Paper short abstract:

We analyse the coproduction of knowledge between academics and urban social movements using empirical evidence to uncover tensions in these relations. Recognising the value in such approaches, we explore the power dynamics that challenge efforts to realise shared collaborative commitment.

Paper long abstract:

This paper contributes to recent discussions on the coproduction of knowledge through partnerships between academics and non-academics. Drawing on experiences derived from collaboration to generate knowledge about urban practice in the global South, we argue that academics are insufficiently self-critical about the power dynamics involved in knowledge production with civil society groups including social movements. Ethnographic research shows that five key issues need to be addressed for more equitable relations in knowledge production to be established. First, alternative theories of change must be recognised even if they cannot be reconciled. Second, the relative status of academics vis-à-vis non-academics must be interrogated, and better understood. Third, fair allocations of resources need to be agreed. Fourth, the accountabilities of the researchers to the marginalized need to be established. Fifth, the contribution of social movement leaders to university activities including teaching needs to be institutionalised. The focus of the paper - on urban research and practice - is a context in which - in addition to academic work influence policy and programming - professional knowledge, validated and certified by academic institutions, forms the basis for urban planning and management. Outcomes are contested as low-income residents struggle to maintain well-located homes and secure essential services at affordable costs, and elites seek to manage urban land and commodity production processes to accumulate wealth and extract profits. Some of the points discussed in this paper related to urban specificities and others are more general.

Paper short abstract:

If much research funding flows trans-nationally, the institutions that handle it can play a significant role in ensuring ethics is part of the game. The paper discusses three models to leverage international donor and networks practices to strengthen global debate on research ethics.

Paper long abstract:

Institutions that fund development research at the international level occupy a privileged position with reference to the practice of research ethics: not only these actors are in a position to impose procedural requirements on researchers, but they also influence substantially research agendas through their funding priorities, and - ultimately - they have a unique vantage point on different ways of doing research. Rarely these three dimensions of influence (administrative, substantial and meta-analytical) are leveraged to advance the theory and practice of research ethics.

This paper explores three potential models actors active in international research funding (donors and networks) can use to leverage their position on question of research ethics and the transformative politics in development research, and discusses their implications (for both researchers and donors). The first model is one where a funding actor adopts a procedural approach, adopting a research ethics policy or checklist (ex ante approach). A second model is one where it integrates ethics in its definition of research quality and its mechanisms for quality control (ex post or iterative approach). A third model implies a broader effort to engage with (and navigate) researchers' own reference practices in the institutions and countries where they belong.

After presenting these three models and exploring their boundaries and overlaps, the paper discusses the different potential they have to support an institution's own reflection on questions of long-term impact and transformative politics inherent in development research.

Paper short abstract:

Ethical guidance for North-South partnerships based on negative obligations to avoid exploitation of researchers and participants reinforces colonial views of LMIC as "vulnerable", negatively impacting research and funding agendas. I offer an alternative model based on positive duties of solidarity

Paper long abstract:

Despite increased emphasis on equitable partnerships, development research in low and middle income countries (LMIC) continues to be driven by high income countries (HIC). LMIC researchers may be afforded limited input into the research process, while bearing the brunt of frontline work with participants and communities to whom they are ultimately accountable but without the power to influence how the research affects or benefits them. This situation, often described as exploitative, undermines not just trust among partners but above all the social value of the research itself. Unequal partnerships also hamper LMIC's ability to develop local capacity to drive such high-value research, creating a vicious circle of under-capacitation. Ultimately, by not engaging fully with the wide range of local stakeholders (researchers, communities, practitioners, policy-makers) and their contexts, development research can subtly reinforce, if not impose, Western paradigms of development in a neo-colonialist fashion, even with the best of intentions.

Many ethical guidelines exist to foster equitable research partnerships, build local capacity and advance justice. Yet, these focus largely on avoiding exploitation, and in doing so reinforce a view of LMIC as "vulnerable" and the neo-colonialist approaches that they seek to combat. This can negatively influence the design of research agendas, policies and funding strategies. For this reason this paper argues for an ethical approach based on ideas of cosmopolitan solidarity borrowed from political philosophy that can help reverse neo-colonial tendencies in the funding and conduct of research in LMIC. Solidarity rather than exploitation can better ground mutual obligations and promote truly global partnerships in development research.