Image: Ms Gauri Maya Chhetri, Sudan Raj Panthi, and Keren Winterford as part of a WHO study on equity in water safety planning in Deurali village, Nepal. Credit: David Sutherland.
Partnership has long been a core feature of our international development research practice and has become even more central as we change our way of working in response to COVID-19. We recognise that the term ‘partnership’ is often used, though not well understood, as discussed during the Research for Development Impact (RDI) Network conference, which focused on the theme, Partnering for Impact on Sustainable Development. Keren Winterford from ISF was lead author of the RDI Network Guide – How to partner for international development research, which sets out the value and also the implications of partnership for international development research.
We know from our experience of the COVID-19 global pandemic that our international development research practice will be re-defined into the future. Even if the world was to miraculously go back to the same as it was before the pandemic, our research practice would not follow. Building from our experience over the past year, we want to strengthen our emerging skills and capacities. COVID-19 has required us to strengthen partnership principles and practices that we were already undertaking. International travel restrictions have made this is not just a preferred, but a mandatory practice. Through our experience of 2020, we are resolved that this is a better way of international development research practice.
We know from our experience that (1) research in partnership provides significant value and numerous benefits. For example, through partnership with local researchers, local NGOs and community members, rich knowledge from multiple actors and country perspectives can be revealed and shared. Two-way learning between those involved in the research activity can occur, which can help to maximise research uptake by policy and practice decision-makers. Research in partnership helps us ensure that research supports longer-term development outcomes, not just through research findings, but by strengthening local research capacity. We recognise that through every inquiry we are engaging in a change process, so we take care to ensure our research is meaningful for researchers and research participants alike.
We know that (2) research in partnership has implications for how we carry out research, which may be inconsistent with standard practices of academic research. Research in partnership importantly means that we share roles and responsibilities, risk and benefit of the research. Local NGOs, researchers or community members are not simply ‘field assistants’ and data collectors. They are part of decision-making, research design, research practice, sense-making and formulating, and disseminating research findings. Academic researchers need to let go of control, and instead share control with our research partners. An example of us letting go and prioritising local knowledge was the ‘I’m Prepared’ project with Act for Peace, in which refugees informed the interview guide for research data collection. The project focused on the voluntary return and reintegration of Karenni (Thailand-Myanmar) and Tamil refugees (India- Sri Lanka). Refugees themselves led data collection and collation and were supported in their leading roles through annual researcher training. During training of refugees as researchers, local partners The Border Consortium (TBC) and Organization for Eelam Refugees Rehabilitation (OfERR) together with the refugees had lengthy conversations about the specific wording of the interview questions. As outsiders, we sat down, somewhat confused about what was happening, but trusting that the local NGOs and refugees would work it out. The refugees were sensitive to the language and wording used and ensured that the research questions did not cause harm to research participants. We often have the feeling that sharing power with our partners means losing control, but focus on trusting the partnership process in which we are engaged, as well as trusting the local partners. Importantly, as international development researchers, we must loosen control and be led by those from the local context who have the best understanding of why and how research can be carried out. We must recognise that primacy of rigorous research designs and rigid research activity need to be balanced with partnership approaches that result in effective and impactful research.
We don’t value research for the sake of research outputs only (e.g. journal articles), but for the (3) value research, learning and reflection offers to international development. Strengthening skills in research and increasing the value of evidence-based policy and practice within international development is our modus operandi. Local NGOs, local researchers, ‘beneficiaries’ of development projects are all core to our research practice, as they are also part of development initiatives. Valuing participation in the research also means that local actors are more likely to take on board research learning, even before the research findings are produced. An example of strengthening local research skills is with WaterAid in Timor-Leste. We used action research, whereby WaterAid and partner organisation staff who implement WASH programs co-created research questions and qualitative data collection processes, collected information (data) and co-conducted analysis to inform their own learning and to help evolve the program they were delivering. The Timorese research partners involved in this study had a variety of backgrounds in terms of education, jobs (office, field and technical), languages spoken, age and research skills and experience. Over a week, we worked together to build a shared vision for the research, develop research skills and ensure confidence in how to ethically carry out the data collection process with remote support from ISF. We stayed in touch using WhatsApp, the preferred platform for local staff, which maintained a strong connection throughout the research process.
