Academics concerned over 'exploitative' global research partnerships

Academics concerned over 'exploitative' global research partnerships

Are universities in wealthy nations exploiting researchers from developing countries, treating them mainly as data gatherers instead of respected colleagues? And, wielding all the money and the clout, do Western academics fail to engage with their counterparts in emerging nations as true partners in the research collaborations?

These were concerns raised at the British Council’s recent “Going Global conference which brought together academics from higher education institutions around the world. So, are the charges true?

“I am aware of instances where labs in India have been involved in certain kinds of research analyses that has been time-consuming and laborious. This can strain the collaborative partnership,” says Sumantra ChattArji, professor of neurobiology at the National Centre for Biological Sciences in Bangalore. His personal experiences of working with international universities, he says, have been excellent, but he observes that “a long-distance collaboration across time zones and labs rooted in different countries and their own ‘scientific cultures’ is a tough thing to pull off”.

One must be absolutely clear about key issues, ChattArji says: “mutual respect and trust, clarity on who is bringing what to the project and if it is being truly valued by your partner – ie, that you are not just a pair of hands doing part of the work but an equal intellectual partner with a say in the scientific direction of the project every step of the way.”

Southern researchers do sometimes find themselves being used rather than fully partnered with, confirms the British Council’s director of education and society, Dr Jo Beall. “When I was deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Cape Town, I definitely saw my colleagues there exploited. Universities (from richer nations) can be ruthlessly extractive. There can be a lack of sensitivity, especially in emerging markets where you have increasingly good quality researchers – you do get resentment growing, and it’s understandable.”

Beall points out that in some developing countries, academics agree to carry out large amounts of badly paid consultancy on international research projects to supplement their paltry local salaries. This is less than ideal for either party to the project. “Often you get a recycling of the same old same old,” she says. “They may give the same work to the Americans as to the Germans and the British, and sometimes the quality’s not great. So it can be frustrating from the commissioning and partnering side.”

“We have heard that in some cases academics are used as data collectors, and not so much in the conceptualising of the research,” confirms Jon Harle, senior programme manager at Inasp, a development charity whose mission is to enhance the flow of information within and between countries. Some of the constraints, he explains, can be down to poor communication: “An academic from Sierra Leone told me that ‘we don’t find out about a funding call till at the last minute, or too late.’”

When it’s rich countries that are providing the funding, it’s obvious too that unless deliberate efforts are made, the priorities – and therefore the research questions asked – will emphasise the wealthier nations’ interests and concerns, suggests Ruth Bottomley who heads up research development and support at Inasp.

Some bias is inherent in many funding mechanisms too, notes James Smith, professor of African and development studies at Edinburgh University.

For Research Councils UK funding, he explains, applications have traditionally had to be made via the UK partner. “This creates an immediate issue for a partnership as one partner is in the lead.” On the other hand, “you could argue that at least this allows southern partners to access funding”.

These issues are being addressed, Smith says – if slowly. “The Department for International Development funded projects are generally now open to all, as aid is untied. Newton funding generally requires both partners to apply and the proposal is assessed by research councils in both countries.” It’s is a start, Smith says, “but only a small number of countries are involved in this scheme”.

A research partnership can be taken advantage of by either party, observes Paschal Mihyo, executive director at the African Institute for Development Initiatives, in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.

When based in the Netherlands and managing collaborative programmes with universities in Namibia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, Mihyo recalls that academics at his Dutch institution “felt used because in Zimbabwe and Namibia we were saddled with most of the teaching and our counterparts used our presence to do their private practice or consultancy”.

This was “a reverse power imbalance that was discussed openly between the partners many times,” he says, “but it did not change and the transfer of skills targeted by the collaboration never took place partly because of this.”
Smith would like to see a code of conduct developed for international collaborations that would “set out expectations and responsibilities better”. It could also, he says, be worth considering carefully about “the increasing role of donors, especially the rise of new types of partners – such as the private sector and NGOs – which further complicate the international higher education sector. They present new opportunities but also new sorts of risks and challenges.”

Universities and academics in emerging economies must take responsibility too for setting out the parameters within which they’re prepared to collaborate, says ChattArji.

“Never get into a collaboration simply because it involves an international partner. Such links should not be initiated because of a warm and fuzzy feeling that it would be ‘good for me’ or ‘improve my stature in the eyes of my colleagues locally,’” he advises. “It is best to have a very clear idea and agreement on what exactly makes it worthwhile for the two sides to join forces.”

An elegant solution may be to switch the focus of at least some development funding onto the needs of the less economically powerful partner, says Harle. Sweden’s Development Agency, he explains, “begins by talking to, for instance, an Ethiopian university, and asking ‘what are your priorities?’ Then they announce the funding call to Swedish institutions, and invite them to submit proposals in partnership on those areas of priority.”

Some Swedish and African institutions are engaged in working partnerships that have been sustained for years, even decades. It might be an approach worth copying.