![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
Research capacity strengthening (RCS) is a key strategy to address the problem of health inequity and development. In spite of policy statements on “capacity development” and “North–South partnerships” among commissioning and donor agencies, most RCS initiatives operate on the conventional supply-driven, expatriate-led, short-term project, technical cooperation model which has proved ineffective in building institutional capacity and sustaining research environments. This paper analyzes the political economy of health research commissioning among bilateral, multilateral, non-governmental and philanthropic organizations, using East Africa as a case study. Instead of conventionally focusing on recipient countries and institutions, we look at the policies and practices of donor and commissioning agencies and the relationship they have with key stakeholders like Southern research institutions. While conventional approaches to development assistance predominate, we argue that the literature on RCS over-generalizes and presents it in monolithic terms. In contrast, this study provides a typology of research commissioning practices and identifies several different modes of engagement. The key findings are that the structure of the relationship between donors and recipients, as well as the governance structures of the commissioning agencies, have a critical influence on RCS. The paper concludes with some recommendations for enhancing the role of donors and commissioning agencies.
Acknowledgements
We thank all of the respondents for contributing to this study. We are indebted to Tom Barton of CRC Kampala for advice on research design, relevant literature and comments on earlier drafts, and Caroline Allen, formerly at the MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit (SPHSU), for advice and comments on drafts. Graham Hart, formerly at the MRC SPHSU, and David Mabey and Philippe Mayaud of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine all supported the project. The study was funded by the UK Department for International Development's HIV/AIDS and STIs Knowledge Programme, through the Medical Research Council. MRC SPHSU WBS code: U.1300.00.005.
Notes
1. Commission on Health Research for Development, Health Research; Global Forum for Health Research, The 10/90 Report; Sitthi-amorn and Somrongthong, “Strengthening Health Research Capacity”; Higginbotham, “Developing Partnerships for Health”; Rosenfeld, “Potential of Transdisciplinary Research”; Netherlands Development Assistance Research Council, Making Social Sciences Matter.
2. Edejer, “North-South Research Partnerships”; Maselli, Lys, and Schmid, Improving Impacts of Research; Nair and Menon, Capacity Building for Demand-Led; Nchinda, “Research Capacity Strengthening”; Trostle, “Research Capacity Building.”
3. Paraje, Sadana, and Karam, “Increasing International Gaps.”
4. Trostle, “Research Capacity Building,” 1322.
5. Commission on Health Research for Development, Health Research; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – Development Co-operation Directorate, Criteria for Donor Agencies’; and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Making North-South Research Networks.
6. Department for International Development, Research Funding Framework.
7. Netherlands Development Assistance Research Council, Making Social Sciences Matter.
8. Danish International Development Agency, Evaluation of Danida's Bilateral; Helland, “Tanzanian–Norwegian Case”; Maselli, Lys, and Schmid, Improving Impacts of Research.
9. Edejer, “North-South Research Partnerships”; Nair and Menon, Capacity Building for Demand-Led; Nchinda, “Research Capacity Strengthening”; Trostle, “Research Capacity Building”; Netherlands Development Assistance Research Council, North-South Research Partnerships; Sadana and Pang, “Health Research Systems”; Silva et al., “Promoting Interdisciplinary Collaboration”; Netherlands Development Assistance. Research Council, Making Social Sciences Matter.
10. Hauck and Land, Beyond the Partnership Rhetoric.
11. Bautista, Velho, and Kaplan, Comparative Study; ActionAid International, Real Aid.
12. Simon, “Commentary.”
13. Box, To and Fro; Milèn, What Do We Know; Velho, From Partnership with Sweden.
14. Global Forum for Health Research, Health Research for Equity, 6.
15. Trostle and Simon, “Building Applied Health Research.”
16. Mkandawire, Notes on Consultancy.
17. Jentsch and Pilley, “Research Relationships.”
18. Milèn, What Do We Know.
19. Joint Learning Initiative, Human Resources for Health, 154.
20. Arap Ng'ok et al., “Impact of Structural Adjustment.”
21. Gakunju, “Role of Research.”
22. Uganda National Health Research Organization, Analysis of Institutions, 16.
23. Uganda National Health Research Organization, Inventory of Studies.
24. Uganda National Health Research Organization, Analysis of Institutions.
25. Wight, “‘Most of Our Social Scientists.’”
26. Global Forum for Health Research, The 10/90 Report, 265.
27. Mkandawire, Notes on Consultancy.
28. Whyte, Landscape Analysis.
29. Whyte, Landscape Analysis.
30. Chataway, Smith, and Wield, Partnerships for Building Science, 25.
31. Jentsch and Pilley, “Research Relationships.”
32. Costello and Zumla. “Moving to Research Partnerships.”
33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development, Managing for Development Results.
34. International Development Research Centre, How to Approach IDRC.
35. Wohlgemuth, Changing Aid Modalities, 2.
36. Berg, Rethinking Technical Cooperation.
37. World Bank, Capacity Building in Africa.
38. Chataway, Smith and Wield, Partnerships for Building Science, 25.
39. Whyte, Landscape Analysis, 27.
40. Munishi, “Donor Participation in Tanzanian.”
41. Lansang and Dennis, “Building Capacity in Health.”
42. Commission on Health Research for Development, Principles of Good Partnerships.
43. Jentsch and Pilley, “Research Relationships.”
44. Ahmad, “Brain Drain.”