 Aims 15

3 Methodological approach 15Domains of possible impactsImpact matrix

4 Clarification of terms 17

Part IIUnderstanding processes and mechanisms for achieving impacts

5 Partnership principles 23

6 Factors enhancing or enabling impact 23

7 Factors hindering impact 26

8 Conclusions 28

9 Recommendations 29

Part IIITowards more balanced partnerships

10 Strengths of research partnerships 33

11 Shortcomings of research partnerships 33

6

IMPROVING IMPACTS OF RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS

12 Parameters affecting the nature of research partnerships 33

13 Parameters influencing the balance 35

14 Designing South-North research partnerships – the RAWOO experience 36

Part IVCase studies

Case Study 1 Swiss Priority Programme Environment (SPP-E), Module 7 Environment &Development – A Northern Perspective, by Daniel Maselli 41

Case Study 2 Indo-Swiss Research Partnership Project (SPP-E /Module 7) –A Southern Perspective, by Smita Premchander 47

Case Study 3 Urban Environment Management of Intermediate Cities – The Case of Mingora(SPP-E /Module 7), by Daniel Maselli 52

Case Study 4 Participatory Impact Assessment of the Global Research Project on ExplainingGrowth, by Fernando Loayza 57

Case Study 5 Generating a Shift in Attitude and Behaviour – From Working «for»to Working «with» (IFAD Case Study), by Philippe De Leener 61

Case Study 6 Improving Oral Rehydration Solution – Anatomy of an International ResearchPartnership, by B. S. Ramakrishna 64

Case Study 7 Collaborative Biomedical Research as a Pivot for Health Care Development –The BIRDEM Experience, by Liaquat Ali 67

Case Study 8 Microbial Control of Insect Pest – Southern Perspective of an Indo-SwissResearch Project, by Mani Chidambaranathan, Soraya Verjee,Smita Premchander 73

Annex

Impact matrix 79

References 85

Persons actively involved in the IAS Group 86

FOREWORD

7Foreword

North-South research partnerships are considered a powerful tool forcontributing both to knowledge generation and capacity building in theSouth as well as in the North. However, it appears that little is knownabout the impact of research partnerships, which stimulated the KFPEto launch the present study. The aims of this study are to (i) provideinsights into how to achieve desired impacts and avoid drawbacks,(ii) stimulate discussion of impacts, and (iii) achieve better understand-ing of the functioning of research partnerships. Ultimately, the study aimsto help improve the design and implementation of funding schemesthat support research partnerships.

The present publication is based on analysis of a number of case stud-ies encompassing a wide variety of partnerships, discussions held duringthe various workshops of the «Impact Assessment Working Group», andthe conclusions derived. While it does not pretend to be comprehensive,it stresses the importance of impact planning, monitoring and assess-ment as elements in the design and evaluation of research projects orprogrammes. In addition, it is intended to help in moving from «proving»to «improving» impacts. The study fits well into the GDN project of«Bridging Research and Policy» (www.gdn.org), where mechanisms toenhance the usefulness of research for society are being analysed.

Analysis reveals interesting and surprising results, such as the manydifferent side-effects generated by partnerships and the complexity offactors promoting or hindering expected impacts. Although the conclusionsand recommendations may appear obvious at first sight, their implemen-tation is likely to be much more difficult in reality. This means that realimprovement will depend greatly upon the readiness to strive for impactsand to make the necessary efforts to achieve them. This is particularlytrue for planning and monitoring impacts.

Thanks to the variety of case studies analysed, understanding of thedifferent nature of research partnerships has improved. Ideally, a researchpartnership should strive for a «dynamic equilibrium» in which allinvolved parties are open to a multiple transformation in terms of mutuallearning, cultural understanding, scientific upgrading, capacity building,and attitudinal behaviour towards all partners. Applying transdisciplinaryor multi-level, multi-stakeholder approaches, where all relevant stake-holders are actively participating, helps generate meaningful resultsand fosters processes that promote impact. In such partnerships allpartners have a voice in decision-making processes and their capacitiesare used and further developed in a complementary and most fruitfulway.

Anne-Christine Clottu-Vogel Lyn SquirePresident KFPE Executive Director GDN

Acknowledgements

On behalf of the members of the «Impact Assessment Working Group»,the editors would particularly like to acknowledge the substantial finan-cial contribution made by the Swiss Agency for Development andCo-operation (SDC) through the Global Development Network (GDN).The editors would like to thank in particular all the following persons,who provided additional inputs and feedback while the final publicationwas being prepared (in alphabetical order): Sandra Benoiton, JuliusCourt (Overseas Development Institute), Jürgen Hagmann, Ruedi Högger,Ed Maan (The Netherlands Development Assistance Research Council),Lauchlan Munro (International Development Research Centre),Felix Nicolier (Syngenta Foundation), Michel Pletschette (EuropeanCommission), Theo Sande (Dutch Agency for International Cooperation),Nancy Smyth (International Development Research Centre).

Acronyms used in Parts I to III

CBO Community based organisationCDE Centre for Development and Environment, University of Berne,

SwitzerlandDANIDA Danish International Development AgencyDC Developing country / iesEF Enabling factorERF Economic Research Forum for the Arab Countries, Iran & TurkeyHF Hindering factorGDN Global Development NetworkIAS Impact Assessment StudyIDRC International Development Research CentreIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentKFPE Swiss Commission for Research Partnerships with Developing

CountriesNGO Non Governmental OrganisationODI Overseas Development InstituteRAWOO The Netherlands Development Assistance Research CouncilRP Research Partnership(s)SDC Swiss Agency for Development and CooperationSNSF Swiss National Science Foundation


8

LIST OF BOXES, FIGURES AND PHOTOS

9Boxes Parts I-III

Box 1: KFPE’s 11 principles of research partnerships (1998)Box 2: Aims of the studyBox 3: Selected domains for the studyBox 4: Recommendations addressed to funding institutions and researchersBox 5: Parameters influencing the balance of partnerships

Figures Parts I-III

Figure 1: Assessment of impact based on amount of publications onlyFigure 2: Impact matrix elaborated by the IAS GroupFigure 3: Impact chain and attribution gapFigure 4: Enabling factors of research partnershipsFigure 5: Hindering factors of research partnershipsFigure 6: Unbalanced partnership

Photos

Cover photo: Local authorities welcome the NCCR North-South researchteam in the slum Doukouré. March 2004, Doukouré(Yopougon, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire). Swiss Tropical Institute,Basel (Dongo/Granado)

Photo page 11: Evaluation of an experiment at the Ifakara Health Researchand Development Center (IHRDC) in Ifakara, Tansania,April 2003. Swiss Tropical Institute, Basle (Pelikan)

Photo page 21: Training organised by the NCCR North-South:students from Central Asia and Switzerland apply varioustechniques to assess land use and land use changes in thefield. (Tajikistan, Liniger 2004)

Photo page 31: Measurement of oxygen content in the Tha Chin River Basinsouth of Bangkok, Thailand, November 2004.EAWAG-SANDEC Switzerland (Schaffner / Bieri).

Photo page 39: Social learning process in action: female farmers from TungaSuka Department Cuzco (Peru) discussing local innovationfor livestock and fodder production jointly with a developmentpractitioner during a workshop for promoting local innovativecapacities. (Peru, Stephan Rist 2004)

Photo page 77: Soil and water conservation technologies play an importantrole for sustainable land use. Various PhD and MSc studentsassess slope characteristics. (Tajikistan, Liniger 2004)

Setting the stage

Part I

SETTING THE STAGEPART I

13

1 Background

Research is a widely applied instrument for har-nessing knowledge and providing insight intocomplex development issues. It helps in gener-ating options for policy, management and action,and in empowering people and organizations indeveloping and transition countries, as well asindustrialised countries. Ultimately this shouldmake it easier to cope with the challenges of sus-tainable development under increasingly difficultcircumstances. Research for development istherefore frequently placed in an application-oriented context, in which concepts like inter-and transdisciplinary research, equity, owner-ship, participation, etc. are widely accepted, butare not always put into practice. Research part-nerships of various types and intensities, involv-ing research institutions in industrialised anddeveloping or transition1 countries, are impor-tant means for contributing to knowledge gener-ation and capacity building (SDC 2002, Laws2003). This includes all kinds of researchsuch as applied, action, or development-orient-ed research, as well as basic or fundamentalresearch.Classical research partnerships, as understoodby the Swiss Commission for Research Partner-ships with Developing Countries (KFPE 1998),comprise a combination of result-oriented re-search activities and capacity-building compo-nents at individual and institutional levels, orboth levels simultaneously (see also SDC 2002).Typically such research partnerships bringtogether research institutions and individualresearchers or research groups from developingor transition and industrialised countries. Ideallythey should be driven by the needs and prioritiesof the South to achieve greater relevance, but inreality they are still mostly designed in the North.They should be based on mutual interest, trust,understanding, sharing of experiences, and atwo-way learning process. In an ideal partner-

Setting the stage

ship, all partners will work together on an equalfooting at all stages and levels. This is particular-ly important during the agenda-setting process,when research projects or programmes are beingdesigned, as well as for implementation andmanagement. The 11 principles developed byKFPE play a crucial role in realising such (ambi-tious) research partnerships (see Box 1).The present study assesses the benefits andshortcomings of research partnership projectsby addressing different domains and levels ofimpact. In particular, these include: generationof new knowledge, changes in attitudes, strength-ening of capacities, and impacts on target groupssuch as policy-makers, local population etc, inboth the North and the South. It was also con-sidered important to focus on the wider context,i.e. to determine and learn from intended andunintended, and positive and negative impactsof research partnership projects on variousstakeholders and at various levels. The questionof whether such partnerships are more develop-ment-effective than research carried out withouta partnership scheme has not been consideredin the study.

1. Decide on the objectives together 2. Build up mutual trust3. Share information; develop networks4. Share responsibility5. Create transparency6. Monitor and evaluate the collaboration7. Disseminate the results 8. Apply the results9. Share profits equitably

10. Increase research capacity11. Build on the achievements

Box 1: KFPE’s 11 principles of researchpartnership (1998)

1 Transition countries are those countries of the former Eastern Bloc that have been moving towards democracy anda social market economy since 1990.


14

The main reason for this study is rooted in theperception of the KFPE that so far little is knownabout the impacts of research partnerships. Todate, impact assessments of research projectshave been mainly limited to the scientific meritsassessed by peer-reviewed articles, ratings incitation indexes, or economic outcomes. But withregard to «research for development», societalaspects become more relevant. Monitoring andevaluation of such impacts is not only importantfor donors and program coordinators but also fordirectly concerned stakeholders. Participatoryand transdisciplinary research approaches –including relevant stakeholders at all levels – areincreasingly being used as a powerful tool toenhance the societal impact of research projects

(Lammerink & Wolffers 1998, Probst et al. 2003,Johnson et al. 2003).So far, impact studies have usually been initiatedby donors and, in most cases, the methodologyapplied has been poorly described. Most studiespay little attention to the context of a project and,last but not least, the attribution of impactsremains an insurmountable problem (Herweg &Steiner 2002).The KFPE therefore launched an initiative jointlywith the Global Development Network (GDN) toundertake the present study, originally called«Impact Assessment Study on Research Part-nerships» (IAS). A number of organisations2 con-tributed to the development of a common under-standing and a methodological framework during

2The initial IAS Group consisted of representatives of the following institutions: Centre for Environment and DevelopmentCDE (University of Bern, Switzerland), Danish International Development Agency DANIDA, Economic Research Forumfor the Arab Countries, Iran & Turkey ERF, Global Development Network GDN, International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment IFAD, The Netherlands Development Assistance Research Council RAWOO, Swiss Agency for Developmentand Cooperation SDC, and the Swiss Commission for Research Partnerships with Developing Countries KFPE.

Figure 1: Assessment of impact based on amount of publications only(by Karl Herweg 2001)


15better understanding of processes, extraction ofgeneral conclusions, and formulation of recom-mendations on how to achieve impact. The casestudies have been scrutinised with regard to anumber of characteristics relevant to impact (seePart II). Analysis was done through semi-struc-tured interviews with research partners fromboth the North and the South, donor representa-tives, and end-users such as farmers, decision-makers, community-based organisations(CBOs), etc. In addition, relevant project andprogramme documents were reviewed. Personswho had a stake in the programmes or projectscarried out the analyses (see Part IV).

Domains of possible impactsAt the very outset, it was jointly decided to focuson 4 specific domains considered as particularlyinteresting and relevant to research partnerships:

Special attention was paid to assessing and dis-tinguishing intended and unintended, and positiveor negative impacts. This approach allowedanalysis of support schemes and projects withreference to their respective aims and focus.

3 Methodological approach

The present study is based on analysis of casestudies provided by various concerned organisa-tions (see footnote 2), and on expert knowledgegathered mainly during several workshops. Thecase studies analysed cover different types ofresearch partnerships: long-term, short-term,those limited to backstopping, those involvingfull-fledged cooperation etc. This variety enabled

a workshop held in Switzerland in 2001. Sub-sequently, a series of case studies was carriedout, on which the present publication is based.The basic idea of the study and the methodenvisaged was presented and discussed at the3rd GDN Annual Conference (Rio de Janeiro,December 2001). The case studies were thenpresented and discussed during a workshop atthe 4th GDN Annual Conference (Cairo, January2003). During the 5th GDN Annual Conference(New Delhi, January 2004), four new case stud-ies were included. The findings and conclusionsof the present publication are based on eightcase studies as well as expert knowledge fromspecialists participating in the workshops. Thisdual approach appeared to be fruitful, given thegreat variety of case studies analysed (Part IV).

2 Aims

The aims of the study are:1) to assess various impacts resulting from

North-South and South-South researchpartnerships, in different domains and atdifferent levels, in a participatory way

2) to draw general conclusions and recom-mendations, based on description andanalysis of various case studies

3) to help improve research partnershipfunding schemes so that they becomemore efficient, effective and goal oriented

Box 2: Aims of the study

New knowledge and changesin attitudes of researchers

Benefits for end-users:B1 at policy levelB2 at societal level

Individual and institutional capacitybuilding

Box 3: Selected domains for the study


16 New knowledge and changes in attitudesThe primary goal of any research proj-ect is to generate new knowledge or to

compile information in a novel way suitable toanswering research questions or finding solu-tions to key problems. A project can also help improve a methodolo-gical approach, and in the case of participatoryresearch, the pertinence and acceptance of find-ings by end-users or decision-makers. Througha participatory research process, the attitudeof involved researchers will be modified, too.Ultimately, this may lead to a change in percep-tions of the usefulness of participatory and trans-disciplinary approaches involving stakeholders,field work, people-oriented research, comple-mentary competences, and synergies created byinvolved academic and non-academic partnersinvolved.

Benefits for end-usersIn this domain, two broad categories of end-users or target groups were distinguished:

at policy level3: This category includesdecision-makers, politicians, adminis-

trators, development agencies, donors, etc.

at societal level: This category includessociety at large, e.g. farmers, women’s

groups, CBOs, local population, private sectorrepresentatives, etc.

Individual and institutional capacity buildingCapacity building can be consideredboth from an individual and an institu-

tional perspective. In addition, distinctionsshould be made between benefits for theSouthern and Northern partners involved. Thiscan encompass individual training in preparingresearch proposals, carrying out MSc, PhD orpost-doc level studies, upgrading infrastructure(e.g. for laboratories, libraries, ICT etc.), improv-ing management and supervising capacity, etc.

Impact matrix Based on the selected domains of impacts,a matrix of indicators was elaborated by theIAS Group in order to secure a basic commondenominator for analysing the case studies.The matrix was developed for the four domains

, and for the impact chain(Herweg 2002, Clarification of terms): possibleoutput -> utilisation of output -> effects in formof benefits and/or drawbacks -> series ofimpacts.Corresponding indicators and intended andunintended positive or negative impacts werepre-identified (see Annex) to stimulate discus-sion and identification of impact indicators,according to the needs of each specific casestudy.

3For other efforts in this domain, see the ODI/GDN study on «Bridging Research and Policy» (http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Projects/R0040a) and the Public Policy Process of IDRC: «A Strategic Evaluation of the Influence of Research onPublic Policy» (http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-26606-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html)


17

4 Clarification of terms

by Karl Herweg

Expected Results and OutputsThe term «expected result» refers to a plannedachievement, while the term «output» refers tothose short- to mid-term results actually achiev-ed in the framework of a project (e.g. number ofPhDs, data base, number of publications, etc.).Outputs relate to the efficiency (functioning, per-formance) of a project.

ImpactThe term «impact» refers to a project’s achieve-ments, which go beyond mere outputs.The term is often related to the effectiveness of aproject – its success in contributing to its pur-pose and goal. In the present document, theterm «impact» will not focus exclusively on theproject goal but will be used as generic termreferring to the entire impact chain (cf. below).«Impact» comprises the mid- to long-term impli-

cations a project has for the context and its pop-ulation, be they intended (planned) or unintend-ed. Already the presence of a project can haveimplications. Even without a project making anyinput or conducting any activity, expectations arecreated, stakeholders may change their behav-iour, etc. But as soon as a project is planned, thepurpose and goal reflect intended impacts.Certainly, a project will always aim to have posi-tive impacts that contribute to the achievementof the overall goal. But there may also be nega-tive impacts. Moreover, stakeholders may notconsider an impact unanimously positive or neg-ative.

Impact chainThe term «impact» covers a wide range of impli-cations, and it is helpful to divide it into animpact chain of overlapping links (see Figure 3).The utilisation of project outputs already impliesthe idea of a broad impact (e.g. application of anew technology that has been developedthrough research). As a consequence of using

Improved and increased knowledge and changed attitudes of researchers

Policy-relevant research results

Applicable and user-relevant research results

Output of Research Partnership Impact Chain

Utilisation of Output

Effects (Outcomes): Benefits / Drawbacks

Impacts

Increased individual and institutional research capacity

Figure 2: Impact matrix elaborated by the IAS Group


18 the outputs, initial effects (outcomes, directimpacts) can be observed (e.g. crop yield increa-ses, soil erosion decreases, etc.) in the form ofboth benefits and drawbacks (e.g. higher cropyield is marketable and household incomeincreases) that stimulate a learning process.Attitudes and perceptions of people change, andfurther (indirect) impacts may be triggered (e.g.local people gain self-confidence and furtherexplore their potential). Finally, at least some ofthe impacts should relate to the overall goals ofdevelopment co-operation (e.g. empowerment oflocal people, poverty alleviation, etc.).

Example:When a research partnership programme plansto train PhD and MSc candidates to work for acertain research institution, the number offinalised PhDs and MScs is the output. In otherwords: capacity building/strengthening at indi-vidual level is considered the output or result of

the research partnership. This output may havevarious impacts at different levels:– firstly, completed training (utilisation) may

increase knowledge (effect) and may haveled to attitudinal changes among the traineesand trainers (benefit/impact);

– secondly, the institutional capacity to con-duct good quality research (impact) mayhave been increased by creating a nucleus(team, sub-unit) for a specific research realm(effect);

– thirdly, various end-users such as policy-makers, farmers, the private sector etc., mayhave benefited (impact) from improvedresearch quality (effect, benefit),

ContextEvery development project exists within a specif-ic context, that is, its biophysical, socio-cultural,economic, institutional and political milieu orenvironment. A context comprises several levels,

Output

Utilisation

Effect (Outcome):

Benefit / Drawback

Impact

Achievements

Impact Chain

Attribution of Impact

t

Attribution Gap

Clear Attribution to the Project

Planning Result Purpose(Objective)

Goal

Figure 3: Impact chain and attribution gap (adapted from Herweg & Steiner 2002)


19from the local (micro-) level to the macro level(policy, economy, etc.).Similarly, a context consists of different stake-holders, such as local land users, women’sgroups, extension workers, trainers, teachers,health specialists, researchers, economists, poli-cy-makers, etc. A single project can hardly oper-ate at all levels and with all stakeholders. Aselection must be made, depending on how wideor narrow its purpose and expected results aredefined. To monitor and assess impacts, howev-er, it is absolutely essential for a project to lookbeyond its concrete tasks and to consider awider context that refers to the overall goal.

