IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v40y2022i2ne12555.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

North–South research collaborations: An empirical evaluation against principles of transboundary research

Author

Listed:
  • Shelley Kotze
  • Mirek Dymitrow

Abstract

Motivation Transboundary research collaborations (TRCs) are critical in supporting evidence‐based actions to address complex global issues, yet there remains a lack of empirical knowledge that would detail how TRCs are organized, how activities are facilitated, and how actors interact. Purpose We address this knowledge gap by evaluating a North–South TRC against the 11 principles for TRCs defined by the Commission for Research Partnerships with Developing Countries (KFPE). Methods and approach Using personal accounts, content analysis, and semi‐structured interviews/surveys, our evaluation casts light on how the process of running a TRC in the 21st century is enacted from the perspective of the individual. Findings Our results and discussion provide the basis for a more probing and systematic case for and against contemporary TRCs, their underlying value structures and ways of working, as well as the dimensions that are lacking. Policy implications Evaluation of TRCs must include the experience of all the actors involved in the TRC and not only the outcomes they produce; transdisciplinarity cannot be viewed as the only way to solve general development issues, but must be carefully considered in order not to mask underlying issues of inequality and poor ethics; and the ring‐fencing of funding for a specific purpose or TRC does not negate the need to scrutinize the activities that are undertaken in the name of the TRC.

Suggested Citation

  • Shelley Kotze & Mirek Dymitrow, 2022. "North–South research collaborations: An empirical evaluation against principles of transboundary research," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 40(2), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:40:y:2022:i:2:n:e12555
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.12555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12555
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.12555?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harry Collins, 2009. "We cannot live by scepticism alone," Nature, Nature, vol. 458(7234), pages 30-30, March.
    2. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Jentsch, Birgit & Pilley, Catherine, 2003. "Research relationships between the South and the North: Cinderella and the ugly sisters?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(10), pages 1957-1967, November.
    4. Gareth Haysom & E. Gunilla Almered Olsson & Mirek Dymitrow & Paul Opiyo & Nick Taylor Buck & Michael Oloko & Charlotte Spring & Kristina Fermskog & Karin Ingelhag & Shelley Kotze & Stephen Gaya Agong, 2019. "Food Systems Sustainability: An Examination of Different Viewpoints on Food System Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-17, June.
    5. Lindell Bromham & Russell Dinnage & Xia Hua, 2016. "Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success," Nature, Nature, vol. 534(7609), pages 684-687, June.
    6. Adam G. Pfleegor & Matthew Katz & Matthew T. Bowers, 2019. "Publish, Perish, or Salami Slice? Authorship Ethics in an Emerging Field," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 189-208, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Seolmin Yang & So Young Kim, 2023. "Knowledge-integrated research is more disruptive when supported by homogeneous funding sources: a case of US federally funded research in biomedical and life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3257-3282, June.
    2. Casey Helgeson & Robert E. Nicholas & Klaus Keller & Chris E. Forest & Nancy Tuana, 2022. "Attention to values helps shape convergence research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Nelius Boshoff, 2010. "South–South research collaboration of countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 481-503, August.
    4. Xiaojing Cai & Xiaozan Lyu & Ping Zhou, 2023. "The relationship between interdisciplinarity and citation impact—a novel perspective on citation accumulation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Zhiya Zuo & Kang Zhao, 2021. "Understanding and predicting future research impact at different career stages—A social network perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(4), pages 454-472, April.
    6. Daniela Filippo & Pablo Sastrón-Toledo, 2023. "Influence of research on open science in the public policy sphere," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1995-2017, March.
    7. Manning, Stephan, 2017. "The rise of project network organizations: Building core teams and flexible partner pools for interorganizational projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1399-1415.
    8. Karolina Urbanska & Sylvie Huet & Serge Guimond, 2019. "Does increased interdisciplinary contact among hard and social scientists help or hinder interdisciplinary research?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, September.
    9. Qingzhou Luo & Jianhong Cecilia Xia & Gaby Haddow & Michele Willson & Jun Yang, 2018. "Does distance hinder the collaboration between Australian universities in the humanities, arts and social sciences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 695-715, May.
    10. Antje Klitkou & Stian Nygaard & Martin Meyer, 2007. "Tracking techno-science networks: A case study of fuel cells and related hydrogen technology R&D in Norway," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 491-518, February.
    11. Zhu, Yongjun & Kim, Donghun & Jiang, Ting & Zhao, Yi & He, Jiangen & Chen, Xinyi & Lou, Wen, 2024. "Dependency, reciprocity, and informal mentorship in predicting long-term research collaboration: A co-authorship matrix-based multivariate time series analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    12. Leonardo Reyes-Gonzalez & Claudia N. Gonzalez-Brambila & Francisco Veloso, 2016. "Using co-authorship and citation analysis to identify research groups: a new way to assess performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1171-1191, September.
    13. Hayashi, Takayuki, 2003. "Effect of R&D programmes on the formation of university-industry-government networks: comparative analysis of Japanese R&D programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1421-1442, September.
    14. Marian-Gabriel Hâncean & Matjaž Perc & Jürgen Lerner, 2021. "The coauthorship networks of the most productive European researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 201-224, January.
    15. Duk Hee Lee & Il Won Seo & Ho Chull Choe & Hee Dae Kim, 2012. "Collaboration network patterns and research performance: the case of Korean public research institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 925-942, June.
    16. Eustache Mêgnigbêto, 2018. "Correlation Between Transmission Power and Some Indicators Used to Measure the Knowledge-Based Economy: Case of Six OECD Countries," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(4), pages 1168-1183, December.
    17. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes & María Bordons, 2019. "What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 805-825, May.
    18. Per O. Seglen & Dag W. Aksnes, 2000. "Scientific Productivity and Group Size: A Bibliometric Analysis of Norwegian Microbiological Research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 125-143, August.
    19. Wah Yun Low & Kwan Hoong Ng & M. A. Kabir & Ai Peng Koh & Janaki Sinnasamy, 2014. "Trend and impact of international collaboration in clinical medicine papers published in Malaysia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1521-1533, February.
    20. Craig Boardman & Barry Bozeman, 2006. "Implementing a 'bottom-up,' multi-sector research collaboration: The case of the Texas air quality study," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 51-69.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:40:y:2022:i:2:n:e12555. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.