The good, the bad, and the ugly: reflections on co-designing science for impact between the Global South and Global North

Abstract

Co-designing research is increasingly recognized as a way to advance research that is equitable and inclusive, with greater potential for “real-world” impact. Co-designed research can have numerous benefits, but real challenges can also arise in co-design processes. We provide examples of our experience as collaborators from the Global North and Global South; highlighting both successes and failures with a focus on five thematic areas: funding and associated power dynamics, differences in research culture and training, diverse interests and needs, authorship norms, and the balance of inclusion. Within these themes, we share examples where even with good intent, co-design research went awry as well as good practices and habits we have learned that helped us improve our collaborations. Co-designing research will only work if we continuously challenge existing norms that can undermine these processes. If we as a scientific community can continue to learn from and adapt our co-design efforts, we can create much more collaborative, inclusive, and impactful research.

actionable research, co-creation, co-design, co-production, power, research

We represent four perspectives: two non-government organization (NGO) researchers from the Global North (USA) and two from the Global South (Indonesia and Kenya) with extensive experience co-designing research among NGOs, universities, governments, and resource-dependent communities. While there is often good intent, co-design is hard, and we still have much to learn about how to do it effectively and equitably. Here, we share our experiences co-designing research between the Global North and the Global South—the good, the bad, and the ugly. We provide tangible examples to complement the frameworks that exist for co-producing science (Norström et al., 2020; Haelewaters et al., 2021; Hakkarainen et al., 2021). We reflect on five thematic areas that should be considered in co-designed research between Global North and Global South researchers: funding and power dynamics, differences in research culture and training, diverse interests and needs, authorship norms, and the balance of inclusion.

Throughout this paper, we refer to researchers from the Global North and the Global South. We acknowledge that these terms are problematic and that challenges in co-design research manifest outside of this divide, but for this paper, focus on the specific challenges that emerge in this context.

Funding and power dynamics

Collaborations among international researchers are often driven by funding opportunities from the Global North.

Good

We have found that acknowledging the needs of all researchers (both Global South and Global North) from the start, such as research interests, operational, and communication costs, is key for successful co-design. This was easier when funding was flexible, particularly in the inception phase when resources were available to support a co-design process. We were then able to adapt the proposed research, methods, and deliverables along the way to reflect the needs emerging from the co-designed inception phase.

Bad

The power dynamics of these funding flows often result in Global North researchers and funders driving the research agenda and allocation of funds. For example, research priorities are often heavily influenced by donors—whereby they want to understand their impact (foundations) or have pre-existing priorities (foreign government agencies). These needs can be disconnected from the needs of researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders in-country. In addition, we have seen cases where research is not shared with key decision-makers when the research showed mixed results from conservation efforts. This is often driven by valid fears that research showing little, or no conservation impact will be perceived as personal failings of in-country stakeholders and their conservation efforts, which can, in turn, impact future funding from the Global North. We observed this firsthand when research results were not shared with a donor because they showed little or no impact, which limited our capacity to learn collaboratively.

Ugly

We have observed or been subject to very extractive research where we (the Global South researchers) felt our engagement was a “tick box” exercise, as little to no budget was included for our participation in the research process led by those from the Global North. We have also witnessed cases where foreign researchers disregarded local rules in places where we work, which put our own work at risk. With increasing interest in co-designed research, we fear there will be more and more situations like this, with Global North researchers either (a) conducting co-design processes with Global South researchers with good intention, but failing to meet to local needs and adapting to context, or worse, or (b) using Global South researchers to achieve their own agendas through extractive practices masked as co-design.

Differences in research culture and training

International collaborations bring together researchers trained in different educational systems rooted in different cultures, which shapes how participants approach research, policy, and practice.

Good

Diverse teams are essential for good science (Freeman and Huang, 2015). In our experiences, researchers from the Global South often bring experience grounding research in local needs, cultures, and customs, while researchers from the Global North often bring access to formal Western scientific training and tools (e.g. theory of change and results frameworks) that help guide impactful research. This has allowed for co-learning within our research teams. Two things have been critical for us in supporting diverse partnerships: (a) investing in translation and/or facilitation to ensure true dialogue can happen between partners around needs; and (b) supporting and engaging in associations and networks that facilitate a culture of co-designed research and capacity development, such as the Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA).

Bad

Existing stereotypes and hierarchies, often legacies of colonialism, are still present in the contexts where we co-design research. In our work, there have been occasions where the “Global North” researcher is perceived as the “expert” or “team lead” despite their background, experience, or role in the research. We have also found that researchers from the Global North are rarely trained in fair and collaborative research: For example, we (the Global North researchers) admittedly have made mistakes where we both led graduate research in the Global South and did not include local experts in co-designing our research. The education systems we were trained in provided little guidance on how to engage fairly and equitably with local experts. We wrongly made assumptions that this was how science should work.