IndicatorA project context is highly complex, and in orderto make planning, monitoring and evaluationmanageable, complexity needs to be simplified.The components of a context and their interac-tions are symbolised by simple and measurablerepresentations: the indicators. Principally, proj-ect cycle management applies indicators in twoways. «Output (performance) indicators» help tomonitor and evaluate a project’s efficiency. Theyare used to determine whether planned activitiesor expected results have been achieved within agiven time and budget. Impact indicators areused to monitor and assess a projects effective-ness. They describe whether the outputs of aproject had further implications, intended orunintended, positive or negative, on the contextand its population.

Whether an indicator is considered a perform-ance or an impact indicator depends on the for-mulation of the project goal, purpose and results.There is no clear break, but a gradual transitionbetween these two types. For example: an agri-cultural project which helps to develop improvedcrop production systems may use the indicator«60 % of the farmers have increased their maizeproduction by 20 % within 3 years» as a per-formance indicator to show its efficiency. But thesame indicator also addresses some links in theimpact chain, «utilisation» of the outputs (broadimpact, area coverage), and «effect» (productionincrease). A single indicator can neither describe

the performance nor the impact of a project suf-ficiently. The challenge is, therefore, to select aset of impact indicators that covers all importantaspects of the context and that is manageablewith the means and capacity of a project.

Attribution GapDuring planning, a project and its stakeholdersdefine an overall goal, project purpose, expectedresults, activities and inputs. Achieving outputsis the first responsibility of a project, and there-fore, outputs can be related to the expectedresults relatively clearly. But beyond that, theimpact chain (utilisation, effect, benefit, impact)needs time to develop, time during which thenumber of actors and their interactions increas-es. This makes it increasingly difficult to deter-mine the impact, i.e. to attribute a change to asingle activity or project This is known as the«attribution gap». Even with costly investigations,a project can only narrow, but not close the attri-bution gap. Instead, a project has to find andshow plausible relations between its actions andchanges in the context, in order to keep in closetouch with reality.

Understanding processes and

mechanisms for achieving

impacts

Part II


Explanation of Symbols

This arrow indicates factors positivelyinfluencing (=enhancing) impact.

This arrow indicates factors negativelyinfluencing (=hindering) impact.

UNDERSTANDING PROCESSES AND MECHANISMS FOR ACHIEVING IMPACTSPART II

23

Understanding processes and mechanisms for achieving impacts

5 Partnership principles

The case study analyses and workshop discus-sions clearly revealed that the 11 partnershipprinciples of KFPE (cf. Box 1, Part I) are a funda-mental prerequisite, not only to allow for mutual-ly beneficial research partnerships, but also togenerate desired impacts.This particularly applies to the preparatory stageof a research partnership, where partners decideto work together. This initial phase is crucial, andin some instances a pilot phase is needed tocreate a solid partnership, and to pay due atten-tion to principles 1–5: decide on the objectivestogether (1), build up mutual trust (2), shareinformation and develop networks (3), shareresponsibility (4), and create transparency (5).This is especially true for collaboration amongnew partners. In most cases, however, neitherfunds nor sufficient time are made available forthis decisive «period of courtship» when theterms of reference are elaborated, and issuessuch as (hidden) agendas, intellectual propertyrights, benefit sharing, ethical issues etc. are tobe addressed.Such a well-managed «incubation period» helps to enhance mutual trust and increasesinter-cultural understanding and competences.Readiness to appreciate differences among part-ners helps in developing a stimulating and ben-eficial research partnership culture.A good research partnership culture positivelyinfluences the empowerment of all partners. Itincludes regular face-to-face meetings at eachpartner’s location, and mutual respect, where allinvolved partners have an equal voice and wherethere is no dominating or paternalistic «expertmentality» – particularly of the Northern partner– which eventually induces an inferiority com-

plex in the «weaker» partner (see also Part III).Personal empathy enhances mutual trustand greatly contributes to the success of aresearch partnership, particularly with regard toend-user benefits.For good quality research and correspondingimpacts, an agreed choice, and joint develop-ment of appropriate methodologies and/orapproaches are required. In addition, the shar-ing of management tasks, such as ensuring localcoordination by local partners, gives credibilityand confidence to all parties . Where thenecessary managerial skills and experience aremissing, appropriate training and support has tobe provided.

6 Factors enhancing or enabling impact (EF)

Plan for impact (EF-1)When designing a research project,the main – or even sole – focus is usu-

ally on the contribution to scientific discourse. Incollaborative research projects, however, aspectsrelated to other domains such as capacity build-ing, and impacts beyond the scientific findingsare equally important. But these are often neg-lected or completely overlooked. This is why achange of attitude among researchers (andresearch funding institutions) vis-à-vis theseother domains is needed. Planning for impactrequires active inclusion of all concerned stake-holders and joint thinking about desired andundesired project impacts. This requires asound understanding of the planned project andits context, by all involved stakeholders, andshould lead to development of a strategy toachieve impact (Probst et al. 2003). But unlessthe desired impacts are clearly spelled out, dis-cussed, negotiated, agreed upon, planned for,and tackled at the outset, they are unlikely tomaterialise (i) and undesired impacts cannot bemitigated effectively (ii). This requires the devel-opment of a common language and understand-ing – a continuous and time consuming processwhich is often underestimated. Such a reflective

Preliminary remark: The following section isbased on the case studies analysed, whichcan be found in Part IV, as well as on discus-sions derived from them.


24 process also helps to avoid unrealistic expecta-tions from different stakeholders. It thus helpsprevent tensions and potential conflicts. Wherethe necessary managerial skills and experienceare missing, appropriate training and supporthas to be provided.

Monitor and evaluate impact (EF-2)To secure the planned impacts, amonitoring and evaluation scheme

looking beyond the outputs has to be developed.Corresponding indicators have to be identified,which reflect the interests, concerns, and expec-tations of all stakeholders. Impact monitoringhelps to learn, reflect and readjust, to improvethe performance of all stakeholders involved(Hagmann et al. 2002). The demands of farmersmay differ from those of environmental interestgroups or scientists. Stakeholders’ criteria andperceptions will determine the pertinence of theevaluation and the eventual sustainability of theinvestigated program. Participatory impactassessment (PIA) allows these different views,judgements, and observations to come to thesurface (Herweg 2002).Remark: Planning for and monitoring of impactis equally important for donors in designingnew funding schemes! All too often, fundingagencies simply make a decision on funding,but do not take an active role in monitoring,course correction, and facilitation. For this tohappen, it might be useful to set-up an inde-pendent steering board composed of Northernand Southern experts from the very outset (seee.g. Case Study 1).

Make specific, additional resources available(EF-3)

Many collaborative research projectsappear to be completely absorbed by

designing and implementing planned researchactivities. If time, manpower, and financial resour-ces are not allocated in the planning phase, verylittle effort can be directed to address the issue ofimpact. Specific human and managerial resourcesare therefore needed to facilitate and evaluateimpacts within a project. Impacts should not beconsidered as a simple research by-product.

Commitment, competence, continuity andcomplementarity (EF-4)

The case studies demonstrate theimportant role played by key persons

and their respective institutions (see e.g. CaseStudies 3, 7). The commitment and competenceof involved research partners are crucial to thesuccess of a partnership project. Equally, thecontinuity of this commitment and complemen-tarity of the partners allow for long-term collabo-ration. These «C4» characteristics (see CaseStudy 1) are fundamental for mutually beneficialcollaboration which makes it possible to achievethe desired impacts. It is therefore crucial toidentify the appropriate and reliable individualand institutional partners («matching partner»),both in the North and the South.Experience shows that a sound assessment ofscience and technology competence, andassessment of needs, can build a strong basisfor successful research collaboration. As men-tioned above, a pilot phase to create a solid part-nership can also be helpful in identifying theappropriate partner.

Mobilise local support for local sustainability(EF-5)

Both strong ownership/identification ofthe stakeholders concerned with the

project and recognition of the project’s meritshelp in generating local resources (financial or inkind) that can secure sustainability. This mayencompass long-term support for responsibleinstitutions and implementation of findings (seeCase Study 7). It also requires close cooperationand full communication among all stakeholders,including particularly the decision-makers andthe end-users (see Case Study 3).

Promote participatory, transdisciplinary, multi-level, multi-stakeholder and gender-sensitiveapproaches (EF-6)

A transdisciplinary, multi-level, multi-stakeholder approach promoting par-

ticipation is crucial in development-orientedresearch (Hurni et al. 2004, Probst et al. 2003).It allows non-scientific actors (e.g. farmers,women’s groups) to become active partners in


25the research project and process. This assuresthat local (traditional, non-formal, indigenous)knowledge is considered. Also, by jointly spellingout needs and processes, ownership isincreased, which positively influences achieve-ment of the desired impacts. The diversity of per-spectives stemming from different scientific dis-ciplines, as well as from different representativesof society, helps balance values and ideologies.This also includes gender aspects. Through thiscollaboration, a mutual learning process can begenerated which may lead to a change in under-standing, in attitude, and finally in behaviour(see e.g. Case Study 2)4. For this, direct contactof researchers with the field is essential (see e.g.Case Study 7).

Create mutual learning platforms (EF-7)The fact that partners of different (sci-entific, social, cultural etc.) back-

grounds collaborate in a participatory way offersopportunity and also calls for the creation ofmutual learning platforms. The exchange anddiscussions stimulated through such instru-ments foster mutual learning, inter-culturalunderstanding, and readiness for change. Thiscontributes greatly to achieving desired impacts,not only with regard to domains A and C, but alsoB1 and B2 (see e.g. Case Studies 2, 3, 7).

Incentives (EF-8)To maintain or enhance the motivationand integrity of all persons involved

(including project staff in particular), appropriateplanning of incentives is crucial. Extra remuner-ation, free lunch/snacks, invitations to meetings

and events allowing researchers to go abroad ormeet international peers, and support for jointpublications, etc. are examples of effectiveincentives that foster committed and full-timededication to research work (see e.g. Case Study7). The long-term commitment of the fundingagency plays a crucial role, too, making it possi-ble to secure the long-term involvement of indi-viduals and strengthen (local) partners, asopposed to short-term collaborative projects withuncertain follow-up.

Communication, dissemination and feedbackstrategy/skills (EF-9)

Competence (skills) and efforts incommunication and dissemination

facilitate the achievement of desired impacts.This calls for a clear-cut communication and dis-semination strategy before, during and after theproject. Appropriate and regular informationneeds to be prepared, catering for the needs andlevels of different stakeholder groups and audi-ences such as policy-makers, the research com-munity, the development community, society atlarge, etc. (see e.g. Case Studies 2, 8) User com-mitment is the key, taking communicationbeyond mere dissemination. The Overseas Devel-opment Institute5 states, that «most . . . literature. . . takes for granted that improved communica-tion of research in the international developmentfield will contribute to poverty reduction. Thismeans that almost no time is spent debating thequestion «Will improved communication of devel-opment research actually lead to poverty reduc-tion?», while much time is spent providing rec-ommendations in answer to a second question

4Such deep changes relate to the theory of action and learning and to concepts of learning such as single, double andtriple loop learning (Argyris C. and Schön D. 1996).«Single loop learning occurs when the intervention brings about changes in people’s existing practices without signifi-cantly changing their vision, objectives, norms, or values . . .In double loop learning, changes take place not only in existing practices, but also in underlying insights and principles.It strives to achieve collective knowledge and understanding by learning about the assumptions and goals behind estab-lished routines.Triple loop learning occurs when essential underlying principles are questioned to the extent that it includes (re)design-ing the norms and protocols that govern single and double loop learning. The learners inquire into previous organisationallearning experiences, to discover what they did that facilitated or inhibited single and double loop learning for improvingtheir organisational learning» (Groot 2002:135).5http://www.odi.org.uk/rapid/Projects/R0163/Comms_review_intro.html, for a recent literature review see also Hovland 2003


26 «How can you improve your communication?».This is the tragedy of unquestioned assumptions.Appropriate feedback mechanisms have to bedeveloped in order to satisfy the expectations ofthe targeted end-users, etc.

Documentation (EF-10)Sound documentation and recordkeeping is a general requirement in

any research project. Given the complexity aris-ing from collaborative work, it is important tosecure safe storage and maintenance of dataand information collected during research. Thiscan help to overcome delicate situations whenchanges in personnel occur that may cause dis-continuity and hamper the success of a project(see e.g. Case Study 3). Moreover, it is recommended to track the re-search process as a basis for mutual learningand self-evaluation with regard to improving col-laboration in future.

7 Factors hindering impact (HF)

If not appropriately taken into consideration, theabove-mentioned enabling factors may turn intohindering factors. In addition, the following majorhindering factors were identified, mainly duringdiscussion in the various workshops:

Discontinuity (HF-1)Stop-and-go policies, abrupt changes,or discontinuity of support due, for

instance, to policy changes or instability of gov-ernments, greatly hamper the success of a pro-gramme or project and its planned impact. Suchinsecurity also does not allow scientists to fullyfocus on research, as funds for the future mustbe sought permanently.Should a premature end be unavoidable, appro-priate measures must be foreseen in advance,e.g. in the form of a contract, in order to secure«decent termination» of the collaboration. This

Figure 4: Enabling factors of research partnerships (Cartoon by Karl Herweg 2004)

Plan for impact; Monitor and evaluate impact; Make specific, additional resources available;Commitment, competence, continuity and complementarity; Mobilise local support for localsustainability; Promote participatory, transdisciplinary, multi-level, multi-stakeholder andgendersensitive approaches; Create mutual learning platforms; Incentives; Communication,dissemination and feedback strategy/skills; Documentation


27should address issues such as the period ofnotice, remunerations, equipment, intellectualproperty etc. Very few such legal regulations onthe handling of collaborative research projectsexist. For example, no legal recourse is possiblein official national or international developmentcooperation commitments.

Inflexibility of funding (HF-2)Funding schemes with rigid disburse-ment regulations hinder meaningful

and flexible use of funds for the project duration.Carrying over funds from one project year to thenext should be allowed without causing budget-ary reductions. This is particularly relevant inparticipatory research processes, which maytake more time than foreseen in the originalwork-plan. Similarly, some adaptations betweenbudget lines must be allowed for responding toemerging (sudden) needs.

Lack of internal information and communication(skills) (HF-3)

Sound knowledge of the overall projectframe, its aims, and intended impacts

is a fundamental prerequisite for each involvedscientist, students and leaders alike, to identifyhis/her possible or expected contribution.Frequently, researchers are not sufficientlyaware of the research setting due to lack of inter-nal communication. This hinders full under-standing of the meaning of the research («Whythis project?»), and hampers the impact in allfour domains (knowledge/attitudes, capacitybuilding, end-users, policy). In particular, this sit-uation may arise when researchers in the Southare contracted for a specific study without know-ing the overall context of the research project.Efforts should be undertaken to maintain com-munication at all levels:• between funding agencies and researchers • between Northern and Southern researchers • between research directors and staff (in the

field).

Internal tensions and conflicts (HF-4)Tensions and conflicts may build upduring any project, for example due to

disparities in salary/remuneration betweenNorthern and Southern partners and imbal-anced power distribution or budget allocationbetween institutions. Some of these disparitiesare unavoidable and need to be discussed, clar-ified and made transparent (see Case Study 2). Likewise, tensions can occur between re-searchers participating in a North-South collabo-rative project, and those colleagues who do not.Compensation mechanisms, such as poolingsome resources for the benefit of the whole insti-tution, can ease the situation.Cultural gaps may also cause misunderstand-ings, e.g. due to different perceptions regardingthe handling of research processes. Regularface-to-face meetings at each partner’s locationprovide opportunities for mutual learning andenhancing common understanding. Students from the North frequently face a dilem-ma: their Northern supervisor expects them toplay the role of a co-advisor in the field, whichdoes not correspond to their hierarchical posi-tion. This creates unclear situations regardingroles and competences that affect the relation-ship between the partners (recognition). On theother hand, students (usually from South) bene-fiting from a stay abroad may come back with ahigher level of competence than their (previous)superior, generating feelings of unease.

Prejudices and mindsets (HF-5)Given the lack of experience in partic-ipatory, inter- and transdisciplinary

collaboration, researchers, donors and otherstakeholders are reluctant to collaborate andhide behind prejudices and mindsets. Such atti-tudes hinder processes of change and mutuallearning (see Case Studies 2, 7), hampering theachievement of desired impacts.

Overambitious project design (HF-6)The increasing competition forresearch funds frequently leads to

overambitious project designs with overly opti-mistic timing, overloaded activity plans, etc. As a


28

consequence, the promises made vis à vis fund-ing agencies and the expectations raised amongend-users cannot be fulfilled. This in turn leadsto mutual deception and frustration, not onlyhampering successful project performance butoften also leading to reduced commitmentamong all stakeholders involved, and even tonegative impacts (see Case Studies 2, 3).

8 Conclusions

Analysis of the Case Studies (see Part IV) revealedthat all collaborative research projects induced acertain number of impacts – achieved both in theSouth and the North – related to domain A, «NewKnowledge and Changes in Attitude». Elaboration and implementation of joint researchprojects also generates some capacity buildingeffects (impact domain C). However, this ismainly limited to the individual level. Institutionalcapacity building, on the other hand, clearly

needs to be planned when the project is beingdesigned, as it does not materialise simply as apositive side-effect of a joint research project.Moreover, substantial sustainable improvementsof the overall research capacity in partner coun-tries can only be achieved if both types of capac-ity building are jointly addressed.Impacts at the end-user level (B1 «policy level»and B2 «societal level») were only identified insome of the case studies. This is not surprising,since impacts in this domain require more timeand are usually apparent only after research hasbeen completed. In cases where projects are stillongoing (e.g. Case Study 8) or where they havebeen recently terminated (e.g. Case Study 4),few or no impacts can be expected at theend-user level. Particular efforts are needed inorder to achieve such impacts, and in generala participatory, multi-level approach enhancesthe chances of achieving them. The duration ofa project or programme is another important fac-tor that determines success in this domain.

Figure 5: Hindering factors of research partnerships (Cartoon by Karl Herweg 2004)

Discontinuity; Inflexibility of funding; Lack of internal information and communication (skills);Internal tensions and conflicts; Prejudices and mindsets; Overambitious project design


29Especially Case Studies with a longer durationachieved considerable impacts at the policy andsocietal levels (e.g. Case Studies 2, 3, 6, 7).The effects and impacts identified in all CaseStudies analysed, however, exceeded the expec-tations of the people involved in the analysis, andhave had a wide influence. In particular, this in-cludes some positive and unplanned impacts atthe policy level in the North, where new supportschemes developed (see Case Study 1). In anothercase (e.g. Case Study 7), the combination of sev-eral efforts to achieve desired impacts made theresearchers involved and their institutions moreattractive. This provided ideal conditions for reach-ing unexpected positive impacts and openeddoors to future relevant research activities.As a general rule, it was found that positiveimpacts at the end-user level are best achievedby participatory approaches, actively involvingthe target groups from the very outset of theproject. In addition, it is crucial to plan forimpacts while designing the project.Specific recommendations concerning enhance-ment of desired impacts were formulated basedon the analysis of case studies and the workshopdiscussions. These are summed up below.

9 Recommendations

Recommendations for funding institutions• Pay due attention to impacts when design-

ing new research partnership supportschemes. Include the views or expectationsof the target region/country.

• Make sure that the (desired/planned) impactsare monitored and their achievement facilitat-ed. Possibly set up a steering or accompany-ing board composed of North and Southexperts, and allow for regular site visits.

• Secure continuity in policy support andfunding; aim for long-term programmes andprojects supporting both capacity buildingand sound research.

• Allow for pre-phase funding and sufficienttime in order to set up the project proposal

and clarify issues such as goals, intentions,roles, expectations, motivations, etc.

• Be more flexible in budget allocation.

Recommendations for researchersand their institutions• Plan for impact: discuss, negotiate, and

strive for impacts.• Monitor and evaluate the (planned/desired)

impacts; identify indicators.• Select the right partner(s) who show(s) com-

mitment, competence, continuity, and com-plementarity (C4); check these characteris-tics during the pre-phase stage («incubationperiod»).

