AO: Early efforts by IDRC learned that linking and sharing information did not necessarily translate into collaboration and synthesis (3). Analyses found the “importance of participation, context-specific structures, committed donor support, and leadership. While the networks were successful at linking individuals, and moving toward collaborative research, there were questions about sustainability, capacity require- ments, and higher costs (Willard and Creech 2006). Furthermore, it became evident that linking around a common theme or purpose does not automatically lend itself toward the desired outcome of collaboration and synthesis.” (3)
AO: “synthesis is viewed as a process whereby knowledge from a variety of sources is summarised and critically appraised, and was envisioned as including a broad array of activities and research outputs. Synthesis outputs include academic papers, policy briefs, blogs, videos, maps, conference panels, and media articles.” (4)
AO: The analysts describe the importance of (1) responsive funding, (2) the use and facilitation of collaborative spaces, (3) pro- grammatic leadership, and (4) being strategic in order to strengthen the enabling environment for collaboration and synthesis.
AO: The analysts hold that “Being strategic, and clearly communicating that vision, ensures that individuals involved are aware of why the topic and audience have been selected and the intended purpose” is very important as well as “critically reflecting about potential collaborative synthesis, rather than pursuing it as a good in and of itself.”
AO: The analysts mention the importance of strengthening the way that collaborative spaces are facilitated, and enlivening spaces where individuals are better able to interact, know one another identify mutual interests and then develop collaborative projects. (9).
AO: The analysts note the challenges of being in different geographic locations.
AO: The analysts do not discuss data sharing practices at all.
AO: The analysts noted that while face-to-face meetings are costly, they are more likely to help build relationships, trust and social capital rather than virtual tools. But with resource constraints, they note that virtual tools need to be used such as hosting regular thematic research webinars where research findings are shared and also the hosting of internal conversations addressing specific topics, holding open dialogues (via social media) and providing additoall programmatic support to emergent communities of practice to lessen administrative burdens (7).
AO: Multi-partner rather than multi-stakeholder in order to highlight the sense of shared commitment necessary for the relationships described. “Multi-partner collaborations consist of “a group of individuals from different institutions choosing to work together towards a common goal” (2).
AO: The analysts mention unplanned examples of collaborative synthesis projects that were developed after having face-to-face discussions, with the incentive and opportunity of additional available funding, after which the online collaborative tools were utilized. The analysts use this example to highlight the importance not just of being connected but of knowing each other. The analysts note that the participating individuals knew one another, shared mutual interests, and a sufficient level of trust had been established that enabled the development of a new idea and a funding proposal (5).
AO: Multi-partner rather than multi-stakeholder in order to highlight the sense of shared commitment necessary for the relationships described. “Multi-partner collaborations consist of “a group of individuals from different institutions choosing to work together towards a common goal” (2)
AO: The analysts mention unplanned examples of collaborative synthesis projects that were developed after having face-to-face discussions, with the incentive and opportunity of additional available funding, after which the online collaborative tools were utilized. The analysts use this example to highlight the importance not just of being connected but of knowing each other. The analysts note that the participating individuals knew one another, shared mutual interests, and a sufficient level of trust had been established that enabled the development of a new idea and a funding proposal (5).
AO: The analysts look at a multi-partner consortia example of “Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia (CARIAA)” that sought to support policy and practice for climate change adaptation through a consortium model. CARIAA is a seven-year (2013–19), CAN $70 million, multi-partner collaborative research programme involving more than 450 individuals, 18 core member institutions, and over 40 implementing partners.
AO: The analysts are interested in collaboration at the level of synthesis which they say can be around a shared common theme of interest or it can also be a means of validating, triangulating, and amplifying reearch findings (to reach new audiences).
AO: Specifically the analysts looked at “hard and soft collaborative spaces, such as an intranet and working groups around common thematic interests; responsive additional funding mechanisms that could be secured to support emergent collaborative synthesis efforts; and annual “learning reviews” that brought together partners for face-to-face meetings. These processes were designed to enable diverse worldviews, knowledges, and perspectives to be shared, and to facilitate opportunities for novel collaborations and synthesis.” (4)
AO: The analysts describe a rolling pot of money that was available to support emergent ideas. The ideas were assessed collaboratively by a steering committee with representation from all consortia and had to involve members from more than one consortium as well as contribute to the programme objectives to obtain approval.
AO: The analysts note that they are experimenting with various styles of leadership, describing programme-staff leadership where CARIAA management officers are working to create new ways to share information, noting that it is time consuming but key to enable cross-consortia synthesis activities (7).
AO: The IDRC noted that “by requiring multiple partners to co-apply in order to obtain funding, partnerships did effectively emerge in response to those calls, but were primarily a means to leverage funding and coordinate activity, but did not effectively translate into the “sum being more than its individual parts”. (3)
AO: “funding modalities required careful foresight and reflexive adaptive planning with regard to processes, resources and tools that would enable meaningful collaboration” (3)
AO: The analysts note that “many donor-funded partnerships allocate funding at the outset, and once the agreements are in place, the projects are unable to take advantage of emergent ideas, windows of opportunities, or unexpected collaborations.” (5)
AO: The analysts look at earlier examples of large multi-partner collaborations which noted that conditions for improving collaborative action included the processes (goal setting, funding, management and monitoring), contexts (meta-governance, problem structure and socio-political contexts) and the actors (leadership and partners). They also note commonly experienced challenges, including those related to differing knowledge systems, time requirements, status and power asymmetries, unrealistic expectations, and bureaucratic barriers between institutions. (3)