Ugly

The culture and norms of Western science can actively undermine partnerships between Global North and Global South researchers. We have been a part of collaborations where the norms around what “counts” as knowledge or evidence from a Western scientific perspective undermined the capacity to do meaningful co-designed research. This has led, for example, to co-designed research projects that only include researchers from Western science and leave out other critical in-country stakeholders such as governments and members of resource-dependent communities. These stakeholders instead are seen as passive recipients or “audiences” for knowledge at the end of the process.

Diverse interests and needs

Impact means different things to the participants and institutions involved in co-designed research and can include very different goals such as the number of publications, where they get published, to how research contributes to change in implementation, policy, or strategy.

Good

The potential impact of the research, inclusive of both the policy and the scientific impact, is greater when there is a dedicated effort to align the different goals of Global South and Global North researchers at the start of a co-design process. This requires ensuring that resources are allocated to co-designing non-academic outputs such as factsheets and policy briefs, which tend to help Global South researchers and practitioners meet their needs. In one case, designing marine conservation areas that benefit fisheries was a high priority for the government and in-country researchers, yet there was little existing research on the topic. This research gap aligned with the interests of Global North researchers, who worked alongside Global South researchers within NGOs to do well-funded and applied science to inform in-country conservation design. This led to several scientific and non-scientific products that had “real-world impact”.

Bad

We have been part of research partnerships where the overall theme of the research was aligned among Global South and Global North researchers, but there were differing perspectives on how the research was implemented. The rigour of the research design made it difficult to implement and use the findings without extensive resources and support from Global North researchers. While there were some valuable insights that came out of that research, much of the data that was collected remains unused.

Ugly

We have been a part of collaborative research where there was little effort to both (a) design the research to inform specific decisions or learning needs and (b) communicate the findings in accessible ways. The research design process did not align with policy and decision-making needs, which could have shaped the focus and trajectory of the research and increased its real-world impact. In other cases, we have witnessed Global North researchers prioritizing publishing in international journals (which can be expensive) while expecting Global South researchers to communicate the research outcomes to policy makers and practitioners with little to no resources.

Authorship norms

There are entrenched norms in academia as to how papers are written, what counts towards authorship in academic publishing, and how the order of authors is determined.

Good

Developing clear authorship guidelines at the inception of a project can provide much-needed clarity on roles and responsibilities, what counts towards authorship, and authorship order. Without this, we have found it easy to fall back on the norm that those with the funding (often Global North researchers) lead and dictate the writing process (Ahmadia et al., 2021). In one project, guidelines were set at the beginning where Global South researchers led empirical papers that studied systems in their country, while the international researchers led global and conceptual papers. We have also found that creating mentorship opportunities between Global North and Global South researchers and engaging non-scientific stakeholders throughout the research and writing process (including field assistants and decision-makers) can challenge authorship norms and create more inclusive co-designed research processes and outputs. This allowed for diverse forms of knowledge to be incorporated and opportunities for those who are typically excluded to be recognized as contributors and authors. Lastly, we found that using different forums for gathering input into research processes (i.e. including translators in group feedback sessions) provided opportunities for diverse forms of knowledge to be woven into the co-design process.

Bad

We have been part of research projects where authorship was determined by who was involved in the manuscript conceptualization and writing, not by the whole research process. In our experiences, this led to the exclusion of researchers who had invested time and energy in data collection and/or analysis. Authorship habits are more often dictated by seniority in experience, education, and position level instead of scientific contributions. This means researchers with higher education and position level have more opportunities for senior co-authorship roles. Additionally, academic writing and publishing in English is still the norm, placing non-native English speakers at a disadvantage. We have seen that this results in researchers from the Global North assuming the “first author” position, as Global North researchers often have had more access to training in academic writing and publishing.

Ugly

While collecting, cleaning, and analysing data is often collaborative, we have experienced situations where a Global North partner published on their own using co-produced data without consulting or crediting their Global South partners. Global North researchers are also rarely trained on fair and collaborative practices around authorship and in academics, it is not always the norm to consider data collectors as co-authors on paper (instead they are often acknowledged as “field assistants”). Papers have been published by Global North countries researchers to help them achieve their education and research goals, with little effort to socialize outcomes where the research was done. We have also experienced, as Global South researchers who have collected data or played other critical roles in the research, being offered no opportunity for authorship.

Balance of inclusion

There is a fine line to walk in being “inclusive enough” while remaining efficient in co-designed research to ensure different stakeholders’ goals can be met and that the science stays credible, legitimate, and timely.