• Create mutual learning platforms.• Secure internal information, communica-

tion, and documentation.• Aim for local sustainability and try to gener-

ate local resources (financial or kind).• Address internal tensions and conflicts

openly as normal features of an evolvingpartnership relation.

Recommendations addressed to both fundinginstitutions and the research community• Make specific, additional resources available

for planning and assessing impact (finance,time, personnel).

• Promote participatory, transdisciplinary,multi-level multi-stakeholder approaches.Involve stakeholders right from the start inthe design, implementation and interpreta-tion of the project and its intended impacts.

• Create incentives (satisfactory salaries,mutual visits, etc.) and strive for an «enablingenvironment» to promote a fruitful researchculture that also enhances the inter-culturalcompetences of all partners and institutionsinvolved.

• Develop a communication and dissemina-tion strategy (feedback events). Make fundsavailable for its implementation.

Box 4: Recommendations addressed to fund-ing institutions and researchers

Towards more balanced

partnerships

Part III

TOWARDS MORE BALANCED PARTNERSHIPSPART III

33

Towards more balanced partnerships

10 Strengths of research partnerships

North-South research partnerships are oftenperceived as providing the potential for a num-ber of added values, compared to non-collabora-tive research (RAWOO 2001, KFPE 2001). If car-ried out in an ideal way, «research partnershipsenable exchange and mutual learning on thebasis of complementary skills and knowledge,and therefore lead to an increased quality ofresearch as well as to building of research capac-ity in the South and in the North» (KFPE 2001:37–38).Some of the points mentioned in KFPE 2001were particularly stressed during the IAS. Theseincluded: a) mutual learning opportunities,b) mutual opportunities for training, c) mutualcultural understanding, d) complementaritiesof expertise, and e) prevention of brain drain(provided appropriate measures are taken tosecure working opportunities in the country oforigin).In addition, the partnership scheme was consid-ered as a «door opener» whose comparativeadvantages were highlighted during the IAS.These include primarily:• Increased visibility and attractiveness – the

so-called «lighthouse effect» – in particularfor local actors, increasing their influence andimproving their access to new resources(funding schemes, infrastructure, contacts,information etc.)

• Better access to information• Better access to new fields of research• Enhanced radius of contacts and interaction,

reducing scientific isolation, enhancing confi-dence, facilitating access to international sci-entific outreach e.g. in peer-reviewed journals

• Easier access to communities and policy-makers

• Better opportunities to give voice to delicateissues, in particular through the external(«independent») partner.

11 Shortcomings of research partnerships

In reality research partnerships also haveshadowy sides. The potential shortcomingsinclude in particular the issue of asymmetries orunbalanced partnerships (see below), e.g. whenthe South merely presents a «laboratory for theNorth» providing interesting scientific data6. Dueto the – often inevitably -– unbalanced powerrelation with regard to funding and scientificmerit, the dominating scientific paradigm fromthe North is frequently imposed upon North-South partnerships. It inhibits the applicationand further development of approaches used bythe partners.

12 Parameters affecting the nature of researchpartnerships

Analysis and discussions of the various casestudies led to a debate on (i) how research part-nerships could be classified to improve ourunderstanding of factors that influence the part-nership in a positive way, (ii) which kinds of rela-tionships among partners lead to the bestresults, effects, outputs, or impacts, and (iii)which scheme has the highest ethical standard.The wide spectrum of possible types of researchpartnerships7 and different degrees of asymme-tries can be located between the two extremes of

6A survey of US-based researchers revealed that they are significantly more motivated to collaborate with DCs on issuesrelated to seismology, geodynamics, botany, and biology, mainly in order to obtain assistance in doing field work, gainaccess to information and materials, and benefit from local knowledge (Wagner et al., 2001). Such partnerships hardlyhelp to build local research capacities.7These can include specific collaborations where e.g. the main responsibility for and the control of the project is left inthe hand of the Southern researchers and where Northern peers only provide backstopping; this kind of collaborationcan be very cost effective when limited to milestones (design, mid-term review etc.) as shown in Case Study 4.


34

balanced partnerships and unbalanced partner-ships8 (see Figure 6). With regard to an idealsituation, the notion of «dynamic equilibrium»emerged. This reflects the different types andstages of a partnership relation, with the ultimategoal of achieving balanced collaboration wherecomplementary competences are ideally com-bined and used. With regard to the managementof such dynamic partnerships, new tools stem-ming from process management should beused.To characterise research partnerships, a widespectrum of parameters has to be considered.Some parameters of a project or programme canbe considered as being more or less independ-

ent or having no influence on the degree of bal-ance (but of course not on the degree of im-pact!). This is the case for:• Duration (short-term, long-term)9

• Scale (global, regional, national, local) • Topic or issue addressed10

• Type of research (e.g. applied, academic,basic, fundamental, action-oriented, develop-ment, policy, strategic).

Parameters I to X influence the degree of bal-ance or imbalance. Addressing the related ques-tions will help in detecting and addressing asym-metries; the check-list below aims to stimulatereflection on all involved partners (including e.g.local stakeholders).

8An «extreme» example relates to the encountered «contract culture», where researchers in the South are not alwaysconsidered as partners but merely as data collectors. In such situations the modalities should be negotiated and jointlyagreed beforehand (e.g utilisation of data). The socio-political interpretation stemming from such contracted researchshould be mutually agreed, too, and ideologies avoided. Moreover, the contractors should be «well equipped» and havethe competence needed for the research.9Obviously the duration and funds made available in a research partnership have an influence on the process of a part-nership relation but not on the issue of balance as such.10This includes its potential sensitivity (e.g. with regard to economic aspects, intellectual property rights; socio-politicalsensitivity: potential for empowerment and depowerment)

Figure 6: Unbalanced partnership (Cartoon by Karl Herweg 2004)


35

I Initiative• Who has the original idea?• Who designs the project?• Who sets the agenda?• Who makes the conceptual inputs?• Who selects and who is being selected?• . . .

II Interests• Who has what kind of expectations in the

project?• Who has what kind of objectives in the proj-

ect?• Who has what kind of stake in the project?• Are there any hidden intentions or agendas

to be considered?• . . .

III PowerMoney/ funds• Who generates the funds?• Who negotiates with donors?• Who decides on the use of funds? (finan-

cial/administrative competence)• How transparent is the allocation and use

of funds? (budgeting, accounting)• How are accountability work and responsi-

bility shared?

Methodology /competence• Who has the scientific and methodological

competence?• Who decides about the methodological

approach?• Who has the contextual competence? (con-

tact to the ground)

Role /position• Who is involved and with what kind of role?

(see also below)• Who has what hierarchical position?

(including e.g. charisma)• Who has the negotiating power to handle dif-

ferent perceptions, conflicts, or differences?

• Who has to deliver what kinds of productsto whom and by when?

• Who has what kind of prestige vis-a-viswhom? (notion or attitude of «expert»)

• . . .

IV Operational responsibility and duties• Who has the lead/responsibility for what?• Who is responsible for management and

coordination?• Who has the authority to synthesise results/

information/data?• Who is responsible for supervision?• Who invests how much time for what kind

of work? (conceptual thinking, field work,synthesis, discussions, etc.)

• Who does the field work?• Who collects what kind of data?• . . .

V Interaction• Where and when do meetings take place?• Who takes part in what kind of meetings?

(steering, planning, reporting, . . .)• Who decides about the means of interac-

tions? (types, timing, participation, . . .)• Who goes to the field and interacts with

local stakeholders?• Who meets official representatives, deci-

sion-makers, donors, etc.?• . . .

VI Support• Who has back-stopping tasks?• Who provides technical support?• Who has access to what kind of infrastruc-

ture and technology?• Who provides support for training? (e.g. in

the field, on the job, in the classroom)• . . .

VII Information• Who collects what kinds of information?• Who generates new information?• Where is information stored?• Who has access to what kind of information?

13 Parameters influencing the balance


36 14 Designing South-North research partnerships –the RAWOO experience

by Paul Smith and Jaap Bijl, Members of RAWOO12

Since the late 1990s, the Netherlands Develop-ment Assistance Research Council, betterknown as RAWOO, has been engaged in design-ing a new type of research partnership involvingpartners from developing countries and theNetherlands. The programme design activitieswere guided by three basic objectives:• creating developing country ownership of

(South-North) research programmes;• making the agenda responsive to pressin

development needs by involving major stake-holders in the process of setting the nationalresearch agenda and in programme develop-ment;

• promoting genuine collaboration and partner-ship by giving an equal say to Southern andNorthern partners in programme governanceand management.

Pursuing these objectives entailed an interactiveprocess of building bridges between stakehold-ers in research, government and society at large,between scientific disciplines, and betweenSouth and North. The following steps were takenin the process of designing the partnership pro-grammes:• choosing a broad area or issue, for example

health or biodiversity, for programme-devel-opment; in this preliminary phase prioritieswere set by the RAWOO council as part of itsmandate to identify research areas thatshould get priority from the viewpoint ofdevelopment and poverty reduction (themembers of RAWOO come from developingcountries and the Netherlands);

11«Capacity-building should be mentioned as a specific aim of the partnership, and the work plan should describe theconcrete activities for this purpose ..... In fact, capacity-strengthening needs to be addressed at three levels: at the levelof the individual, at the level of the institutions, and at the level of the national science system and the government»(RAWOO 2001:27)12More information can be found on the RAWOO website: www.rawoo.nl; more specific information on the Ghana andPhilippines partnership programmes can be found on www.partnership-programmes.org

• Who has control over information?• How is information disseminated or/and ex-

changed?• Who makes what kind of use of the infor-

mation/data provided?• . . .

VIII Capacity building11

• Who - at an individual level - can improvehis/her capacity? (knowledge, skills, em-powerment)

• Who – at an institutional level – can im-prove its capacity? (structural aspects,empowerment)

• . . .

IX Benefits • Who benefits in what way? (e.g. participa-

tion in conferences, publications, expert-ise/mandates, MSc/PhD titles, scientificand societal empowerment, applicableresults for end-users, etc.)

• Who gets the scientific credit? (e.g. publi-cations, awards, invitations to conferencesetc.)

• How are benefits shared? (includingaspects IPRs, commercial profits, publica-tions)

• . . .

X Varia• Is there a difference in pace? How is this

issue dealt with?• How is the issue of gender being addressed

as a whole?• . . .

Box 5: Parameters influencing the balance ofpartnerships


37• selecting the developing country to be in-volved in the programme-development exer-cise for the specific research area chosen;

• establishing a national working group repre-senting the key stakeholders to assumeresponsibility for directing the programme-design activities, and selecting a local organi-zation to support and facilitate these activi-ties;

• conducting a national agenda-setting work-shop bringing together researchers, policy-makers, practitioners and representatives ofNGOs and community-based organizations;

• conducting a programme development work-shop in the Netherlands in order to presentthe national agenda to the Dutch researchcommunity and assess the possibilities ofmatching the needs expressed in the agen-da with the knowledge and expertise availablein the Netherlands;

• drawing up a framework for a joint researchprogramme in terms of content, process andstructure/organization;

• submitting the programme framework to theDutch government through RAWOO;

• upon receiving a go-ahead signal from theDutch government, elaborating the pro-gramme framework into a concrete proposalfor a joint research programme and submit-ting it to the funding agency.

Putting this approach into practice in Ghana(in the field of health research) and the Philip-pines (in the field of biodiversity research)has given the RAWOO the opportunity to learnfrom actual experiences on the ground and toassess the complexities involved in the process.The lessons the Council learned include thefollowing: • creating developing country ownership of re-

search programmes entails a shift of leader-ship responsibilities, decision-making powerand resources from Northern to Southernpartners;

• if asymmetries between North and South arerecognized and properly addressed, wayscan be found to balance the principle of own-ership with the principle of partnership. But it

is necessary not to be naive about this. TheNorth needs to release control and acceptconsiderable autonomy on the part of theSouthern partner;

• a broadly-based consultative process, howev-er painstaking and time-consuming it maybe, should precede any programme;

• helping developing countries to initiate dia-logue among local scholars, government pol-icy-makers and representatives of civil socie-ty on specific research needs, sets off a pro-cess of discussing change and innovationand creates a learning environment and net-work for all the major actors involved;

• strengthening the capacity for socially rele-vant research should be a specific aim of thepartnership.

Case studies

Part IV


Explanation of Symbols

The following short descriptions of case stud-ies analysed have been compiled without aspecific rigid framework imposed on the vari-ous authors.

In order to facilitate the attribution and visibilityof(i) factors positively (= enhancing ) or neg-atively influencing (= hindering ) impacts,or(ii) the domains affected ,various symbols are used below.

CASE STUDIESPART IV

41

by Daniel Maselli, former research desk officer atSDC and member of the SPP-E Expert Group

General context

The present case study attempts to assess the var-ious impacts of the so-called «Module 7 Environ-ment & Development» (Module 7), a componentof the Swiss Priority Programme «Environment(SPP-E)» which operated from 1994 to 2000 withsome activities extending to 2001. Module 7 wascomposed of a variety of research partnershipsjointly carried out by Swiss researchers and theircounterparts in the South. During the first phase(1994–1996) 18 projects were supported whileduring the second phase (1996–2000) this num-ber was reduced to 14. The SPP-E was led by aSwiss Coordinator, affiliated with the SwissNational Science Foundation (SNSF), steered byan international Expert Group where both SNSFand the Swiss Agency for Development andCooperation (SDC) were represented, and an addi-tional «Accompanying Group» of experts forModule 7. The goals of Module 7 were:• To test the joint venture between the SNSF

and the SDC regarding an innovative fundingscheme;

• To motivate and increase the number ofSwiss researchers and research institutionswilling to carry out research in partnershipwith counterparts in DC;

• To help build research capacity mainly in thepartner countries – foremost at the individualand only to a limited degree at the institution-al level;

• To help solve pressing problems in the part-ner countries related to environmental issues(e.g. solid waste management, drinking watersupply, conflicts over natural resources etc.).

No thought was given to impact in the origi-nal design scheme. No pre-defined indicatorsexisted . This also made it difficult to assess

Case Study 1: Swiss Priority Programme Environment (SPP-E),Module 7 Environment & Development – A Northern Perspective13

13For the Southern perspective see Case Study 2.

the desired or intended impacts within the pre-sented case study analysis.

Evaluation of Module 7

Module 7 was externally evaluated in 2000 undera mandate from SDC. The evaluation tackled thefollowing three main questions in a participatoryevaluation process:– Was the concept / idea of North-South

research partnerships meaningful?– Did the strategy take into account all the

needs of researchers in DC with respect tothe development of research capacity?

– What style of project management producesthe best yield with regard to research capaci-ty and scientific results?

The re-assessment of Module 7 through the IASof the KFPE focused specifically on intended andunintended impacts using possible indicatorsjointly elaborated by the IAS Working Group.

The assessment consisted of a series of semi-structured interviews carried out with various keypersons within the SPP-E in general and Module7 in particular. In addition, a limited number ofdocuments were consulted. The «Rural Liveli-hoods Strategy» Project (RLS-Project; see CaseStudy 2) from India and the «Intermediate City»Project (IMC-Project, see Case Study 3) inPakistan were chosen as case studies to beanalysed in greater depth, jointly with Southernproject partners. Given the various roles ofthe interviewed persons and their institutional affil-iations, the character of the present analysis isone of critical self-evaluation. To better under-stand and cross-check statements about theimpact at end-user level, external actors – inparticular target groups such as local communi-ties – should have been included. However, thiswas only done in a limited way, mainly when elab-orating the Southern partners (see Case Study 2).


42 Situation prior to Module 7 in Switzerland

Prior to Module 7, North-South collaborative re-search was virtually non-existent, in particular forthe SNSF, but also for the Swiss research com-munity in general. It played only a very marginalrole and was completely unknown to many.Consequently, Module 7 – a programme compo-nent of the SPP-E created as an off-spring of theUnited Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro 1992 –was from its very beginning a (politically) highlycontested module within the SPP-E. It was actu-ally cancelled due to lack of money, together withanother module of the SPP-E, before it evenstarted. Due to considerable political pressureand thanks to the innovative commitment ofthe SDC – which entered a pioneering joint ven-ture with the SNSF, agreeing to cover all theexpenses of the Southern partners – and to thepermanent advocacy of a few influential individ-uals – Module 7 was finally launched in 1994,two years later than the other modules of theSPP-E.

Prevailing prejudices North-South collaborative research initially suf-fered from a double critical mindset or prejudicein Switzerland:

from the perspective of «hard core» scientists and their institutions

«North-South collaborative research is not reallyresearch, it is of lower quality» (3rd class research);«the partners lack the intellectual capacityrequired to really contribute to good research»,«North-South collaborative research is too devel-opment- and application- oriented and hence oflittle or no value for the scientific community anddiscourse as such»;

from the perspective of developmentpractitioners

«North-South collaborative research is too aca-demic, too expensive and of little use if not com-pletely useless for development cooperation»;«North-South collaborative research is being pro-moted mainly to contribute to the survival of theSwiss research institutions involved but doesn’thelp improve development cooperation».

General role and importance of Module 7for Switzerland

In retrospect, Module 7 has mainly created andoffered a platform to discuss and becomeacquainted with collaborative research as a pos-sible form of scientific cooperation with theSouth. Concretely, this led or contributed to• the «forced» handling of project proposals

by the SPP-E Expert Group, consisting oftraditional researchers and representatives ofvarious institutions – in particular the con-servative SNSF and the SDC – as well asinternational experts included in the ExpertGroup

• the creation of a special complementaryAdvisory Group for Module 7 by the fundingorganisation to handle this unconventionalprogramme

• controversial discussions among members ofthe Expert Group and with the financing insti-tutions about the selection and evaluation cri-teria

• tensions due to differing assessments andcontradictory expectations of the two fundinginstitutions (SNSF and SDC) with regard toproject proposals which induced a mutuallearning and negotiation process

• recognition of the need for a Swiss Com-mission for Research Partnerships withDeveloping Countries (KFPE), funded in1994

• the organisation of two international Con-ferences by the KFPE on research partner-ships in Switzerland (Berne 1996 and 2000),and development of the «11 principles forresearch partnerships with developing coun-tries» (1998) which were widely disseminatedin and outside Switzerland; these activitiesincreased the awareness regarding theimportance of research in developing andtransition countries (particularly amongadministrative entities responsible for sci-ence), and

• creation and implementation of a new, addi-tional instrument for collaborative researchbetween SDC and SNSF (new financial ven-ture) .

CASE STUDIESPART IV

43These processes and efforts finally led to a cer-tain recognition of the pioneering efforts made incollaborative research in Switzerland as well asoutside the country. This international recogni-tion in turn influenced the Swiss research com-munity as well as the Swiss research policy andfunding community. Both groups started tobecome more sensitive to and aware of such sci-entific collaborations, as well as their scientificand development potential. This led to a changeof attitude and to a partial change of behaviouramong people closely confronted with suchkinds of projects or programmes.

Assessment of the post-Module 7 situationin Switzerland

North-South collaborative research is more wide-ly known and better accepted in Switzerlandnowadays, particularly within some units of theSNSF and the Swiss Science Agency (SSA),compared to 10 to 15 years ago. Nevertheless, itcontinues to play a marginal role in general.However, the creation of an additional new «reg-ular» programme at the SNSF with the joint sup-port of SDC is a clear indication of increas-ed scientific recognition and/or the increasedimportance assigned to such research (see alsoSDC research policy 2002).The surprising success represented by creationof a National Centre of Competence in Research(NCCR) North-South against all odds in 2001 sofar represents the climax of this increasingrecognition . The fact that core issues whichchallenge DC in particular have remained at thetop of the international (political) agenda and havebeen dealt with at a series of United Nations con-ferences (e.g. Bejing, Copenhagen, Istanbul etc.)probably facilitated the political support neces-sary in Switzerland to make such a proposalacceptable to the concerned decision makers,who were under considerable pressure frommany competing scientific domains to chooseeconomically much more attractive NCCRs.

