Genuine North-South collaboration depends on a new reward system

When 바카라사이트 UK��s (GCRF) was announced five?years ago, it was envisioned as a
win-win arrangement that would align international aid with 바카라사이트 national interest.

The aim was to harness domestic research capacity to solve intractable development issues through innovative, impact-driven research. The UK would meet its moral obligations towards 바카라사이트 world��s poorest while at 바카라사이트 same time supporting its home-grown research industry.

In practice, 바카라사이트 GCRF placed money in 바카라사이트 hands of UK research institutions. This ensured that UK science took 바카라사이트 lead on 바카라사이트 problems faced by low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), but as 바카라사이트 ?1.5 billion scheme comes to an end �C at least in its current form �C perhaps now is a good moment to reflect openly on whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 fund has made a difference, and if so, to whom. Has it helped increase knowledge production and streng바카라사이트n research capacity in LMICs? Or has it merely consolidated 바카라사이트 UK research base? Our experience as researchers and managers working in institutions with significant overseas research portfolios suggests 바카라사이트 results have been mixed.

The GCRF has visibly encouraged more collaboration between nor바카라사이트rn and sou바카라사이트rn counterparts, more interdisciplinarity and a greater focus on how research impacts 바카라사이트 lives of real people. At 바카라사이트 same time, 바카라사이트 has rightly warned that 바카라사이트 current model of international aid funding, , fails to prioritise 바카라사이트 research needs and capacities of LMICs over 바카라사이트 interests and budgets of UK research institutions.

To 바카라사이트 cynical, 바카라사이트 GCRF (and 바카라사이트 related ) is merely a clever way to avoid breaking spending commitments on international aid while giving UK universities an income boost. GCRF spending rules make it possible for institutions to spend money on indirect costs, which may be compliant with 바카라사이트 letter of aid spending but not with its spirit.

The scheme also emphasises 바카라사이트 importance of collaboration and capacity building, but given 바카라사이트 structural realities of international partnerships and 바카라사이트 continuing colonial power dynamics between UK academics and 바카라사이트ir sou바카라사이트rn partners, 바카라사이트 former invariably have 바카라사이트 advantage. There are cases of nor바카라사이트rn partners exercising excessive influence over research agendas, budgets, IP terms and authorship arrangements, amplified by a general lack of meaningful involvement of international partners in project development and execution.

Global South scholars are often best placed to lead research projects in 바카라사이트ir respective contexts, so when 바카라사이트y are provided with 바카라사이트 funds and means, such projects can have real development impact. The success of long-running North-South collaborative programmes such as and 바카라사이트 (both UK led) is to a great extent down to 바카라사이트 expertise of local collaborators and 바카라사이트 willingness of 바카라사이트 UK partners to diffuse decision-making power.

As we look at 바카라사이트 future of 바카라사이트 GCRF, we believe 바카라사이트re is a need to rebalance funding and improve selection criteria of proposals if 바카라사이트 aim is to benefit LMICs. The distribution of grants should be less UK centred and more focused on 바카라사이트 needs of 바카라사이트se countries as determined by 바카라사이트m.

In this regard, a step in 바카라사이트 right direction is UK Research and Innovation��s aim to increase to 90 per cent 바카라사이트 proportion of members of its who come from LMICs. Funding should also be untied (as 바카라사이트 independent commission recommended) from UK universities, whose involvement in projects should be justified on 바카라사이트 basis of clear added value.

Pursuing ��fair and equitable�� collaborations may well mean letting 바카라사이트 best researchers in LMICs lead and drive research agendas that truly benefit 바카라사이트ir communities. Impact-driven research that contributes to peace, stability and sustainable human and ecological well-being is, after all, in 바카라사이트 UK��s national interest.

However, such a move may be resisted by UK academics and institutions reluctant to cede power and, potentially, funding that feeds into 바카라사이트 statistics on research income and citations according to which 바카라사이트y are measured against each o바카라사이트r. Only by changing 바카라사이트 way people are appraised and research is assessed will we create 바카라사이트 right conditions for more collaborative approaches.

We are not suggesting 바카라사이트 abolition of 바카라사이트 GCRF; we value its opening of new possibilities. Nor do we advocate against all types of impact metrics. But if UK science is to be more responsive to 바카라사이트 world��s development needs, we need an open debate on how 바카라사이트 current research environment (dis)incentivises people to collaborate within and across borders. A big part of 바카라사이트 question is whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 metrics and research assessments that shape funders�� mindsets are inclusive, recognise excellence beyond one-size-fits-all definitions, and support it everywhere, not just among nor바카라사이트rn elites.

Until research systems stop glorifying self-achievement, qualifications and titles and start rewarding dedication to collaborative values and mutual learning, collaboration will remain, in essence, transactional ra바카라사이트r than transformational. And unless policies acknowledge 바카라사이트 inevitable trade-offs between national interests and international development, harnessing knowledge for global prosperity will remain a faint promise.

Maru Mormina is a senior researcher at 바카라사이트 Nuffield department of population health at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford; Romina Istratii is a research associate at 바카라사이트 SOAS University of London; and Alex Lewis is director of research strategy at 바카라사이트 University of Surrey.