Guidelines for data and publications;
bilingual training process “was crucial for the relationship between the doctoral researcher and the assistants to develop”;
tension that doctoral student is primary beneficiary of the phd research “can be addressed through the development of new themes related to the main doctoral area, on which joint authorship could be agreed.” (1962);
interviewee noted he liked when consultants demonstrated “openness to understanding a situation, for example, a person who went into the field, took notes of all the confusions he experienced, and later asked the interviewee to clarify,”; “importance of ‘ground rules’ as a prerequisite for equal participation in joint research,
“allowing Southern researchers to guide Northern colleagues in local matters and to be involved throughout the research design, analysis, dissemination and implementation. Such continuous involvement in all aspects of a research project was also recommended by two other researchers.” (1963)
action to shape processes and agendas, for example, by proactively planning the schedules of Northern visitors, by being aware of and using their own bargaining power, and by offering conditional collaboration only (1965)
AO: unequal funding (Northern funding is much more prolific and then sets the agenda for the project).
AO: The authors point to bad practices with data sharing and “intellectual ownership” in “collaborations” that have created a barrier towards collaborations: “Northern researchers using data sets did not credit the Southern fieldworkers; where problems arose when reports and papers were not shared with the country from which they originated, and where already existing analyses by the original researchers were used but without proper acknowledgement (Rakowski, 1993). (1958).
AO: “The data collected during this pilot phase seemed superficial, interviews and group discussions lasting sometimes less than 15 minutes. Limited notes were taken during focus groups. Few changes were made to the final draft of the group and interview schedules and the pilot study report produced remained at a general level, lacking compre- hensiveness and detail.” (1959)
AO: Guide- lines for dissemination plans at international, national and sub-national level were initiated by a northern researcher, drafted with a partner from the South, circulated to all partners for comments and feedback, and revised accordingly. “The guidelines state that all data should be available to all partners. Where collaborative work relies on data in a different language, the relevant research partner could be asked to deliver the data analysis, and support the process of interpreta- tion. Agreement for such a process should be sought at the stage where a partner proposes a new paper, and when the involvement of each partner is clarified. In any instance of use of data collected by a second party, the proper crediting of researchers must be ensured (follow- ing international journals’ practice), and co-authorship offered where appropriate. An ‘anticipated publications list’ was distributed to each researcher involved in the study, with a note encouraging researchers to add titles as appropriate. The list was completed according to individuals’ wishes to assume a lead-author or author role. Some of the listed ‘anticipated topics’ were part of the contractual obligations of ART, as co-ordinator, to the funder but additional topics were added, mainly by the Northern researchers.” (1960)
AO: (claim that North–South research collaborations tend to have neo-colonialist aspects has perhaps most pertinence when it comes to data proprietorship, and the proper acknowledgement of individuals’ contributions. Northern inputs are often overemphasised, while South- ern contributions are neglected. … It appears that the South is the data collector and the North steals those data and takes advantage of it. It is taken for granted that the North will always be the first author and the South will be fortunate if they manage to.” (1960)
AO: Internal team information circulation: “ART (global North partner) regularly produces newsletters in an effort to introduce partners to each other, and to keep everyone updated on the work being carried out by colleagues. In the final stage, a project partners’ evaluation meeting and a workshop are scheduled to consolidate contacts and increase opportunities for collaboration.” (1960)
AO: Western researchers (with funding) assume they know the best “problem space” so design the survey whereas non-Western local researchers feel that the research design and instrument developed in Aberdeen were not that suitable and therefore were puzzled about what to do.
“some words were used in the research instrument which were not acceptable for the Southern researchers, such as ‘non-western belief’.”
AO: Local researchers feel like their localness enables them (“from the very beginning”) to have a better understanding of the situation. (from direct quote from global South interviewee in the paper): “In fact, it is the reality that none of the Northern partners are experts on culture and values of the Southern society (though they presume so), therefore there is a gap in ideas.” (1959)
AO: Analysts credited their collaborators “substantial experience in Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques and their willingness to utilise PRA” to make the main research project (after their botched pilot project experience) work.
AO: The analysts study the failure in order to see how to obtain collaboration. They are interested in collaboration succeeding and the paper offers tips and ideas for how to make collaborations more “collaborative.”
AO: The analysts appear to assume that a good collaborator is open with how they feel and share back their thoughts to the other. They give an example of a guideline they created and assume that if there are issues with it, that the Southern researcher will be the one to speak up about it and contest it. Assumes a particular type of person (which for example in my opinion would never happen in Japan where it is taboo to speak up against a boss) : “the guidelines have been a good device for creating a forum which allows people to bring their expectations to the table, and to negotiate in the case of competing claims.”
AO: two cases of collaboration are analyzed: multi-national, publicly funded project bringing together research teams from Britain and Bangladesh and a doctoral study where a British student conducted fieldwork in Thailand supervised by a senior staff member from a Thai university. (1958)
AO: Western funding organizations are said to shape collaborations because they often give funding (and power) to western researchers.
AO: The issue of authorship begins even before the actual writing of the paper as the analysts note: “Who is given the opportunity to contribute, and thus potentially qualify as an author, is important.” In other words, who is already centrally part of the project to be able to write the most prominant publication out of it (and be first author). (1961)
AO: “In our collaboration, more publications were proposed by Northern researchers. This may have reflected the fact that they were in a more favourable publishing climate, with longer contracts and perhaps less urgency to have major simultaneous involvement in various projects, or in quick sequence.” (1961)
AO: The requirement that students’ theses have to comprise ‘work done by themselves’ as an original and significant contribution to the field of study (Phillips & Pugh, 1995) complicates collaboration and attribution of intellectual work done by others in the project. (1962)
AO: critiques of publishing infrastructures. Call by Thai interviewees “to measure the value of science with human values, not just with the yardstick of science.’ In other words, he expressed disapproval of the culturally specific way in which Northern reviewers evaluate Southern research.” (1963)
AO: Obstacles interviewees found difficult to overcome centred on limited access to information, and the persistent, strong reference to Northern values and yardsticks by international journals when the merits of Southern manuscripts are assessed, which worked to their disadvantage.” (1965)
AO: The two authors appear to work in the field of global health (based at UK university) and focus on economic inequalities of research funding (“Research and devel- opment expenditure is concentrated in the North, with only 10% of health research money spent in the South, although 90% of the global burden of disease resides here– the familiar 10/90 health research gap (Edejer, 1999; Ramsay, 2001).”) (page 1957).
AO: They draw on development research literature.
AO: They critique ideas of the global North partners coming in to build “capacity” (“assumption of Northern superiority, especially related to capacity building. It has been observed that ‘much of the discourse on capacity-building is tinged with a ‘subtle paternalism’ which assumes a comparative advantage of NNGOs [Northern NGOs] in the South.’” (1958)
AO: Southern scientists in interviews argued that the science should be “for it is the community which should benefit or its members can be regarded as deprived, and the researchers’ mission unfulfilled: ‘Scientists often forget about this, and are carried away by scientific rigour, but neglect implementation.’ The importance of implementation was also noted by a senior researcher who regretted that Northern agencies often selected issues which had no immediate implica- tions for action.” (1964)