Main findings and conclusionsby stakeholder groups

Impacts on northern researchers / researchinstitutions Some members of the Module 7 Expert Groupand parties within the SNSF have changed theirnegative attitude with regard to North-South col-laborative research, for example by realising thatpartners in developing countries do have theintellectual capacity to participate in researchactivities, and that this kind of research is oftencarried out under very difficult and demandingsituations and working conditions.

Impacts on southern researchers / researchinstitutions Given that Swiss project leaders repeatedly wentto the field for both regular visits and their ownfield work, some high-ranking Southern partnerswere forced or motivated to go to the field (again)themselves. This in turn has encouraged or«forced» their collaborators (e.g. MSc or PhDcandidates) to go to the field as well in order toencounter reality. Through this process «outdoorresearch» was made acceptable (again). Thisexposure to field reality has greatly contributed tobetter personal understanding of the real-life sit-uation of concerned populations on the part ofresearchers who were used to doing research«on» and «for» but not «with» the population.Through the introduction of participatory, trans-disciplinary methodologies by Swiss partners theend-users were given an active role in theresearch. The Southern researchers were thusstimulated to start doing research «with» the tar-get groups.


44 Impacts on policy and decision makers Module 7 has helped to raise awareness of such(development oriented collaborative) research. Ithas strengthened the role and the importance ofthe KFPE. Together with the increased impor-tance of collaborative research demonstrated atthe international level, to tackle issues in theSouth and East, this paved the way to the stageof having enough weight to be successful in thecompetition for new NCCRs.

Impacts on development practitioners This is probably where the least impact has beenachieved so far in Switzerland. This is most likelydue to a clearly insufficient and non-adequate wayof communication and valorisation of the researchfindings relevant to development practice.It is, however, remarkable that the impact seemsto be much greater in the South, where in vari-ous cases representatives of administrations,governments, local NGOs and even internationalorganisations have acknowledged and evenadopted or incorporated some of the findings andachievements of certain projects. This was partic-ularly the case for the project in Jinja (Uganda)14

where the World Bank became interested inrepeating the approach around Lake Victoria.

Shortcomings impeding (better) impact

Analysis of the case study has shown that inmost instances no impacts had been planned atall. However, in those cases where impactsoccurred or could have occurred, some conclu-sions regarding best practices can be drawn.

Delayed or missing publications Example: The final project publication of the«Rural Livelihood Strategies» (RLS) project (seeCase Study 2) with the so-called «9-SquareMandala» as its core product – of use as a pow-erful working tool to improve the design andimplementation of rural development program-

mes and projects – appeared only years after thetermination of the project (2004 instead of 2001).The time elapsed must be considered a loss,since timely publication could have triggered po-tential benefits by making conclusions, findings,etc. available to a broader concerned audience.

Missing or insufficient (rudimentary)communication Example: Much progress was made in method-ological approaches to tackling the various envi-ronmental issues dealt with by the various pro-jects of Module 7. However, most of these werenever properly put down on paper and nevercommunicated, and hence never made accessi-ble to others. Besides preventing further impactsthrough their application, this also led to the gen-eral impression that only little or no progress hasbeen achieved at all.

Lack of interest in field contact andfield research It appears that many Southern research partnersat first resisted going to the field, pretending toknow reality well enough or not to have enoughtime for such «inferior» activities. Surprisingly,this was also true in a few cases for the formalproject leaders from Switzerland, who never tookthe necessary time to pay the research area(s) inthe South a single visit! This hampered mutualcommitment and shed a strange light on thenotion of collaborative research on the part ofNorthern project leaders.

Enabling factors, favourable circumstancesand best practices

From this case study, a set of four crucial enab-ling factors or favourable circumstances can bederived, summarised in the formula C4:• Commitment: Projects that could build on

strong personal, individual and also stronginstitutional commitment proved capable of

14«Use and Protection of Water Resources in Lake Victoria through Sustainable Management of Wetland-Ecotones’ –project carried out by the University of Zurich (Switzerland) and the Fisheries Research Institute (FIRI) belonging to theNational Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO) of Uganda.

CASE STUDIESPART IV

45generating more positive impacts; most of thepeople in these projects were open and will-ing to go beyond the traditional tasks of theirresearch activities, thus actively encouraginga dialogue with concerned policymakers thatpaved the way for subsequent impact(s).

• Continuity: Projects where the key personsremained for the duration of the projectappeared to generate more positive impacts,as their networks and spheres of influence,through the process of confidence building,positively affected the generation of desiredimpacts.

• Competence: Despite the scepticism of vari-ous stakeholder groups (end-users as well aspolicymakers or development practitioners)with regard to the usefulness of research fortheir concerns, convincing field competenceamong researchers who stayed in the field fora long time and had direct contact with thelocal population and authorities triggered achange in attitude and opened doors forimpacts in many instances.

• Complementarity: Cases in which the involvedpartners could build on and make use ofcomplementary capacities or competencesproved to be most fruitful when working in acontext of applied and development-orientedresearch. Example: researchers contributedtheir conceptual approaches, NGOs con-tributed through their excellent contacts andtrust anchored in the local population, andadministrators used their contacts to influen-tial policymakers. This complementarity wasfinally acknowledged by all the involved part-ners, in particular by the end-users and theresearchers themselves. It had a positiveinfluence on desired impacts.

When surveying all Module 7 projects, a numberof best practices or enabling factors positivelyaffecting the desired impacts can be derived.These consist in particular of:– Participatory research approach: transdiscipli-

nary, multi-level multi-stakeholder approach-es facilitate the trickle-down effect of theresearch process, generating new under-

standings for all those actively involved. Itthen becomes less difficult to convince con-cerned decision makers or directly affectedstakeholder groups to adopt measures forimproving a certain situation.

– High communication and intercultural compe-tence: the communication skills needed tosuccessfully apply such a demandingresearch approach considerably influencethe success of the project, not only withregard to scientific results but to all otheraspects – impacts in particular. A flair for pro-moting discussion among stakeholder groupsthat have never met before, raising relevantquestions in a participatory way, knowing howto go about touching on delicate issues andhow to support solution-finding in a groupprocess, are key elements for improvedimpacts at all levels.

– Documentation and sound knowledge manage-ment: the collection, analysis and storage ofinformation of various kinds and its active useor dissemination plays a crucial role in thesuccess of a partnership project in whichmany persons and institutions collaborate.This aspect is often neglected and not takeninto consideration when preparing the budg-et. Sound knowledge management and doc-umentation may also help in overcomingeventual discontinuities in personnel over thelifetime of a project or programme.

Lessons learned

The following lessons learned concern bothinvolved researchers and responsible donors orfunding institutions, since many of the activitiesproposed should be performed jointly, at least inpart.• More direct contact with field reality: All per-

sons actively involved and responsible inparticular for judging and evaluating North-South research partnerships should (regu-larly) get in direct contact with the relevantproject or programme locations, in order tobecome familiar with the real, concrete con-text(s).


46 • Better documentation, reporting and commu-nication: Each programme or project mustjointly develop an appropriate reporting, doc-umentation and communication strategy,including an action plan that is as proactiveand transparent as possible – not least toavoid unnecessary tensions or conflicts.

• For each new collaborative programme orproject an appropriate monitoring and evalu-ation (M&E) system should be jointly elabo-rated at an early stage, to allow assessment ofwork in progress and to take corrective meas-ures if necessary. There must be a strongcommitment to make proper use of this M&Eby all concerned.

• For any new programme or project, thedesired or expected impacts should be dis-cussed, defined and agreed upon at a veryearly stage; corresponding meaningful indica-tors have to be identified, and an appropriateevaluation of the impacts must be secured.

• In order to create a favourable environmentcontributing to the achievement of the target-ed impacts, the critical persons and institu-tions involved in a collaborative programmeor project should clearly state their commit-ment to remain affiliated with the activity for aminimum period of time. This might besecured through clear and negotiated ToRsand corresponding contracts.

• Each programme or project has to make surethat sufficient and appropriate feedback isgiven to the stakeholders involved in theresearch activity; a modest annual budget forsome concrete development support to thelocal communities involved could be plannedand put at their disposal for immediateactions to satisfy expectations for immediatesupport.

• In each programme or project the requestedhuman capacities and the necessary time foradministration, coordination and manage-ment have to be foreseen; these correspon-ding tasks should be shared equally amongthe partners whenever possible.

Based on experience in the SPP-E, it is best toinclude individual capacity building schemes inthe goal of institutional capacity building, inorder to be more efficient and cost effective. Thismeans that one and the same funding schemeshould tackle various domains simultaneously,thus increasing the impact and fostering the sus-tainability of capacity building.

CASE STUDIESPART IV

47

Phases of research

During the exploratory phase of the researchproject (1994–1996), the involved institutionstogether designed a research outline to facilitatebetter understanding of farmer’s decision-mak-ing processes regarding the use of natural resour-ces in the context of their livelihood systems.

Topics studied• Emerging rural leadership and sustainable

management of natural resources• Understanding livelihoods as complex

wholes• Reality and reflections: gender and leader-

ship for sustainable natural resource man-agement

• Role of non-economic motivation• From «marey» to market: changing faces

of rural livelihood systems• The threshing floor disappears: RLSystem

in transition• Appropriateness of agricultural technolo-

gies • The «real realities» of life: exploring RLS

from a gender perspective • Core issues in the agrarian economy and

society of Karnataka• Rural-urban linkages• Cross-ploughed field• Participatory research on rural livelihood:

sharing research findings for local em-powerment

Case Study 2: Indo-Swiss Research Partnership Project(SPP-E / Module 7) – A Southern Perspective

by Smita Premchander15, Southern researchpartner in the project and Chairperson, Sampark(compiled by Jacqueline Schmid)

Background and objectives of the research

In the early 1990s, a research effort emergedfrom a sectoral strategy formulated by the SwissAgency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)for sustainable land-use in semi-arid areas inIndia. This research project, called «Indo-SwissResearch Project on Rural Livelihood Systemsand Sustainable Natural Resource Managementin Semi-arid Areas of India» (hereafter referredto as the RLS-Project), was started with the aimof shaping SDC’s development assistance so asto contribute significantly and effectively toIndia’s own development efforts in land-useimprovement16. The goal of the applied researchwas to design and implement innovative devel-opment approaches that would strengthen theself-help capacity of farm households and com-munities for more sustainable management ofnatural resources. Specific objectives included:building capacities for interdisciplinary researchand training, providing research findings on rurallivelihood systems (RLS), and developing andtesting participatory research methods. This re-search was conducted from 1994 to 1999 in thesemi-arid regions of Gujarat and Karnataka, bythree partner institutions in India, and one part-ner organisation in Switzerland17.

15http://www.kfpe.ch/download/Paper_Smita_Cairo.pdf16The research was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (under Module 7: Environment and Developmentof the Priority Programme «Environment»), jointly with the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)17Sampark is an NGO working for poverty alleviation and women’s empowerment based in Bangalore.The Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC) is an academic institution based in Bangalore.The Institute of Rural Management, Anand (IRMA) is an academic organisation, based in Gujarat.The Post-Graduate Programme on Developing Countries (NADEL) is a unit of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,Zurich (ETHZ), Switzerland.


48

Figure 6: A pronounced expert attitude acts as a barrier in communication and collaboration.Only if going beyond such an attitude, true partnerships can develop and research and actionbecome more effective. (Ramesh Kalkur, Sampark 2001)

CASE STUDIESPART IV

49During the field research phase (1996–1999),various scientists conducted research on differ-ent aspects of the livelihood systems. All part-ners used a participatory and gender sensitiveapproach.

Impacts seen from a Southern perspective

The project came to an end in 1999, and thusoffers the opportunity of assessing its impactafter some time has elapsed. Impacts wereanalysed using the impact matrix developed bythe IAS Working Group, and extended to an addi-tional Domain D dealing with more generalaspects of partnerships.The impact of the RLS project is described in thefollowing paragraphs, based on discussions withthe Southern partners and documents providedby them.

Knowledge and attitudes Conceptual approaches such as the «NineSquare Mandala Framework» developed in theRLS project18 are currently used by NGOs anddevelopment agencies (SDC in India) for liveli-hood assessments. This framework has nowfound flexible use, ranging from understandinglivelihood systems, selecting beneficiaries, iden-tifying inputs and monitoring indicators, to theanalysis of impacts of development interven-tions. This, and other conceptual approachesdeveloped through new knowledge, have animpact on development interventions.Change of attitudes at the level of the re-searchers: All researchers in the RLS project feltthat they had developed greater confidence inmicro and ground (field) level research, and hadestablished clearly for themselves the value ofqualitative research and participatory methods,giving credence to people’s perceptions, prac-tices and indigenous knowledge . Attitudestowards gender relations shifted a little, but con-viction about the value of gender-sensitive

research was unanimous, reflected in the factthat many researchers did not incorporate gen-der aspects in their research . The institu-tions involved more explicitly recognized thevalue of people-oriented research and the needfor dissemination of results to concerned com-munities, as well as a wider audience ofresearchers, development practitioners and poli-cymakers .

Capacity building In addition to the research activities as such,national and international workshops, and train-ing courses took place. Interaction with Swisspartners continued through seminars and lec-ture-sessions by them as well as visits by Swissstudents to Indian institutions . Also, indi-vidual and institutional capacity building was val-orised through publications in external journalsand books (9), and in-house publications (19).

Individual capacity building All researchers involved in the project felt that ithad significantly enhanced their capacities to doparticipatory, inter-disciplinary and collaborativeresearch. They had learned to conduct high-level qualitative research, and had also learnedabout research methods and concept develop-ment. They stated that they had built up capaci-ties to do independent research. Many fieldresearchers moved on to become independentheads of research projects, and two completeddoctoral programmes during the project. Theircapacities were recognized by external organiza-tions as well as their own institutions, throughinvitations to design programmes and teach infields concerned with participatory research andrural livelihood systems, e.g. by organizationssuch as SDC in India, the World Bank, DANIDA,DFID and the Indian government.

18 A conceptual framework for the integrated and holistic approach to understanding RLS, which was developed in theRLS project


50 Institutional capacity building and impacton teaching methods The research partnership had an impact onteaching methods through the inclusion ofSustainable Rural Livelihood Systems in teach-ing programmes, including practical experienceand field-visits to research sites and NGOs. Institution building in the three institutionsinvolved in the RLS project was not uniform.Nevertheless, each of them made remarkablechanges including: Developing expertise in liveli-hoods analysis, community organisation, leader-ship and income generation. The three institu-tions received recognition for this in the form oftraining and other project support assignmentsfrom the government and donors, in large proj-ects that benefit a large segment of the poor.New research was initiated on the topics select-ed. Some institutional procedures were relaxed,as the project funding was established under aseparate head. This became the practice for col-laboration in other projects at the institution.Research projects are now designed to meetresearch needs rather than the funding agency'sproposal. A development agenda includingexpected impacts was developed by one of theinstitutions. International recognition led tostronger involvement in aid initiatives.

Policy level impact • Training and advisory support by IRMA in the

state of Andhra Pradesh, where strategies forimprovement of livelihoods are now plannedin a holistic manner. This has a positive influ-ence on planning and implementing majorprogrammes for the poor.

• Contribution by Sampark to the PlanningCommission (through a consultant to DFID),at the time of formulation of the Tenth FiveYear Plan of the Ministry of Agriculture, inpolicies and programmes for women-in-agri-culture.

• Efforts by SDC in India to disseminate andutilize the findings of the RLS research as ref-erence material for designing and implement-ing their own livelihood projects, as well asusing the framework to assess projects sup-ported by SDC.

End-user benefits The use of participatory research methods had asignificant impact on people’s own understand-ing and articulation of their livelihoods. Theygained several new perspectives, on issues suchas gender, leadership, agricultural production,migration and natural resource management.The process of participatory research was itselfan empowering process, as information wasanalysed and communicated through villagelevel exercises . The two feedback sessionsconducted at village level not only involved peo-ple in the validation and understanding of theirown situation, but also evoked responses interms of demands for more advice, training andcontinued support . In the case of Sampark,a field project was started in the villages wherethe research was conducted. The project cur-rently reaches 1700 women in 40 villagesthrough micro finance; women have saved morethan two million rupees ( USD 400,000), learntto manage their savings and get external creditfrom banks and other sources, and made pro-ductive investments. For the next phase of field-work, a people’s forum has been started for nat-ural resource management at village level.

Factors affecting impact

In analysing the process that brings aboutimpact, there are several factors that either facil-itate or inhibit impact; these have been termed«contributors» and «inhibitors». These factorsmay relate to North-South and South-Southaspects of partnerships, or may relate to intra-institutional processes, within the teams of eachinstitution. Some contributors and inhibitorsexperienced during the RLS partnership aredescribed in the following paragraphs.

Direct contact with the community Across the board, in all partner institutions andteams, the value of field visits was recognized.These help to create relationships with peopleand among research teams, change attitudesand trigger changes in behaviour. Contact withpeople also included feedback exercises, and

CASE STUDIESPART IV

51this resulted not only in validation of findings butfollow up for capacity building, analysis andaction at community level.

Mutual learning platform All institutional partners, with their full researchteams, formed an RLS Forum, which met at leasttwice every year. These visits were often preced-ed by field visits by inter-institutional teams,often including Northern partners. The Forumprovided scope for sharing experiences onresearch methods, approaches, findings, andconclusions and dissemination of research anddevelopment community outside the researchproject. There was an undercurrent of competitionbetween different researchers, and this resultedin inadequate support for innovative and newapproaches from within the Forum . Oftenresearchers perceived that this attitude changedonly after someone outside the Forum acknowl-edged the value of innovative research. However,the strengths and benefits of the Forum far out-weighed the occasionally negative processes.

«Expert» attitude Each researcher considered himself or herselfan «expert» in some field, be it agriculture,forestry, gender, or occupational diversification.This attitude inhibited researchers from relatingto others, thus engagement in one another’s re-search was very limited. Research would havebeen more fruitful, had it been possible to con-stitute a larger number of joint research teams.

Fears vis-a-vis new / unknown fields ofcompetences Fear, anxiety and prejudice not only limited thequality of the partnerships, but also influencedopinions about the research of others. Gender-related research often led scientists to becomeinvolved with gender-related difficulties, andsuch emotion was seen as detracting from objec-tivity. It was only during the second phase of theproject that emotionally moving experienceswere recognized as powerful agents of change,and as positive influences, both in research anddevelopment.

Prejudices and inter-institutional biases The project involved research and academicinstitutions as well as NGOs. During the firstphase of research, the research carried out byacademic institutions was valued more highlythan that of NGOs. This perception was fosteredby the attitudes of the Northern donors.Extraeffort was required by NGOs to prove thevalue of their contribution to the research part-nership. Such perceptions can result in financialinequities, especially as academic and researchinstitutions already have greater governmentsupport than NGOs do. There was a shift in atti-tudes during the project period, and towards theend of the project, the value of NGOs, as institu-tions capable of «research plus action», was rec-ognized both in terms of work and financial allo-cations .

Speaking the right languageHaving an impact at different levels requiresspeaking the language of those that one seeks toinfluence. For instance, most members of theRLS Forum felt that they could have had muchgreater policy level impact. They felt that thoughthey had learnt to speak the language of theresearchers, they did not speak the language ofpolicy-makers.


52

by Daniel Maselli, former member of the SPP-EExpert Group, senior researcher19

History

The following description attempts to expose thevarious impacts of a project called «ConcertedManagement of the Urban Environment: PublicPolicies and Local Dynamics in IntermediaryCities – the Case of Mingora20, North-WesternFrontier Province, Pakistan». It is one project inthe so-called «Module 7 Environment &Development», comprising a variety of researchpartnerships between Swiss and Southern insti-tutions (see Case Study 1).During the first phase (1994–1996) the projectwas conceived as a comparative study of threeintermediate cities located on three differentcontinents (Latin America, Africa and SouthAsia). The initial project intended to developpolicies for sustainable environmental develop-ment; it was based on the following explicithypothesis:

Intermediate cities offer a better ground fordeveloping policies for sustainable environ-mental development than large cities («mega-cities») as participatory processes can moreeasily take place.