(4) Long-term partnerships for research enable trusting and honest conversations for critical inquiry and research impact. Long-term partnerships are about personal relationships, organisational commitments and shared interests. An example of this long-term partnering is our focus on Asia and the Pacific. The majority of our work in international development over the past 20 years has intentionally focused on Asia and the Pacific, in order to build our understanding of the political, social, cultural, environmental and economic contexts that underpin and influence development challenges in the region. Focusing on Asia and the Pacific has also strengthened our long-term relationships, and cross-cultural competency. Through longevity of relationships, we are able to make better sense of how our research relates to the local context and how the research might be of use to a range of stakeholders. Research on the humanitarian-development nexus in Fiji was enabled by our understanding of the sub-national context and established relationships formed through an earlier evaluation of the Pacific Risk Resilience Program. In Indonesia, we have more than a decade of engagement with national government counterparts on water and sanitation, and work through both formal partnership arrangements and formal workshops and engagement as well as informal person-to-person relationships established over many years – luckily supported by minimal staff rotation on their side!
Research in partnership is enabled through (5) respectful relationships and strong cross-cultural understanding, appreciating that we come with our own cultural perspectives and we need to privilege the cultures where we work. An example of being culturally aware and sensitive and taking the lead from our CSO partners is our long-term partnership with East Meets West Foundation (EMWF) in Cambodia and Vietnam. Through numerous projects, ISF has built strong relationships with EMWF and we work with our partners to lead discussions with stakeholders (such as government officials and community members) after co-creating research questions, interview processes, and data analysis methods. We have utilised online platforms to conduct remote workshops in the lead-up to face-to-face engagement for years, and this has helped to keep our research processes and engagement iterative, regular, and co-designed.
All of these five features of our approach are good international development research practice, and these principles and practices have been intensified during COVD-19 due to limitations on travel and face-to-face connections. Our experience demonstrates the need to have these ways of working central to the practice of international development research. We have been able to continue our research work in partnership, and importantly ensure that longer-term development agendas are realised. For example, our research in Sri Lanka, funded by the Australian aid program, has a core focus on food security, important both during and outside pandemics. We are working remotely with local NGO and research partners to co-design the research activity with farmers, and the researcher training, data collection and collation will be led by local researchers. Research findings will be jointly discerned through remote sense-making processes. As evidenced here, it is through long-term partnerships, established relationships, trust and shared interests that we have been able to continue our work.
We can work remotely via online platforms. We have upskilled in a variety of platforms. Of course, this requires very good internet access and competency of facilitators and participants. However, COVID-19 has revealed and exacerbated existing inequalities, such as varied access to information and communications technology in the global south. If it can work, it can work well. An example of creative use of online platforms was our recent use of Google Slides for an evaluation sense-making workshop. Workshop participants said that it was “one of the single best activities that [they] have done”. We have been working remotely in a variety of ways, some new and some building from past experience. For example, researcher training, data collection via ‘Zoom interviews’, sense-making workshops and our regular partner meetings. This doesn’t mean that we will never need to travel again – deep and real relationships underpin the work we do – but, even before COVID-19, our Institute was critically assessing the need to travel because of carbon emissions. For both COVID-19, and as a means to reduce carbon emissions, we need to have established relationships in order for remote work to be possible, as it is hard to build new relationships, especially in different languages, remotely. Setting up effective relationships that are remote at the outset is likely to be challenging. We know that we can travel less, which is an important contribution to the climate and testament to practical action for climate justice.
Local researchers in the lead. We have been trying to ‘get out of the way’ for a long time now and would like to continue to stretch ourselves to do this in creative and meaningful ways. Why do we need to be lead researchers in the communities where we work? What is the point of wasting everyone’s time with back-and-forth translation so we can lead the process? Our experience is that local researchers are best placed to lead local research engagement processes. In several recent projects we have partnered with the University of Indonesia, steadily building an institutional-level engagement and exchange that extends beyond specific projects, and can pave the way to more equal partnership arrangements. Travel restrictions and climate change have fast-tracked this agenda and we are committed to continuing to strengthen local researcher leadership to be part of the co-design process and lead more parts of the research practice. Our experience of COVID-19 highlights that research work can continue with our remote support remote. This is our current experience of research in Sri Lanka, where we work remotely with a local NGO and research partners to co-design research activity with farmers. And the researcher training, data collection and collation will be led by local researchers. Research findings will be jointly discerned through remote sense-making processes. It is through long-term partnerships, established relationships, trust and shared interests, we have been able to continue to work.
Insights on international development research in the time of COVID-19 highlight the need to rethink research through the practice of partnership. This may require commissioners of research to fund longer lead times to co-develop research proposals and research designs with multiple parties across different country contexts, disciplinary fields and areas of experience. The value of international development should be expanded beyond an evidence base to inform policy and practice to include mutual learning and skill development for all partners to research practice.