Good

We have learned that it is important to be intentional about when and how we co-design research to ensure that we use people's time wisely and target co-design efforts to places where they can have a real impact. Co-designed research works best for us when there are one or more embedded team members with skills in facilitation and mediation who can navigate the co-design processes from start to finish; a skill rarely taught in academia. In two different projects, having embedded facilitators in the research team made it much easier to include diverse stakeholders in the “analysis” phase of the research, which traditionally is led by a researcher in isolation. This helped (a) ground emerging findings in the realities of the places where the research took place and (b) increased ownership over the research by different stakeholders, which, in turn, increased the practical impact of the research.

Bad

It is easy to get lost in the co-design process. While it is important to let a research process evolve and reorient towards new goals to meet changing needs, this can sometimes lead to projects expanding too far beyond their original scope. Relationships can be damaged when research under-delivers, as oftentimes stakeholders join a co-design process with particular goals and expectations in mind. Effective co-design requires a lot of negotiation and discussion as well as the courage to say “no” where necessary. This can take a lot of time, and when there are insurmountable differences of opinion (which are then often surrounded by power dynamics), time gets wasted and the risk of conflict between stakeholders increases.

Ugly

We have been part of research efforts where we were required to include co-authors on papers who made little to no contributions to the research process, who were included because they were from the country where the research was being conducted. In another case, we tried to create an inclusive process to help identify research priorities in a particular region and invited participants from different organizations to join. While participant numbers were balanced between Global North and Global South researchers, the Global North researchers dominated the dialogue which led the co-design process astray. We learned then that identifying individuals who are truly willing to adhere to the spirit of co-design to a process is critical: Not every researcher is equipped to do co-designed work.

Improving mindsets, practices, and systems for better co-design

We have seen first-hand how co-designed research can lead to real change in policy and practice. But our experience also shows that it is hard; dominant norms, structures, and systems often work against co-design, and co-design is not always the right fit for everyone, everywhere: even with good intent, co-design processes can go awry and even undermine goals around diversity, equity, trust, and inclusion in science. Despite this, we believe it is essential to keep improving how we do co-designed research; not only to advance inclusive science but also to ensure science can have real-world impact in our rapidly changing world.

In our experience, we have found that there are mindsets and practices that can help researchers and research stakeholders do more effective co-designed research: First, we have found that prioritizing flexible funding opportunities helps us ensure that our time is spend on projects with sufficient resources to enable a well-facilitated co-design process. More flexible funding can support co-design in several phases: During the inception phase of the project, it can ensure that stakeholders have the time and space to (1) communicate honestly about goals and expectations, (2) navigate and address trade-offs with adequate facilitation support, and (3) set collaboration principles and agreements that govern, for example, authorship expectations, stakeholder engagement, and priority research and non-research outputs. For later phases, flexible funding can help open up pathways for engaging with non-research stakeholders in equitable ways, and when appropriate, shifting deliverables and outputs to adapt to changing needs. But flexible funding should be managed fairly and transparently, to ensure different stakeholders’ needs are met. We hope more funders, implementing agencies, and research institutes will consider adding flexibility to their research and practice grants and programs to allow teams to design meaningful and fit-for-context co-design processes.

Second, we have found being intentional about who we co-design with and how we do it can ensure that we spend our limited time in meaningful co-design. Diverse teams are critical for impactful research, but engaging in co-design with diverse stakeholders often requires challenging assumptions and deviating from the traditional roles and norms we may be used to. While more and more researchers are embracing this way of working, there are still some who are not. Knowing when to invest in co-design, and when to walk away from harmful power dynamics or deeply entrenched norms, is equally important. Strong facilitation and the use of strategic collaboration tools and technologies can help ensure that co-design processes respect all participants’ time and optimize the group's capacity to do good, collaborative work.

Finally, research needs to be promoted as a more inclusive process that is not just a process reserved for those with particular skills or training. This could help more diverse stakeholders see themselves as critical to the research process—for example, government stakeholders and representatives from stakeholders impacted by research findings and recommendations. Developing and sharing practical experiences and outcomes from co-designed research in ways that is accessible to different stakeholders can demonstrate the value of co-design and incentivize more researchers and research stakeholders engage in and improve co-design practices.

How we produce and use research is changing with our rapidly changing world. We hope that by sharing our own practical experiences—the good, the bad, and the ugly—others can chart their own paths forward to support a more intentional and inclusive scientific community.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We extend our gratitude to the countless individuals with whom we have co-designed the research: Thank you for letting us learn alongside you. We also thank the editors of this special issue for inviting us to contribute our story from the front lines.