The scale of small and intermediate cities wasalso assumed to be more appropriate for imple-menting environmental policies, as differentstakeholders might more easily be broughttogether. Moreover, intermediate cities havebecome increasingly important as they arehotspots of population growth in the developingworld. This hypothesis was rejected after the firstphase of the project, as it appeared that environ-mental policies had to be developed in large

cities in order to maintain economic activity andsecure the functioning of urban systems. Thiswas not the case in small and intermediate cities,where environmental concerns were left to thelocal political will and power – provided theyexisted. When the 18 initial Module 7 projectswere reduced to 14 and arranged in 3 groups forthe second phase (1997–2000), only Mingorawas retained as a case study in the project pre-sented by the Expert Group.

Context

When the project started, Mingora – a bastion ofthe fundamentalist Islamic movement in theNorth-Western Frontier Province of Pakistan –had already experienced about 15 years withoutelected local authorities (executive power). Thetown was therefore characterised by complete«urban and environmental anarchy».Under these circumstances, an approach aim-ing to let representatives of society at large par-ticipate actively in the process of policy elabora-tion and implementation was truly innovative andchallenged many actors concerned. Forresearchers, this constellation was at the sametime an odd situation, a real challenge and anopportunity to apply participatory research in avery sensitive socio-political context. A younglocal NGO known as the Environmental Protec-tion Society (EPS) and composed of independ-ent professionals – mainly doctors, architectsand teachers – was thus suddenly pushed intothe role of replacing missing local authorities inthe formal political system. The research projectthus became an external agent for local develop-ment. This was tempting and fascinating, butvery demanding at the same time.

Case Study 3: Urban Environment Management of IntermediateCities – The Case of Mingora (SPP-E / Module 7)

19Centre for Development & Environment (CDE), University of Berne (www.cde.unibe.ch); see Case Study 120also called «Saïdu Sharif»

CASE STUDIESPART IV

53

21Traditional meeting where important decisions are made and family quarrels and tribal disputes are amicably resolved.

Methodological approach

The project adopted – via EPS – the method-ological approach of organising informal stake-holder roundtables bringing together various –and of course not seldom conflicting – interestgroups concerned with environmental issues inMingora city. These roundtables offered uniqueopportunities to gather, get to know each other,discuss, seek solutions, and finally begin jointdevelopment of possible urban environmentalplanning . This set-up corresponded to amulti-level multi-stakeholder approach throughwhich the traditional negotiation system of the«jirga»21 was revivified. All steps were thoroughlydocumented and additional base informationcollected in order to allow a decision-makingbased on sound knowledge .

Institutional and personal setup

The project was originally proposed by theGraduate Institute of Development Studies(IUED, linked to the University of Geneva,Switzerland) which tried to find an appropriatelocal partner institution for joint implementationof the project in Mingora. Thus EPS was iden-tified and proposed via a contact person atthe Sustainable Development Planning Institute,a private research institution based in Islama-bad. Local students from the Department ofGeography of the University of Peshawar and theTechnical University of Peshawar were associat-ed as MSc candidates.During Phase 2 the project encountered majorproblems but fortunately received critical sup-port from another prestigious «local» NGO –the Orangi Pilot Project (OPP) based in Karachiand led by a charismatic and very competentleader in urban issues affiliated with theDepartment of Architecture at Dawood College.For Phase 2 a local «urban observatory andurban resources office» for the «Urban Planningand Management Support Program» was creat-ed in Mingora .

Main constraints and/or difficulties encountered(and means to overcome them)

In Pakistan / the South• There was no experienced institutional/indi-

vidual partner to work with . Thereforeefforts at coaching support by the Northernpartner were much greater than expectedand planned – both in terms of time andfinancial means.

• The very particular situation of Mingora, a citywithout an elected executive power, createdsome difficulties but offered special opportu-nities, too.

• The sudden and long-term illness of the mainresponsible Southern coordinator for Phase 2– who had become the «collective local mem-ory» of the project – created a very delicatesituation with regard to accessibility to resultsand the production of scientific reports .Many additional efforts were necessary topartially overcome this odd situation.

• Despite the first comprehensive monographon Mingora City and the Swat Valley pro-duced in English by the project, no real sus-tainable impacts were achieved at the localinstitutional academic level. This was mainlydue to a lack of funds, time and planning –a common feature for most of the Module 7projects . Both EPS and the electedmunicipality of Mingora requested translationof the monograph into Urdu. After the projectended, the new NGO «Hujra» offered totranslate the book, while the Swiss NationalScience Foundation agreed to pay the addi-tional printing costs . This helped to cor-rect a somewhat unsatisfactory situation, asonly the Urdu version of the monographcould be used in the curricula of the studentsat both universities of Peshawar. Moreover,it also serves as an information source for(m)any other interested and/or concernedsocial entities in the area.

• Proper accounting of expenditures in/for theSouth was not provided by the local partners;this led to unproductive tensions .

Clear terms of reference with regard to budget-ing / budget allocation, as well as overall account-ability, are a prerequisite for a balanced and faircollaboration .

In Switzerland / the North• The initiators of the project withdrew for

Phase 2 when further funding was denied forthe two other case studies from Latin Americaand Africa . This suddenly left the remainingassociated Swiss researcher as the soleresponsible party in/from the North. Given thefact that his (teaching) assignment at theIUED was only 10%, the workload of the proj-ect exceeded by far the time theoreticallyavailable and created an ambiguous anduncomfortable situation .

• The core competence of the newly respon-sible Swiss researcher was mainly limited tothe field of architecture and urban environ-ment, while this role increasingly required othercompetences such as moderation and media-tion skills in particular. This was too deman-ding at times for the persons involved .

Impacts in Pakistan / the South

Empowerment and competence building of EPStopped by new assignments The project led to both direct and indirectempowerment and competence building in thestill young and not yet recognised NGO EPS,founded in 1994 (creation of a positive ‘image’).While at the beginning no contacts existed withthe local administration, or with the hotel andtransport lobby, many contacts where estab-lished, and confidence and trust were graduallyinstalled. This materialised in a series of man-dates given to EPS after the termination of theproject, culminating in assigning the task ofdeveloping a transportation master plan forMingora in 2003.

Creation of a new NGO These mandates, however, transformed EPSfrom an NGO initially concerned purely withadvocacy to a sort of private consulting compa-

ny, working both for national and internationalorganisations. Considering the fact that suchmandates are frequently given to foreign(Northern) «experts» who seldom stay longenough to be very familiar with the context andwho are much more expensive, this metamor-phosis must be considered as something posi-tive. However, this shift towards more economicand profit-oriented activity disturbed some of theformer (initial) EPS members. Being concernedabout the independent advocacy function ofEPS, they founded a new NGO called Hujra(«Holistic Understanding for Justified Research& Action») which became more active in therural areas surrounding Mingora. Their leadercan be considered as the major «pearl» discov-ered during the project.

Awareness raising among importantstakeholder groups The regularly initiated roundtables provided thenecessary platform for informal meetings,debates, discussions, new opinion making andtrust building . While awareness of urbanenvironmental problems was non-existent withinlarge portions of the society before the project,understanding and concern grew enormously,especially among targeted stakeholder groupsand their representatives. This was particularlytrue for the hotel and transportation lobby ofMingora, whose members previously perceivedthe need for environmental action only in theplanting of trees.

Financing of implementation measureswith positive and negative effects

This led to a pro-active and experimentalattitude among the hotel lobby, which decided tofinance the construction, installation and opera-tion of novel dustbins and waste containers inMingora to reduce garbage deposits all over thecity’s territory! The idea was implemented by EPSand led to a visibly cleaner city. However, noappropriate public deposit space for the wastecollected was available outside Mingora. Hencethe hotel lobby provided a private area. Unfor-tunately, this basically well-intended action wasnot accompanied by corresponding technical


54

CASE STUDIESPART IV

55support and led to serious health problemsaffecting animals and children living around thedust dump. This was a negative, undesired andunintentional impact, which required profession-al technical assistance to find a solution. Thus anunplanned MSc project at IUED was launched toanalyse and tackle this issue.

Launching of a parallel women’s roundtableseries The organisation of an international workshop onurban environmental issues by the project inMingora city in spring 1999 was used to proposethat local stakeholders, and in particular officialprovincial representatives, launch a second par-allel roundtable for women . This very un-usual and rather «taboo» proposal voiced inten-tionally during the workshop was successfullyimplemented, and a series of at least four wo-men’s roundtables took place in Mingora after-wards. This made it possible for an importantstakeholder group that had been neglected andexcluded so far to be activated and included inpolicy activities.

Initiation of South-South collaboration:training and backstopping support by anexperienced NGO The same international workshop introducedEPS to representatives of the Orangi Pilot Pro-ject, a very successful and internationally re-nowned NGO based in Karachi. Acknowledgingthe missing competences of EPS, the charismat-ic leader of OPP offered to train some membersin Karachi in the field of sanitation planning andadministrative management and to providebackstopping support to the project as a whole.Given the fact that the key person at EPS fell illshortly after the workshop, this strong personalcommitment was crucial in keeping theproject from collapsing over the following twoyears until the person recovered.

Creation of CBOs and implementationof sanitation measures At the beginning of the project there were noCBOs in Mingora, while at the end 6 CBOs (outof a total of 13 new CBOs created) were address-

ing environmental issues. The project had thusmanaged to mobilise the most affected stake-holders – the local communities – to organisethemselves with a view to improving their environ-mental living conditions . While the 1st CBOcalled «Bangladesh» collapsed due to politicalreasons, three of the 6 CBOs actively imple-mented sanitation and sewage installations intheir streets. These initiatives were supported bythe OPP and are still going on.

Impacts in Switzerland / the North

Organisation of a workshop After termination of the project, the responsibleSwiss official, who had not been very familiarwith the North-Western Frontier Province inPakistan before, was asked to organise an inter-national workshop on «the Political Situation inNorth-Western Frontier Province (Pakistan),Afghanistan and Kashmir» in March 2003,together with the «Research Centre for SouthAsia» (a private NGO based in Geneva).

Advice to the South Asia Group of the EU The responsible Swiss official was also invited bythe European Community in Brussels to informand advise the «South Asia Group» in 2003, whichlater on organised an exploratory mission for somemembers of the Parliament to northern Pakistan.

Replication of the project process in Kigali The responsible Swiss official was asked tolaunch a similar project in Kigali (Rwanda), whichis currently going on based on a slightly adaptedmethodology.

Advice for Kabul development master plan The responsible Swiss official was also asked toprovide support for development of a master planfor the reconstruction of Kabul, Afghanistan.

Conclusions

The following general conclusions can bederived from the case study analysed:• (Sustainable scientific) Institutional capacity

building is not achievable as a mere side-effect of collaborative research projects. Itneeds special attention and sufficient humanand financial resources over a reasonably longperiod of time . However, this doesn’tnecessarily mean huge amounts of money.

• The appropriate collection, storage, (long-term) maintenance (and eventually periodicup-dating) and sharing of information anddata is crucial for the success of a collabora-tive research project (documentation aspect)

. This applies in particular to primarydata collected during field work. A possibleway of doing this could be to set up a jointlydesigned electronic database, eventuallyavailable to all involved partners via a (pass-word protected) homepage.

• High personal and continuous commitment –combined if possible with empathy – amongall key partners involved in a research projectis crucial for keeping motivation and partici-pation high and for producing satisfactoryresults . Moreover, it may help to makethe collaboration and the relationship lastbeyond the duration of project funding.

• It is worth investing sufficient time to identifythe right, reliable and competent partner,both at the individual and institutional levels

. This frequently requires a certain pres-ence on the spot, especially if there is no pre-vious experience or relationship to build upon.

• Working in a context of great need for devel-opment action where little or no research hasbeen carried out so far favours the potentialfor more development-oriented impacts thanacademic oriented impacts (hypothesis). Thishas to be taken into consideration whendesigning the project and when negotiatingthe expectations of the donors / funding insti-tutions.

• For an effective dissemination of results, aswell as continued public reporting on re-search, specific activities have to be planned

. This includes scientific journals whichpublish peer-reviewed articles22, reports innewspapers, radio and television broadcast-ing etc.


56

22Since the time elapsing between the submission of a paper and its publication frequently is around one year, early plan-ning of this kind of dissemination effort is required.

CASE STUDIESPART IV

57

by Fernando Loayza, Consultant of GDN forGRP23 (compiled jointly with Jon-Andri Lys)

In the first phase, six regions of the world – LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, South SaharanAfrica, Middle East and North Africa, East Asia,South Asia, Eastern Europe and the Com-monwealth of Independent States – were thefocus of four thematic regional studies analysingthe sources of growth: (i), growth and markets(ii), microeconomic determinants of growth (iii),and the political economy of growth (iv). Forty-sixauthors drawn from all six regions participated inthis initial phase. Regional coordinating institu-tions25 commissioned the studies covering thefour thematic areas. The contracted authors / re-searchers worked with one another as well aswith eminent economists designated to providetechnical assistance, review papers, and partici-pate in workshops26 . At the same time, the«help-desk» data service at the World Bank facil-itated access to the data needed by the authorsdoing thematic regional studies.These studies provided a framework for theexploration of key issues at country level. As aresult, the second phase of the project turnedfrom broad growth themes to in-depth analysis ofgrowth in about 70 developing and transitioncountries. The responsibility for the organizationof the second phase of the GRP rested with theregional networks and coordinating institutionswhich implemented phase 1 . They design-ed and carried out the research competition forthe country studies, held regional workshops tolaunch them, and were responsible for the finalregional reviews, including a regional synthesis

Case Study 4: Participatory Impact Assessment of the GlobalResearch Project on Explaining Growth

Remark: the following case study was evaluat-ed as part of a planned evaluation procedureby the GDN. This provided an opportunity forthe IAS to increase the variety of partnershipsby including a type where the degree ofinvolvement of the partners and the durationare limited, thus helping to enhance the gen-eral understanding of mechanisms that pro-mote desired impacts of research partner-ships.

Background

The Global Research Project (GRP) onExplaining Growth was the first project of theGlobal Development Network (GDN)24 to unite 7regions and around 70 countries across thedeveloping and transition worlds under a com-mon research objective and methodology. It was,therefore, a pioneer project and part of a mutuallearning and experimental process . TheGRP adopted a collaborative method of inquiry,twinning national researchers from developingand transition countries with internationally rec-ognized development specialists around theworld. Its main objective was to compile the mostcomprehensive assessment of economic growthin these countries.

23http://www.kfpe.ch/key_activities/impact_study/content.html24GDN is an evolving network of research and policy institutes working together to address problems of national andregional development. GDN links research institutes from more than 100 countries and 10 regions of the world. It sup-ports multidisciplinary research and mobilizes resources worldwide.25African Economic Research Consortium (South Sahara), Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education(Eastern Europe), East Asian Development Network, Economic Education and Research Consortium (former SovietUnion), Economic Research Forum (Middle East and North Africa), Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association,and South Asia Network of Economic Institutes.26Among the resource persons were Angus Deaton of Princeton University, and the Nobel laureates Robert Solow of theMassachusetts Institute of Technology, and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University. They were available for each particu-lar theme, as well as for those covering each region.

paper. Regional coordinators, in addition, provid-ed data, established electronic help desks, andassembled a team of advisors or resource per-sons to assist country authors. For the most part,resource persons were highly regarded econo-mists from the region who, in several cases, hadparticipated as authors in the first phase of theGRP. Their tasks were: (i) to attend the openingof regional workshops; (ii) attend the mid-termproject workshop held in Rio de Janeiro inDecember 2001; (iii) comment on the terms ofreference and help to draft country strategies forundertaking the studies; (iv) comment on themid-term report and final drafts; and (v) answerspecific questions by electronic mail.

Within the IAS, the GRP was analysed applyingparticipatory impact assessment (PIA) methodol-ogy. This was based on a process of stakeholderconsultation via a web-based survey27.

Main findings

Research qualityThe regional thematic reviews provided usefulinsights into the literature on growth; they werefavourably evaluated by the InternationalEconomics Association. New issues in the liter-ature on economic growth were explored in thereviews on the «microeconomics of growth» and«markets and growth».

Capacity building Arguably, the GRP’s greatest impact was build-ing individual research capacity in developingand transition countries. Researchers from thosecountries benefited from participating in aninternational project and from regional and glob-al exposure. Learning and upgrading of researchskills also resulted from research partnershipsbetween local economists with in-depth localknowledge and those familiar with general mod-

ern economic analysis. Backstopping and sup-port provided by regional specialists or special-ists from industrialized countries to the countryteams was a critical element of success .Furthermore, most researchers acknowledgethat participating in the GRP enhanced theirteaching skills.

Policy influence Some time needs to elapse after project comple-tion before policy influence can be evaluated. Asthe GRP was evaluated during its closure stage,this impact could not be assessed. However,a weakness of the GRP was to postpone the ad-option of a dissemination strategy addressed tothe broader policy and development communityuntil research activities were completed .Dissemination followed a traditional approach,making exclusive use of workshops, confer-ences, and printed and electronic publications.Publication and convocation activities explicitlytargeted at policy-makers and developmentpractitioners were not considered by the region-al coordinating institutions when the evaluationwas carried out.

Lessons learnt

Combining surveys and case studiesFor GDN’s global research projects, the GRP on«explaining economic growth» demonstrated theeffectiveness of combining case study analysis atcountry level with surveys at regional level pro-viding thematic reviews, making it possible tosituate the national studies in a regional context.The assessment highlighted, the need to fine-tune the survey findings and the regional calls forcountry study proposals, in order to select thecountry studies more efficiently. To this end, thesurveys’ main outcomes must• provide an explanatory framework to be test-

ed in the country studies;


58

27The GRP stakeholders were consulted twice. First, they were consulted on the questions, indicators and criteria to beapplied in the assessment. Second, they completed the questionnaires which included their suggestions on the assess-ment exercise. 17% and 33% of the GRP stakeholders participated in the first and second round of consultation respec-tively; this can be considered a fair participation rate for this type of exercise.

CASE STUDIESPART IV

59• identify those country studies that have thepotential to shed light on key topics when setagainst the explanatory framework devel-oped;

• set the criteria for choosing additional countrystudies that allow comparison or replication.

Accordingly, a two-tiered research competition isproposed, composed on the one hand of pro-posals for critical country studies and on theother hand of proposals for complementarycountry studies, with a potential to contribute toor challenge the explanatory framework devel-oped in the survey studies.

Focused research partnership The research partnership applied in the GRPcan be called a «focused» partnership, whereresearchers from developing and transitioncountries collaborated with each other and withrenowned researchers from industrialized coun-tries over a period of 6 to 12 months. The par-ticipation of researchers from industrializedcountries was limited to providing technicalassistance and giving advice at key stages duringthe research cycle, namely,• in the preparation of the work plan,• during the review of mid-term reports and

final drafts, and • in conferences or workshops where the mid-

term or final research results were presented.

The strategy for this kind of partnership consist-ed in (i) exposing researchers from developingand transition countries to a regional and globalexchange of ideas through workshops and con-ferences, and (ii) providing assistance to obtaindata, access to specialized information, and on-line technical assistance.These «focused» research partnerships appliedin the GRP were cost-effective in achieving theproject’s objective compared to more intensiveand broader partnerships where researcherswork together throughout the entire project. Inthe GRP, the resources allocated to supportresearchers from developing and transitioncountries were maximized, as less than 5% ofthe GRP’s budget was spent in covering thecosts of industrialized country partners. This was

crucial for the GRP’s feasibility and for support-ing more than 200 researchers across the devel-oping and transition world. Principal researchersalso attended at least one regional and one globalworkshop . The almost marginal costs of thepartners from industrialized countries made itpossible to foster collaboration among develop-ing and transition countries respectively .Usually a senior country-based scholar knowl-edgeable about institutions and a recent gradu-ate proficient in modern economic analysis weretwinned in a country team to optimize mutuallearning and to enhance individual and institu-tional research capabilities. The impact of these «focused» research partner-ships on research quality depended upon theexpertise and competences of the researchersinvolved. The impact both on capacity buildingand research quality was highest where theexpertise and competences of the researchersfrom developing and transition countries wereless developed . In such cases, the partner-ship contributed to significant individual capaci-ty building. Equally, researchers from industrial-ized countries who were less familiar with certainregions or countries benefited from the partner-ship by learning about institutional and historicalaspects of growth in the countries concerned.Participation in a GDN global research projectprovided many researchers with a strong incen-tive to travel abroad and exchange experienceswith foreign colleagues . This helped tostrengthen commitment to the studies as well asto the overall research project.

