Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023;35(2):351-379.
doi: 10.1057/s41287-023-00578-w. Epub 2023 Feb 23.

How are Research for Development Programmes Implementing and Evaluating Equitable Partnerships to Address Power Asymmetries?

Mieke Snijder  1 , Rosie Steege  2 , Michelle Callander  3 , Michel Wahome  4 , M Feisal Rahman  5 , Marina Apgar  1 , Sally Theobald  2 , Louise J Bracken  5 , Laura Dean  2 , Bintu Mansaray  6 , Prasanna Saligram  7 , Surekha Garimella  7 , Sophia Arthurs-Hartnett  2 , Robinson Karuga  8 , Adriana Elizabeth Mejía Artieda  9 , Victoria Chengo  2 , Joanes Ateles  10
Affiliations

How are Research for Development Programmes Implementing and Evaluating Equitable Partnerships to Address Power Asymmetries?

Mieke Snijder et al. Eur J Dev Res. 2023.

Abstract
in English, French

The complexity of issues addressed by research for development (R4D) requires collaborations between partners from a range of disciplines and cultural contexts. Power asymmetries within such partnerships may obstruct the fair distribution of resources, responsibilities and benefits across all partners. This paper presents a cross-case analysis of five R4D partnership evaluations, their methods and how they unearthed and addressed power asymmetries. It contributes to the field of R4D partnership evaluations by detailing approaches and methods employed to evaluate these partnerships. Theory-based evaluations deepened understandings of how equitable partnerships contribute to R4D generating impact and centring the relational side of R4D. Participatory approaches that involved all partners in developing and evaluating partnership principles ensured contextually appropriate definitions and a focus on what partners value.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41287-023-00578-w.

Finally, centring reflexivity within a learning oriented approach ensured that partnership evaluation findings were used to adapt and improve the way R4D programmes operate. La complexité des enjeux abordés par la recherche pour le développement (R4D) nécessite des collaborations entre des partenaires de disciplines et de contextes culturels variés. Les asymétries de pouvoir au sein d'un tel partenariat peuvent entraver la répartition équitable des ressources, des responsabilités et des avantages entre tous les partenaires. Cet article présente une analyse croisée de cinq évaluations de partenariats R4D, leurs méthodes et la manière dont elles ont mis au jour et traité les asymétries de pouvoir. Cet article contribue au domaine des évaluations de partenariats R4D en décrivant de façon détaillée les approches et les méthodes employées pour évaluer ces partenariats. Les évaluations basées sur la théorie ont permis d'approfondir la compréhension de la manière dont les partenariats équitables contribuent à l'impact de la R4D et à mettre au centre l'aspect relationnel de la R4D. Les approches participatives impliquant tous les partenaires dans l'élaboration et l'évaluation des principes du partenariat ont permis de garantir des définitions adaptées au contexte et de faire en sorte que les évaluations se penchent sur ce qui est jugé important pour tous les partenaires. Enfin, le fait de mettre la réflexivité au cœur de l’analyse dans une approche axée sur l'apprentissage a permis d'utiliser les résultats de l'évaluation du partenariat pour adapter et améliorer le fonctionnement des programmes de R4D.

Keywords: Equitable partnerships; Evaluation research; Monitoring, evaluation and learning; Participatory evaluation; Research for development; Theory-based evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
OneOcean Hub theory of change that reflects GCRF key principles
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
LD Hub theory of change
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Tomorrow's Cities theory of change
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Equitable partnerships theory of change in Tomorrow's Cities (Source Price et al 2021)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Equitable partnership principles and evaluation measures framework
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Aktar B, Alam W, Ali S, Awal A, Bayoh M, Chumo I, Contay Y, Conteh A, Dean L, Dobson S, Edstrom J, Elsey H, Farnaz N, Garimella S, Gray L, Gupte J, Hawkins K, Hollihead B, Josyula KL, et al. How to prevent and address safeguarding concerns in global health research programmes: Practice, process and positionality in marginalised spaces. BMJ Global Health. 2020;5(5):e002253. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002253. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Apgar M, Douthwaite B. Participatory theory of change: Reflecting on multiple views of how change happens. In: Burns D, Howard J, Ospina S, editors. SAGE Handbook of Participatory Research and Inquiry. London: Sage; 2021.
    1. ARISE. 2022. CBPR corner. Arise. https://www.ariseconsortium.org/cbpr-arise-community-based-participatory....
    1. Barr, J., B. Bryan, P. Kolarzl, X. Potau, M. Punton, P. Simmonds, and I. Vogel. 2018. GCRF Evaluation Foundation Stage. Final Report, p. 278.
    1. Brien, P., and P. Loft. 2022. The 0.7% aid target. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03714/.

LinkOut - more resources