The assessment revealed three possible im-provements for similar projects in future:• avoid country teams composed exclusively of

nationals living and residing in industrializedcountries;

• optimise the benefits from workshops andconferences, e.g. by including internationalexperts different from the regional reviewers,to provide a critical review of the countrystudies from a global standpoint when hold-ing the mid-term global workshops;

• increase the participation of stakeholdersfrom developing and transition countries

when identifying the objectives and issues tobe covered by the project. This will increasethe relevance of the regional reviews andcountry studies. Example: the analyticalframework of the GRP could have better fittedthe transition region if stakeholders had beenmore broadly consulted during the initialidentification stage.

Electronic help desks The weakest component of the GRP implemen-tation strategy was the electronic help desks.This tool was used only very little or not at all,mainly because the regional coordinators werenot convinced of the potential advantages of awell-functioning electronic help desk. For elec-tronic help desks to be of greater use theyshould be available in all regions. The regionalcoordinators need to be convinced of the poten-tial advantages of a properly functioning elec-tronic help desk, and stakeholders should betrained in how to fully exploit electronic helpdesks and other E- or web-related technologiesfor facilitating development research. Consequently, for future global research proj-ects, it is suggested that GDN establish a techni-cal assistance and training program addressedto its regional partners, which aims at fullyexploiting the advantages of electronic helpdesks and web-related technologies .

NetworkingThe GRP was fully designed and funded by theGDN, but managed regionally by the regionalnetwork heads, which proved to be an effectiveorganizational approach . However, theassessment showed that some coordinationacross regional networks is needed. This canonly be provided appropriately by the GDN itself.On the other hand, greater participation by theregional networks in designing global projectsand more flexibility in managing the GDN grantscould have an important pay-off in terms of theregional relevance and quality of the researchoutput. Therefore, it is suggested that in futureglobal research projects, the GDN should havegreater coordinating power over the regional net-works, which, as compensation, should be

allowed greater participation in the design phaseand more flexibility in managing their fundsunder agreed parameters and procedures withthe GDN.


60

CASE STUDIESPART IV

61

by Philippe De Leener, Consultant for IFAD(compiled by Daniel Maselli)

Initial setting and preliminary remarks

In Niger29, an IFAD-funded rural developmentproject run by the Government provided thelearning environment for understanding thetransformation processes affecting partnershipswhen introducing a new participatory approach.The renewed collaboration ended up with deepchanges and generated impacts at several lev-els: in the Aguié District at village and inter-vil-lage level, in local and regional administration atpolicy level, and even in IFAD at the funding pol-icy level, paving the way for a new form of nego-tiating, formulating and implementing invest-ment projects. The related development activi-ties were directed as typical action-drivenresearch, thus combining social and technologi-cal experiments. Three detailed papers provideinformation and data on the various aspects ofthis case:

• The first one (written in 2001) provides infor-mation on how farmers, developers andresearchers (can) carry out joint researchand action30. The key point analyzed is theclose relationship between technological andsocial innovations and the key message is

that no technology improvement (change) ispossible without organizational improvement(change).

• The second addresses the issue of partner-ship. The main purpose is two-fold: (i) tounderstand the true nature of partnership,bringing together partners who frequentlyhold more or less very different visions of theworld, and (ii) to elicit basic mechanisms ofchange active both at personal and organisa-tional levels. Analysis of changes both at vil-lage and project administration level pavesthe way for better understanding of the gen-eration of impacts31.

• The third is devoted to exploring an approachlikely to trigger off deep transformation, atboth the personal and organisational levels.The paper explains how to practically carryout a so-called «self-reflexive analysis» ofone’s own professional activity. It discusseshow self-reflexivity can bring about changes,mainly at personal level32.

Key components of the partnership

In the present case the partnership setting iscomposed of a complex of several social cate-gories: farmers and village communities, exten-sion services (both private and public), theMinistry of Rural Development, several divisions

Case Study 5: Generating a Shift in Attitude and Behaviour –From Working «for» to Working «with» (IFAD28 Case Study)

28International Fund for Agricultural Development (http://www.ifad.org)29Maradi region, Aguié district30De Leener Philippe, 2001. From technology-based to people-oriented synergies: A case study on how the in-depthanalysis of a synergy between farmers, researchers and developers invites reconsideration of some basic perspectives onpro-poor agricultural research, Rome: IFAD / GFAR, Technical workshop on methodologies, organisation and manage-ment of Global Partnership Programmes, 9-10 October 2001, 19pp.31De Leener Philippe et al., 2003, How changes generate impacts: Towards attitudinal, behavioral and mental changesin the footsteps of research partnerships (ENDA / IFAD / NIGER), Part 1, Workshop «The Impact Assessment Study onResearch Partnership», KFPE-GDN, Cairo (Egypt), 15–16/01/2003, 30pp. (http://www.kfpe.ch/key_activities/impact_study/content.html)32De Leener Philippe 2003b, Self-analysis of professional activity as a tool for personal and organisational change (ENDA /IFAD / NIGER), Part 2, Workshop «The Impact Assessment Study on Research Partnership», KFPE-GDN, Cairo (Egypt),15–16/01/2003, 10pp. (http://www.kfpe.ch/key_activities/impact_study/content.html)

of IFAD (an international NGO based in Rome),researchers, academics, and students from theUniversities of Niamey (Niger) and Louvain (Bel-gium).The project encompassed different activity linesrelated to partnership activities: village-orientedresearch, joint actions in different fields (tech-nology, agriculture, micro-economy, and organi-sation), project management, decentralised andjoint planning/monitoring, and project cycle.

Main lessons regarding the generationof impact

The following lessons have been drawn fromexperience gained when considering how to bestpromote the generation of desired impacts:• The most fruitful way consists in letting the

staff actively participate in the analysis ofimpacts, since they are both responsible forthe partnership project and are supposed togenerate impacts. By making staff membersscrutinize the details of their own profession-al activity, the way is paved for in-depth trans-formations, both at the individual and theinstitutional levels . This means that theprocess of studying impacts itself generatesimpacts!

• Change at field level is closely linked tochange at the office level. In other words: if achange at field level is needed, a process ofchange at the office or project level needs totake place simultaneously, since both pro-cesses are closely interlinked. This requires areadiness and openness to change .Organizational and personal processes ofchange cannot be separated. They must beconsidered as facets and targets of the sameprocess. Therefore, both dimensions must beconsidered as crucial fields of action or inter-vention in a process of change.

• «Working with» is very different from «work-ing for». To better understand the mecha-nisms, a self-reflexive – not just a self-reflec-tive – analysis is the key. This helps in follow-ing any progress and change in partnershipactivities and relationships. The dynamics of

self-identity and inner dialogue lead to pro-found mental restructuring, just as carryingout research with farmers leads to quite dif-ferent thinking .

• Without a strong mandate, change is doomedto failure, since those who promote changehave no protection against risk. Without suchprotective (political, institutional) backstop-ping, tensions are likely to evolve into con-flicts, thus hampering the process of change.

Characteristics and key factors of «genuine»partnerships

From the Aigué Case Study, characteristic fea-tures of «genuine partnerships» can be derived:Joint activities («doing together») are based onpreviously negotiated shared goals, understand-ing, and benefits . The partnership is thusbuilt on freely decided conscious common pur-poses. It is «change-driven» and therefore bringsabout significant mutual changes in real life situ-ations (e.g. related to poverty reduction, empow-erment, peacemaking or gender balance).Ideally, there is a balanced exchange betweenthe partners, exhibiting a win-win situation in thesense that each partner has the clear impressionof receiving as much as he/she gives. The part-nership is not instrumentalised by one leadingand dominating partner . The partnershiptriggers off both knowledge generation andlearning processes among all the partners. Truepartnerships are not limited to the exchange ofexisting knowledge, but imply production ofshared new know-how and concepts. Hencepartnerships bring about transformations atthree different levels: personal, organisationaland professional.

Instrumental versus intentional partnership

According to these characteristics, doing thesame thing at the same time with similar means,methods, goals and prospects is clearly not suf-ficient to create a genuine partnership, althoughthese are often necessary pre-conditions. People


62

CASE STUDIESPART IV

63working along the same line in a factory are notnecessarily partners as such – even if they worktogether. They collaborate within the frameworkof a sophisticated division of tasks. At best, thiscan be called an «instrumental partnership». In«intentional partnerships», partners decidefreely to act together in the framework of a previ-ously shared and negotiated perspective ;partnership then means being together on a freebasis.

Capacity building through previous un-building

Learning as such is not simply a matter of stor-ing knowledge in one's mind. In a reductionist’sense, learning means incorporating new knowl-edge representing new concepts, ideas or prac-tical skills. However, in order to integrate newknowledge, we need to partly deconstruct whatwe knew before in order to allow the new knowl-edge to become consistent with already incorpo-rated knowledge. Learning as a process there-fore means reorganising one’s knowledge systemin order to preserve internal coherence. By pro-viding opportunities to exchange, discuss,debate etc., partnerships help to revise andrefine one's own conceptions . New ways ofthinking or operating then progressively becomeeffective. For this to happen an attitude charac-terised by a readiness to accept the partialdeconstruction of existing knowledge is funda-mental. Only then will innovative approaches liketransdisciplinarity become meaningful and pro-vide the necessary enabling environment formutual learning and mutual change for sustain-able development.

by B.S. Ramakrishna, Southern research part-ner in the project (Welcome Trust ResearchLaboratory, Vellore/India)

Background

Until the early 1980s, approximately 5 millionpeople (largely children in developing countries)died of diarrhoea every year. Treatment of dehy-dration (the predominant cause of death in diar-rhoea) by oral re-hydration solution (ORS), con-taining specific proportions of salts, glucose andwater, can reduce or prevent deaths from diar-rhoea. Early use of ORS in diarrhoea led to adecrease in annual mortality from 5 million peryear to 2 million per year at the beginning of the21st century. However, use of ORS remains lim-ited in many communities for many reasons.One is that the glucose-salt ORS does not reducediarrhoea, and may actually increase it, althoughit does prevent or reverse dehydration.

Description of the research partnershipand its planned outcomes

The research partnership between an Indianmedical college and an American university33

started against the background of a commoninterest in intestinal salt and water absorp-tion and management of diarrhoea. Both part-


64

Case Study 6: Improving Oral Re-hydration Solution –Anatomy of an International Research Partnership

Remark: The following Case Study was addedafter the IAS workshop in New Delhi (2004)and hence could not pursue the samemethodology of performing interviews, etc.,but is based on the author’s direct personalexperience.

ners had independently worked on large intes-tinal absorption of salt and water, making obser-vations that were relevant to diarrhoea. In thecase of the Indian partner, there was a long-standing record of research on the epidemiologyand mechanisms of diarrhoea, since the diseasewas common in the villages surrounding the hos-pital of the medical college located in Vellore. Inthe case of Yale University, there was a longrecord of research into the fundamental mecha-nisms by which bacteria cause fluid secretioninto the intestine, and the mechanisms by whichsalt and water are absorbed from the intestine.The partnership began in 1990 when the Indianpartner worked in the American laboratory atYale in order to learn techniques for studyingintestinal ion transport . During this periodboth partners jointly explored the possibility ofusing the knowledge obtained from physiologicalstudies to treat patients with diarrhoea . Forthe initial exploration of the concept, funding wasobtained from the Thrasher Fund, an organiza-tion in the USA funding research that is likely tohave impacts on child health in a relatively shortperiod of time. Results indicated the feasibility ofintroducing an intervention that would reducediarrhoea by inducing mothers of children withdiarrhoea to use a new ORS containing indi-gestible starch. In 1995, the research partner-ship was expanded to include a partner34, involv-ed in studies of how the human large intestinehandles a particular kind of indigestible starch.Studies were designed to test whether this indi-gestible starch would be useful in treating adultswith cholera. The clinical trial with cholera wasfunded by the Nestle Foundation, Switzerland. Itshowed that the starch-containing ORS wassuperior to regular ORS in significantly reducingthe amount and duration of diarrhoea .Since children are the most affected by diar-

33Between Dr. Ramakrishna, a gastroenterologist at the Christian Medical College, Vellore, India and Prof. Henry Binder,a gastroenterologist and physiologist at the Yale University, USA34Prof. Graeme Young from Adelaide, Australia

CASE STUDIESPART IV

65rhoea, a possible extrapolation to children had tobe tested. For this the research partnership wasfurther expanded in 1998 to include an Indianpediatrician35. The new starch-containing ORSwas again found to be superior to the regularORS . This study was funded by theNational Institutes of Health, USA.While all this was taking place, other investiga-tors concluded that a reduction in the sodiumand glucose content of ORS was desirable andwas associated with fewer complications. Thisconclusion was derived from a stepwise processsimilar to that described above, i.e. experimen-tal studies in animals, studies in adults and chil-dren with diarrhoea, followed by internationalcollaborative studies to ensure replicability ofthe findings. This work, initiated in the mid-1980s, finally led the World Health Organizationin 2002 to change the recommended form ofORS to one with a lower salt and glucose con-tent .Since 2001, the research partnership has beenexamining use of the new form or ORS in adultswith cholera and in children with diarrhoea. Itcan be anticipated that these examinations willbe followed by community trials to assesswhether the new form ORS will be acceptable tothe community or not. Should the new ORSappear to work better, there will be a need toreplicate these studies in other parts of the world.In order to ensure this, lines of communicationhave been established with other investigators inthis field, to conduct such studies should they be-come necessary . If international studies indi-cate that the inclusion of starch indeed benefitsall individuals suffering from diarrhoea, policymaking bodies such as the World Health Orga-nization will need to be engaged in a dialogue inorder to ensure that standard recommendationsfor management of diarrhoea are modified accor-dingly. Should this happen, impacts at B1 and B2will materialise.The impacts of this research partnership alreadyrealized or likely to occur are listed in the com-mon matrix developed for the IAS. Enhancedresearch capabilities, influence on other

researchers, training of developing country re-searchers, presentations at various national andinternational meetings, and research publica-tions are some of the most visible andprominent direct impacts. Impacts on clinicalpractice are currently very localized, but couldeventually be on a large scale. The research con-ducted so far concerns the invited membershipof scientific review committees related to diar-rhoea and nutrition, practice guidelines commit-tees, and task forces related to diarrhoea, in turninfluencing research and practice elsewhere inthe world .

35Prof. Raghupathy from Vellore


66 Table: IAS Impact Matrix for Oral Re-Hydration Solution (ORS) Research

Utilisation ofOutputs

ImpactChainOutput

of the RP

Effects(Outcomes)

Benefits / Drawbacks Impacts

A) Improvedknowledge andchanged attitudesof researchers

Realisation of bene-fits derived fromlarge-scale clinicalapplication

+ Widened scopeof research andexpansion of thepartnership;+ Publications andpresentationsincluding invitedlectures

+ Sensitisation of re-searchers and fundingagencies+ generation of newfunds for furtherresearch

– Results and improve-ments may divert atten-tion from educating po-pulation on how to pre-vent and treat diarrhoea

Parallel studies beingconducted by otherresearchers in otherparts of the world-> increased tacklingof the issue

C) Increasedindividual andinstitutionalresearch capacity

Successfulapplication forother / additionalresearch grants

+ Increasedresearch capacityof developingcountry partner+ increased recog-nition of compe-tences in the field

+ Successful bidsfor new competitiveresearch grants–/+ Loss of some well-trained research fellowsto laboratories abroad(«brain drain»)

+ Researcher(s) fromDC consulted for policymaking+ Ability to attractgood/better researchstudents

B1) Policy-relevantresearch results*

Change in treat-ment policy fordiarrhoea andcholera at national,regional, and inter-national level;*Increased recogni-tion of scientificmerit of the partnerfrom DC

+ Increased accept-ability of ORS fortreatment of diar-rhoea & cholera*+ Request to partic-ipate in scientificreview committees+ Request to partic-ipate in Task Forcesof professionalbodies to handlehealth problems

+ Reduced mortalityfrom diarrhoea andcholera*+ Increased ability toreview scientificresearch related todiarrhoea and cholera+ Increased influenceon managementpolicies related to thetreatment of diarrhoeaand cholera

+ Improved health inDC*+ Influence on thedirection of researchat national, regionaland international level+ Influence on profes-sional recommenda-tions for managingdiarrhoea and cholerain the community

B2) Applicableand user-relevantresearch results

Altered manage-ment of diarrhoeaand cholera dueto sensitisation andimproved ORS

Currently stilllimited scale ofimplementation

+ Improved manage-ment of diarrhoea andcholera

+ Reduction of diar-rhoea and choleracurrently still limitedimpact ; if furtherresearch proves univer-sality of ORS applica-tion, then the impactwill be much wider

* Expected if investigations provide evidence of enhanced performance by new ORS

CASE STUDIESPART IV

67

Case Study 7: Collaborative Biomedical Research as a Pivotfor Health Care Development – The BIRDEM Experience

Background

In the late 1980s a collaborative research pro-gram on antidiabetic plant materials was initiat-ed between the Department of Medical CellBiology, Uppsala University (Sweden) and theResearch Division of BIRDEM, the CentralInstitute of the Diabetic Association of Bang-ladesh (DAB), a non-profit social organization.The program was supported by the InternationalProgram in the Chemical Sciences (IPICS),Uppsala University (Sweden). The Departmentof Chemistry, University of Dhaka, was includedas a partner to conduct chemical analysis of theplants. The Program started in 1991.In the following years the biological studies ofplant materials conducted at BIRDEM created anew momentum in other areas of research, as itwas quickly realized that the facilities, expertiseand techniques developed in the antidiabeticplant material project could also be utilized inother areas of biomedical and, ultimately, healthresearch . With a continuous influx ofyoung and enthusiastic researchers and stu-

dents , the Biomedical ResearchGroup (BMRG) was created, and it has beenable to attract national and international scientif-ic collaboration and resources (Table 2). BIRD-EM has thus become a sustainable researchinstitute recognized by the WHO as a Colla-borative Centre for Research on Prevention &Control of Diabetes, and also by the Third WorldNetwork of Scientific Organizations (an enter-prise of TWAS) as a Centre of Excellence. Apartfrom direct contribution to scientific studies, theGroup has played a vital role in turning DAB intothe largest non-governmental health care chainin Bangladesh .

Impacts

Stimulating scientific outputs The Group has screened more than 70 plantmaterials selected from folkloric reputation and asearch of literature for their antidiabetic activi-ties, from Bangladesh as well as countries inAsia and Africa. Methodological improvement oftesting in animal models was also achieved andresults published. Only a few active materialshave been investigated for their mechanism ofaction, and only a few of the selected ones havebeen picked up by commercial organizations fordrug development programs.The Group has made substantial contributions tounderstanding diabetes mellitus (DM)37 in theBengali population. The relative contribution ofinsulin secretory defect and insulin resistancehas been explored, and the classification of

Remark: The following Case Study was addedafter the IAS workshop in New Delhi (2004)and hence could not use the same methodol-ogy of conducting interviews, etc., but is basedon the author’s direct personal experience.

by Liaquat Ali, Southern research partner in theproject, collaborator BIRDEM36

36Bangladesh Institute of Research and Rehabilitation in Diabetes, Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders (BIRDEM)37Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a group of devastating metabolic diseases caused by insufficient insulin (a hormone of cen-tral importance) secretion, increased insulin destruction or ineffective insulin action. The metabolic imbalances that occur(with the most obvious symptom of hyperglycemia, ie high blood glucose levels) have serious and, in many cases, lifethreatening consequences. As per estimation by the World Health Organization 151 million people in the world (about4.6% of 20–79 year age group) suffered from DM in the year 2000; the projected number for 2025 is 299 million. Theincidence of DM is increasing, particularly in DC, due to rapidly changing lifestyles and food habits, unplanned urban-ization, environmental population, etc. By 2025 the South East Asia region will have the highest number of diabetics inthe world (estimated 79.5 million; by comparison: in 1995 the number was 27.6 and in 2000 already 32.7 million).

young onset DM in the population has been clar-ified to a great extent.Nutritional evaluation of local food materials is amajor research area of the Group. It hasscreened a good number of local food materialsfor their glycemic index. A long-term project toidentify the cut-point of body mass index (BMI, amarker for individual nutritional state) in theBangladeshi population is now running actively.Another group of studies is producing data onthe knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) ofsubjects regarding various aspects of health.The BMRG Coordinator38 initiated a HealthEconomics Unit under DAB ; it is conduct-

ing studies on cost-effectiveness analysis andother socioeconomic aspects of health care fromthe local perspective.Most of the scientific results have been pub-lished in journals or reported in various scientificconferences and seminars. Within the lastdecade the BMRG has published 68 original arti-cles (45 international, 23 regional/national), 203conference reports and 66 theses.

Reduced reluctance for interdisciplinarycollaborationIn Bangladesh medicine is taught and practicedlargely as a technology, not as a science. Accor-


68 Table1: Collaborating institutes and major sponsors for research collaboration with BIRDEM

Collaborating InstitutesInternational: Dept of Medical Cell Biology, University of Uppsala/Sweden; Department of Medicine, RoyalLondon Medical College, University of London/UK; Dept of Biological Science, University of Ulster/NorthernIreland; Dept of Internal Medicine, University of Basel/ Switzerland; The Royal Veterinary and AgriculturalUniversity Copenhagen/Denmark; Cell Biology & Physiology and Human Genetics, University of Pittsburgh/USA;Human Nutrition School of Molecular and Microbial Biosciences, University of Sydney/Australia; Dept of AnimalNutrition & Physiology Research Centre, Foulum/Denmark; University of Montpellier/France; Lab de Physio-pathologie de la Nutrition, Paris University /FranceRegional: Dept of Chemistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok; HEJ Research Institute of Chemistry, University ofKarachi/Pakistan; Dept of Chemistry, University Science College, Calcutta/India; Natural Products DevelopmentDivision, Dept of Plant Resources, Kathmundu/Nepal; Cinchona Research Laboratory, Darjeeling/India; Dept ofPharmacology, Calcutta University, Calcutta/IndiaNational: Dept of Biochemistry, Dept of Nephrology, Dept of Gastroenterology, Dept of Neuromedicine (allInstitute of Postgraduate Medicine & Research, IPGMR, Dhaka); Dept of Chemistry, Dept of Biochemistry,Institute of Nutrition and Food Sciences (all Dhaka University); Dept of Pharmacology, Jahangirnagar University;Department of Nutrition, Home Economics College, Dhaka

Sponsoring / Supporting OrganizationsInternational: International Program in the Chemical Sciences (IPICS), Uppsala University, Sweden; Interna-tional Foundation for Science (IFS), Sweden; ENRECA Project (Supported by DANIDA, Denmark); Governmentof France; International Diabetes Federation (IDF), Stanley-Johnson Foundation; Novo Nordisk A/S; Universityof London, UKRegional: World Health Organization (WHO), SEA Region; Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia (PORIM);Asian Network of Research on Antidiabetic Plants (ANRAP)National: Diabetic Association of Bangladesh (DAB); Ministry of Science and Technology, Govt of the PeopleRepublic of Bangladesh; Bangladesh Medical Research Council; Prof Mazharul Haq Trust; HamdardFoundation; Various Industries

38Prof. Liaquat Ali

CASE STUDIESPART IV

69dingly, medically qualified persons are not inter-ested in applied research activities, and basicresearch is virtually absent in this community

. Usually medical professionals see them-selves as «superior», since the best studentsapply to study medicine by competitive admis-sion tests and there is an almost complete sepa-ration between medical and non-medical sci-ence departments and people . Since bio-medical and health research is essentially multi-disciplinary in nature – requiring collaborationnot only with biological and physical sciencesbut with social sciences as well – this attitude isa major obstacle to developing medical sciencein the country .The most important contribution of the BMRGrelates to the generation of a change in attitudein some sections of the medical profession. TheBMRG is the first national group in Bangladeshthat has been able to incorporate various disci-plines into biomedical research through coregroup members (Table 2) and appropriate colla-borations (see national collaborations in Table 1)

. Through this interaction, some of theresearch tradition existing in general universitydepartments in the country (although very limit-ed), has been transmitted to BMRG.However, the major change in attitude camefrom exposure of the group members toadvanced research cultures through mutualexchange visits by fellows and students with col-laborating groups in Europe and also through theattendance of many members at internationalmeetings and conferences39 . The 66 post-graduate theses produced as a result of researchactivities by the Group also reflect this multidis-ciplinary nature40.

Improved working environmentIntroduction of an informal and friendly environ-ment, introduction of self-help systems, traditionof working extra hours and holidays when nec-

essary, and motivation to use science as a toolfor social development are among the crucialsteps taken within the Group. After consultationwith the major sponsor, IPICS, the memberswere given modest financial support (and freelunch and afternoon snacks) so that they wouldnot leave for private practice or a second job inthe afternoon . Full-time dedication byresearchers was assured through these steps.Given its congenial environment for researchand career potential, BIRDEM became one ofthe most attractive centres for young studentswith the brightest academic records .

d) Improved gender balance By contrast with the male domination of highereducation and research institutes in Bangla-desh, BMRG is attracting a large number offemale researchers and students who aredemonstrating excellent activity in all respects.The overall male-female ratio of the core acade-mic staff is 13:29, and for postgraduate theses itis 32:40. This greatly changed the attitude of malecolleagues as well as of the society in generaltowards female competence in science .

Discipline Degree TotalStaff

Medical Discipline 4 PhD, 3 MPhil, 5 MBBS 12Chemistry 2 PhD, 1 MPhil, 2 MSc 5Pharmacy 4 MSc 4Biochemistry 1 MPhil, 5 MSc 6Zoology 1 MSc 1Food & Nutrition 1 MPhil, 11 MSc 12Health Economics 1 MPhil, 1 MSc 2Grand total 42

Table 2: Distribution of the core BMRGacademic staff according to discipline anddegree (as per January 2004)

39BMRG members have attended 27 International, 20 Regional, 18 National Conference/Seminars during the lastdecade. 40Chemistry 2, Nuclear Medicine 1, Cell Biology 1, Dermatology 1, Biochemistry 5, Med Biochemistry 16, Nephrology 3,Gastroenterology 2, Neurology 1, Endocrinology 9, Gynecology 8, Environmental Studies 1, Anatomy 1, Physiology 1,Nutrition 14

Increased institutional and political supportand recognition The change in attitude among policy-makerswas also a great achievement of the project.From a virtually nonexistent research culture, theexecutives of BIRDEM and policy-makers ofDAB began to provide substantial moral andpractical (including financial) support to the col-laborative project, thus recognising its high valueand utility.In parallel to research activities, there was a rapiddevelopment of academic activities in BIRDEM.Before 1990 there was only a Diploma and an MSCourse in diabetes, endocrinology and metabo-lism (conducted at Dhaka University). By 2001BIRDEM had become the second-ranking (thefirst being the Bangabandhu Sheikh MujibMedical University, a government run university)degree-granting organization in the country inpostgraduate medical education, and is now run-ning 14 courses in various medical disciplines.Thus BIRDEM is now playing a vital role in gener-ating postgraduate health manpower in the coun-try and the BMRG laboratory is used by most ofthese postgraduate students for thesis work.

Increased budget (funding) and staff expansion

Although a separate Research Division wasplanned in BIRDEM from its inception in 1975,applied research was virtually absent in theInstitute before the present collaborative pro-gram was initiated. The altered attitude of policy-makers in DAB, described above, was soontranslated into policies, with increased budgetand manpower for research departments. By theend of the 1990s, about 20 regular posts, rang-ing from Professor to Animal Keepers, wereinstalled and this, along with recruitment of fel-lows and students, helped to create the criticalmanpower for sustainable research activities

. The research group has grown to a fairlylarge «family», with 42 members as core staff(see Table 2). As mentioned above, a large num-ber of postgraduate students from different uni-versities and disciplines have earned degrees bydoing their thesis work in the Group. The Groupattracted national and international resources

and laboratory facilities and clinical researchcapabilities were thus substantially increasedduring these years . Apart from the groupmembers themselves, a good number of clini-cians in BIRDEM were motivated to undertakeresearch activities and, although a lot moreremains to be done in order to improve quality,they have at least started to generate some dataand ideas in their own areas.

Influence on the Diabetic Associationof Bangladesh (DAB) Within a few years of its initial activity, BMRGattracted the attention of DAB policy-makers andbecame a focal point for future planning andexpansion of DAB activities. For a more scientif-ic and systematic approach, a Health EconomicsUnit was created, with the Coordinator of BMRGas the Executive Advisor. Two economists andone physician (turned health economist) wererecruited for the Unit. This team and the mem-bers of BMRG played a crucial role in planningthe overall activities of DAB. These focused onthe decentralization of DAB activities beyondBIRDEM and a new project, the National Health-care Network (NHN) was created in 1996, whichnow runs 18 health centres in and around Dhakacity serving thousands of diabetic and nondia-betic patients through a self-sustained approachbased on a cross-financing model with a safetynet for the vulnerable groups .The Unit also helped to upgrade and expand theaffiliated associations, located all over the coun-try (now 49 in number), and many of these asso-ciations run 30–200 bed hospitals. DAB has nowbecome the largest health care chain in thecountry next to the government . The next major quantum jump in DAB’s activitiesis scheduled for 2004, with a 45 million-Eurohealth care project (including a University hospi-tal), of which Euro 19.3 million will be supportedby the Dutch Government under its OretProgram. The Health Economics Unit of DAB isplaying the central role in materializing the proj-ect, and the Coordinator of BMRG acts as thecontact person from DAB for the project.In addition, increased recognition of the compe-tence of BMRG members led to membership in


70

CASE STUDIESPART IV

71various policy making bodies at different levels, such as the Task Force for the Health

and Population Sector Program (HPSP), theHealth, Population and Nutrition Sector Program(HPNSP), the Fellowship Committees of theBangladesh Medical Research Council and theMinistry of Science & Technology, the AdvisoryPanel of Health Consumers Right Forum, theInternational Expert Group Meeting on theClassification of Diabetes in the Tropics, theInternational Advisory Panel on Diabetes andRamadan, the TWAS Workshop on SustainableUse of Plants, etc.

Increased number of patients treated In 1990 the total registered diabetic populationserved by BIRDEM was around 70,000, and thetotal number of patients served by DAB and itsaffiliated associations was around 130,000. Atthe end of 2003, the corresponding numberswere approx 320,000 and 550,000 (includingthose served in NHN). This phenomenal in-crease in services is, to a significant extent, relat-ed to the planning and hard work of the HealthEconomics Unit, which in the true sense is adaughter of BMRG . It must be emphasizedthat a proportionately greater number of nondia-betic patients are served by the DAB Projects.Over the years, BMRG introduced a good num-ber of new and advanced techniques for routineclinical care . For example, prior to the1990s, hormones were assayed in BIRDEM byRadioimmunoassay (RIA) for diagnosis andtreatment of endocrine disorders. This techniquerequired radioactive reagent kits which had to beimported from the West. Apart from cost and riskfor the lab personnel, this created lot of delayand inconvenience for the patients. Sometimesthe radioactivity decayed due to delays in trans-portation and customs, and all kits becameunusable. BMRG researchers started to usealternative techniques of chemo-luminescenceand fluorescence-based ELISA (enzyme linkedimmunosorbent assay), and routine clinical useof the techniques rapidly followed in BIRDEMas well as in other labs in Bangladesh .Another example is the introduction of HPLC(high performance liquid chromatography) based

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) assay into the country.HbA1c is a better tool for assessing long-term(2–3 months) blood glucose control in diabeticpatients and it is an indispensable test for themanagement of patients in the developed world.BMRG researchers initiated the test in their ownresearch projects, and on their advice and sup-port it was introduced for routine clinical use

. Still, the BMRG equipment gives HbA1c

clinical service to the patients of BIRDEM andother DAB projects. Many clinical laboratories(including private laboratories) now regularlytake advice from BMRG researchers regardingthe best and most cost-effective techniques fortheir labs.

User benefit from research output As from 1995, the BMRG began to organize theannual Diabetes & Endocrine Conference with the participation of a large number (about1000 in 2003) of physicians and health care pro-fessionals from all over the country and evenfrom neighbouring countries . Throughthis Conference, the national and internationalseminars of the Asian Network of Research onAntidiabetic Plants (ANRAP), and the biannual«Diabetes & Endocrine Journal» and popularMagazine «Kanti», BMRG disseminates most ofthe data to professionals and other concernedparties . The antidiabetic plant material datahave enlightened the physicians (including thetraditional practitioners) about the rational use ofthese plants, which are still the chief form ofmedication for much of the population in devel-oping countries. The nutritionists – and ultimate-ly the patients – similarly profited from theglycemic index data, while the data on basicpathophysiology of diabetes in the Bangladeshipopulation helped physicians to adopt a morescientific approach to diabetes management

.

Creation of a regional network and supportfor fellowshipsIn order to promote interaction among re-searchers – primarily in the field of antidiabeticplants – the Asian Network of Research on Anti-diabetic Plants (ANRAP) was created in 1994

with BIRDEM hosting the Secretariat. Withsponsorship mainly from IPICS, ANRAP played asignificant role in stimulating scientific activitiesin various countries of the region, as well as inAfrica . In most cases BMRG playedthe role of the host group for fellows coming fromdifferent countries41 . Most of the fellowsstayed for 3 to 6 months, and some even hadmultiple visits. Recently, a fellow worked withsponsorship from OPCW, while further requestshave been addressed to WHO, IDF and TWAS.

Good relationships with Northern partnersIt is very pleasing to mention the extremelyfriendly, trustful and mutually respectful relation-ship of the BMRG with its partners in developedcountries . In some cases, BMRG playedthe role of host for the Northern researchers42.These visits allow young researchers and BMRGstudents to exchange views with colleagues fromthe West, not only with reference to science butalso to attitudes . In general, mostBMRG partner groups in the West are enthusi-astic about continuing and strengthening thepartnership with BIRDEM.


72

41BMRG hosted 4 fellows from India, 3 from Pakistan, 5 from Nepal, 2 from Srilanka, and 1 from Cameroon, during theperiod.42E.g. for a collaborative PhD student from Basel who stayed about two years in Dhaka, for a post doctoral student fromCopenhagen who stayed five months, and for a female fellow from Ulster who stayed for six months.

CASE STUDIESPART IV

73

Case Study 8: Microbial Control of Insect Pests –A Southern Perspective of an Indo-Swiss Research Projekt

Background

Objectives and phasing of the projectThe National Chemical Laboratory (NCL), Pune(India), the Department of Microbiology at theSwiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZurich), the Atlas Agro (Zurich) and the SwissFederal Research Station for Agroecology andAgriculture (FAL, Zürich Reckenholz) are current-ly engaged in a collaborative research projektunder the ISCB entitled «Microbial Control ofPests: Entomopathogenic Fungi as Mycoinsectici-des». The aim is to produce a bioinsecticide toreduce damage to pulse crops, especially chick-pea and pigeon pea, caused by the pestHelicoverpa armigera and other related insects.The agent being developed is fungal-based. Thismeans that as a result of its contact with theinsect, spores grow on the pest, immobilizing and

finally killing it. The project started in April 2000and the first phase ended in August 2004. Thesecond phase should last until 2007. It willinclude trans-sectoral issues such as farmers’education, and help promote the bioinsecticideoutside India as well.

Role of partnersThe initiative came from the project co-ordinatorin the South, who approached the Northern part-ners in order to establish a partnership for thepurpose of developing the bio-insecticide. Allpartners already contributed their expertise insetting the agenda. A large proportion of the labwork, including e.g.the collection and selection of the strain, wascarried out at the NCL. All field testing was car-ried out in India46 by the NCL. The partners in theNorth were mainly involved in labwork, too, suchas strain isolation and risk assessment. Once theresearch and development phase is completed,Atlas Agro will play a role in marketing and com-mercializing the product.

Aim and methodology of the case study

The aim of the study is to understand andanalyse the impacts of this collaborative re-search project, from a Southern perspective. Forthis, Sampark contacted the project co-ordinatorat NCL, visited the laboratory, and conducted aseries of interviews including the project co-ordi-nator, three research assistants, the head of oneof the research stations in the agricultural uni-versities involved, and a private farmer, using theIAS impact matrix as a guide. Field visits weremade to both the agricultural universities and a

The Indo-Swiss Collaboration in Biotechnology(ISCB), a bilateral agreement between theIndian and Swiss governments, promotesresearch partnerships in various areas of bio-technology and fosters technology transfer tothe end user. The main goal of this collabora-tion is to increase the productivity of wheat andpulses in semi-arid and rain-fed agriculturalsystems and to support the sustainable man-agement of natural resources45.

by Mani Chidambaranathan, Soraya Verjee,Smita Premchander (all Sampark)43, and M.V.Deshpande44, Southern research partner in theproject, National Chemical Laboratory, Pune/India (compiled by Jon-Andri Lys)

43BSampark would like to thank the following people: Pallavi, Priya, and Gouri at NCL, the research participants fromMPKV, IPORS, and the farmers for sharing their thoughts and experiences on the project and for all their support duringour field visits and validation process.44http://www.kfpe.ch/key_activities/impact_study/content.html45For more information about ISCB see: http://www.biotech.biol.ethz.ch/india/Projects/3_sci_prog.html46at two agricultural universities – in Maharashtra State and in Karnataka State – and two private farms.

private farm to understand how the testing wasbeing carried out and how the product wouldimpact farmers. The draft report producedbased on the information obtained during visitsand interviews was then shared with the NCL toverify results, fill in gaps, incorporate furtherinputs, and refine the content. Following this, afinal report was completed.

Impacts

Remark: Since the project has not yet reachedthe application phase, little or no impact at theend user and policy-making levels has beenrecorded. More impacts can be expected fromactivities foreseen for phase two.

New knowledge and changes in attitude Prior to the project, the co-ordinator in the Southhad never carried out participatory, transdiscipli-nary research. It was the first time this approachwas used and the project showed theresearchers the value of incorporating farmers’concerns, intentions, needs and knowledge intoapplied researcher projects. Thus readiness todo more research with the participation of farm-ers in future increased. So far, however, indige-nous knowledge has not yet been utilized. It willbe incorporated into the Integrated PestManagement (IPM) system after the researchand development phase is over.Information on the research has been dissemi-nated widely to the public through radio broad-casts, newspaper articles, scientific papers, pub-lications, and (roundtable) conferences in Indiaand abroad . This helped promote theapproach of participatory research among scien-tists and increased understanding of suchendeavours in society at large. Several mutual visits to India and Switzerlandwere carried out to observe progress and par-ticipate jointly in the work at hand .Regarding the prioritization of outputs relatedto desired effects and impacts, differencesarose between the perspectives of the Northernand Southern partners. For example, the projectco-ordinator from India preferred to publish in

Indian journals in order to serve the countrywhere the project is located, while the Northernpartners preferred to publish in internationaljournals, believing that this would yield a betterresult than publishing in local journals.

Individual capacity strengthening The project helped significantly to increase thelevel of knowledge of the Southern researchassistants, through their strong involvement inlaboratory research as well as in the field trials.The research assistants and the project co-ordi-nator also benefited extensively – both personal-ly and professionally – by significantly enhancingtheir capacities and skills in scientific and col-laborative research. The results of their researchhave been widely published, and the projectallowed them to participate in national and inter-national conferences . The research assis-tants won the best paper award at a conferencein Jaipur, India, thus increasing their self-confi-dence and enhancing their scientific status.During the project, two male entomologists left,due to low government salary structures .The organisation did not hire any other ento-mologists, and so the women microbiologyresearch assistants on the project took overboth tasks – microbiology and entomology. Theyquickly learned how to do the entomology workand at the same time performed their microbiol-ogy work. This increased their areas of com-petence as well as their recognition within theteam .Two of the three research assistants travelled toSwitzerland as part of the project activities .One of them had the opportunity to work there,thus further developing her research and pres-entation skills. This helped open doors for futureprofessional activities such as the possibility topursue further studies, or a career either in Indiaor abroad. However, institutional constraints donot permit researchers from India to extend theirstay in Northern countries and avail themselvesof learning opportunities, as they risk losing theirjob security in their own country . As a re-sult of experiences gained at NCL, past researchassistants have benefited by either moving ab-road or to higher positions in equally reputable


74

CASE STUDIESPART IV

75institutions . However, such movements havebeen easier for male than female scientists.Through the project, the Southern research part-ners have had teaching opportunities withinand outside the NCL, with other students andprofessionals, on topics concerning biopestici-des . Presentations related to their researchare also constantly being made to the public andwithin NCL.As a result of project co-ordination in the South,the competences and skills to administer sucha project financially and scientifically haveincreased, as all these tasks were carried outefficiently and effectively . The coordinatormeanwhile started an additional collaborativeproject with Belarus, using a certain methodlearnt in this project.

Institutional capacity strengthening The NCL – a well established and highly reputedresearch centre in India – has benefited fromequipment procured abroad and from additionsto the library . Other researchers at the NCLhave been utilising the research results and facil-ities established. The institution is now focussingmore on practical applications, participatoryresearch and collaboration with otherresearchers and organizations . The project is about to produce at least two tothree PhDs for the research assistants involved,as well as a constant stream of MSc studentswho can base their studies on this research.

Policy relevant research results When the product is ready for the market, theCouncil of Scientific and Industrial Research(CSIR) at the NCL, the Department of Biotech-nology (DBT), the Swiss Agency for Developmentand Co-operation (SDC), the ETH, Atlas Agro,and FAL will be involved in handling policy-relat-ed matters . Once the research and devel-opment phase is complete, a technology pack-age will be assembled and then transferred to anindustry group. The issue of Intellectual PropertyRights (IPR) will have to be addressed, and equi-table shares provided to Northern and Southernpartners. Working with the two agricultural uni-versities who are experienced in handling such

issues will help in the process of having theproduct officially registered Their wide dissemi-nation of the product and the recognition theyhave gained from doing this research will help toinfluence policies .

Application and user-relevant research results

Extensive testing has been carried out success-fully in the field at two agricultural universitiesand on two private farms. All parties have posi-tive feelings about the results and research beingcarried out, and anticipate distribution of theproduct on a large scale. However, unless theproduct is formally approved, it will not be usedwidely. Despite this conditionality, local farmersin the vicinity have been made aware of theresearch . Thus they responded positively tofuture application of the bio-pesticide, as theywitnessed the harmful effects of chemical pesti-cides, while those participating in the field trialsreceived positive results .

Factors affecting impact

ContributorsTeam effort in designing and implementing

the project and in utilising specialized inputsfrom all partners involved; all researchers con-tributed their respective expertise, thus creatingthe feeling of a joint contribution to the project.Differences regarding motivations and intendedimpacts were sorted out at the start, so that dur-ing the partnership, misunderstandings and ten-sions within the collaboration were avoided or atleast reduced. Discussing work cultures, intend-ed impacts, outputs and motivations in the initialstages of a partnership not only helps scientificcollaboration but also enhances social collabora-tion.

High dedication and strong perseveranceon the part of the persons involved generated thespecial efforts needed to disseminate the knowl-edge gained and produce and test the bio-insec-ticide in the field. Compensation for time spentand equal distribution of benefits played animportant role in this regard

Having the project co-ordinator in the Southhas been an important factor in the success ofthe project.

Maintaining 100% transparency based onfast and easy communication between the part-ners, having international exchanges, distribut-ing workloads equally, and sharing knowledgeand equity (responsibility) in decision makingand agenda setting are paramount to achievingesuccess in a project.

Supply of missing equipment by the Northernpartners made it possible for the Southern part-ners to perform their research more efficiently.

Clearly spelling out objectives, aims andtimetable before the start allowed all parties tocarry out the work efficiently and competently.The government and scientific institutions onboth sides were vigilant of the progress beingmade and helped to keep the project on track.

Strong and determined project leadershiphas been a motivational force for all involved,and has contributed not only to the success ofthe project but to the cohesion of the partnership

Team co-ordination and co-operationamong the researchers at the NCL helped inovercoming a lack of certain specialized skillsand in learning what was missing and needed towork successfully and quickly.

Equal sharing of IPRs and authorship of allpapers and publications contributed not only sci-entifically, but also in maintaining the socialcohesion of the partnership; it helped to buildmutual trust and respect.

Wide dissemination of information aboutthe research (locally and internationally), hasbeen important in reaching all stakeholders,from the farmers to researchers in India andabroad.

InhibitorsLoss of personnel (two male entomologists)

due to low government salary structuresDifficulties in accessing land for testingCultural barriers or realities not perceived

led to various misunderstandings and put certainstrains on the partnership. For instance, as theSouthern partners work more closely at the fieldlevel, they are forced to deal with the hardshipsfaced by Indian farmers. Without being intimate-ly in touch with the field work and daily reality, itis very difficult to fully understand these hard-ships. This left the Northern partners with certainexpectations of how the testing should be carriedout, which sometimes were not feasible for theSouthern partners. The Southern partners feltthat the Northern partners have more distancefrom the end-user and therefore do not alwaysexhibit the sensitivity required at certain times.However, these issues didn’t have enoughweight to affect the effective and efficient devel-opment of the product.

Recommendations

• Provide (working) opportunities to researchassistants who will be the scientists of thefuture; both the government and the partnershave a vested interest in ensuring futureemployment and having a salary structurethat adequately compensates trained people.

• Open doors for female research assistants andprovide career counselling for senior femalescientists, helping them for their futurecareer.

• Assess the partnership through an internalevaluation; partnership aspects are just asimportant as scientific operations.

• Allow for a sufficient number of mutual visits.This is crucial to bring both sides closer to thework being done and to gain a larger under-standing of the cultures involved and thestruggles they may face.


76

ANNEX IMPACT MATRIX

79

Proposals based on feedback from the workshopparticipants and other contributors included:

• distinguishing the impacts of research part-nership projects in the following domains andlevels:

New knowledge and changes in attitudesof researchers

Benefits for end-users:Policy-makingPublic/society at large (e.g. local communities, farmers, private sector / enterprises and others)

Individual and institutional capacity build-ing / strengthening

• distinguishing positive (desired) impacts andnegative (undesired) impacts.

The matrix below represented as a referenceframe is the result of joint brainstorming amongthe institutions involved. It contains an overviewof possible outputs, their utilisation, effects, ben-efits / drawbacks, and possible positive and neg-ative impacts of research partnerships on differ-ent domains, as well as possible impact indica-tors. This list is not comprehensive, but shouldbe used to stimulate discussions – particularlywith the Southern and Eastern partners involvedin research partnerships, in order to make a finalselection of impact indicators. Additional or moreaccurate impacts and indicators can of coursestill be added.

Impact matrix

Benefits/Drawbacks• Relationship between Northern and Southern

partners balanced– agenda jointly set by Southern and Northern

partners in future– equitable distribution of financial resources• Too high opportunity costs of research partnership

(time, money etc.)– agenda-setting-process (how to arrive at the re-

search agenda)• Scientific knowledge is marginalised– scientific pertinence is lost for the sake of pure

application• Misused indigenous/local knowledge– economic valorisation by the external partner

without sharing with the original holder of the knowledge; no prior informed consent; no intel-lectual property right agreements/contracts negotiated / signed despite (potential economic) benefits

Impacts• Increased sensitivity of society at large to scientific

research (committed citizens – «research is also my concern»)

– increased appearance of scientific topics in the mass media

– increased number of end-user-led trials (e.g. by farmers)


80

Output of Research PartnershipImproved and increased knowledge and changedattitudes among researchers

Impact ChainUtilisation of Output• Application of increased capacity to generate

know-ledge with societal relevance and to adapt knowledge to local conditions

– proportion of basic, applied, adaptive and parti-cipatory research

– number of publications in popular mass media – types of dissemination appropriate to different

Stakeholders (documents, training, press confe-rences, etc.)

Effects (Outcomes)• Greater capacity to manage research institutions– ability to attract research funds – staff turnover• Attitudinal changes among researchers

(e.g. cultural understanding, professional attitude)– changes in orientation/activities/goals of the project

from «pure scientific» to more relevance for the target group / end-users

– better incorporation of end-users’ concerns (e.g. listening to farmers’ needs, ideas, visions etc.)

– recognition of end-users (e.g. farmers) as being researchers in their own right

• Knowledge production is hybrid (merged scientific and indigenous knowledge)

– both scientific and indigenous knowledge help todesign the research methodology

– generated results serve both end-users and scientists

• Greater capacity to conduct state-of-the-art research– number of publications in reviewed journals– number of presentations in conferences

Possible Impacts and Impact Indicators in Domain :

Knowledge & attitudes (S & N, scientific, indigenous, institutional, tacit knowledge)

Legend• criteria– indicator

IMPACT MATRIXANNEX

81

• Contribute to the misuse of knowledge– Political instrumentalisation– Serving privileged groups– Serving personal career– Serving private companies– availability of information, obstacles to getting it– no relevant changes in legislation

Output of Research PartnershipPolicy-relevant research results

Impact ChainUtilisation of Output• Relevant issues responding to needs of policy-

makers are addressed by researchers / the RP– formulated demands– documentation from meetings

Effects (Outcomes)• Linkages / two-way-exchanges between policy-

makers and researchers in North and South– increased R+D budget– shift in project goal towards development

orientation– clearinghouse function of research centres– popular fora include policy-makers and researchers,

oral presentations, publications and summaries– advocacy actions by both researchers and policy-

makers– number of references made to results of research

by policymakers– research results being used by politicians /policy

makers

Benefits / Drawbacks• More researchers move to adequate positions

in policy– number of former researchers moved to policy

making or governmental think tanks

Impacts• Contribution to overall goals, such as poverty

alleviation /better livelihoods– information / knowledge developed relevant for

poverty alleviation (housing, health, security, jobs)– research results increasingly used to improve

development programmes– end-users’ opinion of research quality and impact


End-users’ benefits (S & N, policy making)

• Decreased dependencies– expatriate personnel /experts replaced by national

researchers• Reduced societal relevance due to dominance of

the international scientific reward system– involvement and influence of local stakeholders

in agenda setting (workshop, …)• Contribution to higher quality teaching of students– number of teachers involved in research project

and consultancy (experienced outside university)– researchers involved in teaching• Sustainable Research Partnerships– development of stable, long-term partner relation-

ships (financial, personal commitment, increased trust)

– establishment of long-term commitment between users, policymakers and researchers

• Users more involved in entire research process (trans-disciplinary research: agenda-setting, data gathering, development, implementation, dissemi-nation and management of projects)

– number / degree of involvement of the end-users (just listening, actively shaping)

– explicit processes for involvement of users in different steps of the research process

– degree of original intentions of both sides visible in the final proposal

– mutually signed document– increasing demand-driven research

Impacts• Contribution to overall goals, such as poverty

alleviation / better livelihoods– information / knowledge developed relevant for

poverty alleviation (housing, health, security, jobs)– research results increasingly used to improve

development programmes– end-users’ opinion of research quality and impact• Contribution to consensus building among con-

flicting parties– research results used implemented in real life– research results used for consensus building

Output of Research Partnership• Applicable and user-relevant research results

Impact ChainUtilisation of Output• Development of a knowledge generation process

and more knowledge to empower user groups to make better decisions

– degree / number of involvement of end-users (e.g. listening or actively shaping)

– practice of local language and modes of commu-nication (theatres, films, videos etc.)

– amount / number of user friendly events, meetings,publications to make results known

– analytical capacity gained through research part-nership is applied /adapted by locals to other fields of concern

Effects• Improvement of the enabling environment sup-

porting various end-users– e.g. increased number of small & medium-size

enterprises (S & M)– e.g. increased loans by banks for S & M enterprises– improvement/changes in the legislation governing

various sectors• Local consulting firms established by former

researchers– number of consulting firms newly established• Building research partnerships around local

initiatives /«innovations»– number of research projects based on local

initiatives /needs– explicit processes followed for developing agenda

on local initiatives

Benefits / Drawbacks• More researchers move to senior positions in

private companies and NGO’s.– number of former researchers moved to adequate

positions in private companies and NGO’s


End-users’ benefits (S & N, the public / farmers, private sector /enterprises, others)


82

IMPACT MATRIXANNEX

83

• No significant change in problem areas: social disparities, tensions and conflicts, natural resources degradation, etc.

– occurrence of social disparities, tensions and conflicts despite research on this topic

– increased poverty and marginalisation– accelerated loss and degradation of resources– no or limited technology development, etc.• No impact due to inappropriate dissemination

of results (language, format etc.)– results available in appropriate translation


84

• Contribution to South-North brain drain– number of trained Southern researchers going

abroad (to the North)• Neglecting and boycotting Southern journals, etc.

in favour of Northern ones– number of publications in Southern / local journals

versus Northern ones?• Scattered knowledge in the South converged

in the North, e.g. leading to more intellectual property rights in the North

– processing and publication of research results (IPR, products)

Impacts• Sustainable institutional capacity building /

strengthening– researchers continue being active in their profes-

sion and in adequate institutions (maintenance of a critical mass)

• Fragmentation / conflicts / competition between national research institutes (between and within)

– duplication of research work without plausible explanation

– decreased networking• Increased asymmetries within national research

system from the centre to the periphery– research activities and outputs– allocation of funds– internal brain drain towards central institution• No sustainable institutional capacity building /

strengthening– researchers leave for inadequate work / profession• Exploitation of Southern partners due to Northern

dominance (increased inequalities)– division of tasks / responsibility of the Southern

partner (data collection, management, publishing, agenda setting)

– increased personal institutional capacity after project (N and / or S)

Output of Research PartnershipIncreased individual and institutional research capacity

Impact ChainUtilisation of Output• Interdisciplinary (transparent) methodology is

institutionalised/part of mainstream («rules of the game»)

– criteria exist for selection of research proposals– involved partners reach consensus

Effects (Outcomes)• Creation of a favourable environment for framing /

accompanying individual researchers– infrastructure (laboratory, library, PC, etc.)– competitive salaries– sufficient individual supervision• Contribution to the creation / strengthening of

(catalytic) centres of excellence– quantity and quality of output (no. of publications /

hits on website, use of library; assessing the quality of meetings, documents)

– no. and quality of invitations to international conferences, etc.

– number of PhDs (or even MSc, MBA, etc.)

Benefits/Drawbacks• A better /more effective division of tasks and

responsibilities (e.g. researchers / extension-system, end-users)

– evidence of collaboration between research and others

– behaviour of end-users• Abuse of funds for logistics and equipment– relative decrease of quantity and quality of

scientific outputs– significant deviation from standard benchmarks

(relative increase of admin. costs, compared to other institutions)

• Creation / acceleration of dependencies– reduced mobilisation and reduced control over

funds by the South


Individual and institutional capacity building / strengthening (S & N)

REFERENCESANNEX

85

Laws S, Harper C, Marcus R. 2003. Research forDevelopment. A Practical Guide. Sage Publications.pp. 475.

Probst K, Hagmann J, Fernandez M, Ashby J.A.2003. Understanding participatory research in thecontext of natural resource management – paradigms,approaches and typologies. Agricultural Researchand Extension Network (AgREN) Paper No. 130,Overseas Development Institute, pp 16http://www.id21.org/society/s2ckp1g1.html)

RAWOO, 2001. North-South Research Partnerships:Issues and Challenges. Trivandrum Expert Meeting.Publication no. 22. pp 36.

SDC, 2002. Research Policy of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)

Wagner C.S, Branmakulan I, Jackson B, Wong A,Yoda T. 2001. Science and Technology Collaboration:Building Capacity in Developing Countries. RAND Science and Technology, 90 pp.

Argyris C, and Schön D. 1996. Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading,Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Groot A., 2002. Demystifying Facilitation of Multi-actor Learning Processes. Dissertation University ofWageningen.

Hagmann J, Chuma E, Murwira K, Connolly M,Ficarelli P. 2002. Success factors in integrated natural resource management R & D: Lessons frompractice. Conservation Ecology 5(2): 29(http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art29/)

Herweg K, Steiner K. 2002. Impact Monitoring &Assessment. Instruments for Use in Rural DevelopmentProjects with a Focus on Sustainable Land Manage-ment. Volume 1: Procedure / Volume 2: Toolbox;CDE & GTZ, 2002.

Hovland I. 2003. Communication of Research forPoverty Reduction: A Literature Review, WorkingPaper 227, Overseas Development Institute, pp. 99

Hurni H, Wiesmann U, Schertenleib R. 2004.Research for Mitigating Syndromes of Global Change.A Transdisciplinary Appraisal of Selected Regions of the World to Prepare Development-OrientedResearch Partnerships. Perspectives of the SwissNational Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR)North-South, University of Berne, Vol. 1 Berne:Geographica Bernensia, 468 pp.

Johnson N.L, Lilja N, Ashby J.A. 2003. Measuringthe impact of user participation in agricultural andnatural resource management research. AgriculturalSystems, 78, 287-306.

KFPE, 1998. Guidelines for Research Partnershipswith Developing Countries: 11 Principles.

KFPE, 2001. Enhancing Research Capacity inDeveloping and Transition Countries. Experience,discussions, strategies and tools for building researchcapacity and strengthening institutions in view of promoting research for sustainable development.Geographica Bernensia, Berne; 316 pp.

Lammerink M.P, Wolffers I. 1998. Approches parti-cipatives pour un développement durable. Editions Karthala, 193 pp.

References

Launching Workshop in Switzerland, Moosegg, 2 – 4 May, 2001– El Shinnawy Azza (ERF) – Harabi Najib (ERF) – Herweg Karl (CDE, Univ. Berne) – Lammerink Marc (RAWOO) – Lys Jon-Andri (KFPE) – McMahon Gary (GDN) – Maselli Daniel (SDC) – Meschinelli Alessandro (IFAD) – Winkel Klaus (DANIDA)

3rd GDN Annual Conference in Rio de Janeiro,December 9–12, 2001– Maselli Daniel presented the IAS concept in

a workshop during the conference

Workshop during the 4th GDN Annual Conference in Cairo, 15 & 16 January 2003– Bijl Jaap (RAWOO) – De Leener Philippe (IFAD)– El Shinnawy Azza (ERF)– Loayza Fernando (GDN consultant) – Lys Jon-Andri (KFPE) – Maselli Daniel (CDE, Univ. Berne) – McMahon Gary (GDN) – Mpungu Jennifer (AERC) – Nkurunziza Janvier (Burundi / Harvard) – Premchander Smita (Sampark) – Yudaeva Ksenia (Russia)

Field-visits and Workshop during the 5th GDN AnnualConference in New Delhi, January 22–26, 2004– Ali Liaquat (Bangladesh Institute of Research and

Rehabilitation in Diabetes, Endocrine and Meta-bolic Disorders (BIRDEM)

– Bijl Jaap (RAWOO) – Chidambaranathan Mani (Sampark) – Deshpande M.V. (National Chemical Laboratory

Pune, India) – Loayza Fernando (GDN consultant) – Lys Jon-Andri (KFPE) – Maselli Daniel (CDE, Univ. Berne) – Premchander Smita (Sampark) – Ramakrishna Balakrishnan S. (Wellcome Trust

Research Laboratory, Christian Medical College,Vellore)

– Ramakrishnan P.S. (School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India)

– Schmid Jacqueline (SDC) – Verjee Soraya (Sampark)


86

Persons actively involved in the IAS Group

Wageningen Portals | - Improving Impacts of Research Partnerships · 2012. 7. 17. · different...

Documents

Transcript of Wageningen Portals | - Improving Impacts of Research Partnerships · 2012. 7. 17. · different...