Science and Technology Mailing List Archive

["Bruno Tran" <<address removed>>]

I have worked within DfID funded research projects. I have been 
involved in collaborative work in Ghana, Uganda and Liberia, whilst 
working for an academic research institute in the UK and then a 
large UK iNGO.  

I would like to support and add my own thoughts to point 11 of the 
penultimate moderator's summary on the role of DfID in capacity 
building and institutional strengthening. I will do this through 
presenting 3 key benefits that appropriate south-north linkages can 
and should provide, then submitting my prime suspect for the 
current lack of appropriate linkages and finally submitting my 
hopes for an alternative approach.  

1- LINKAGES

I agree that the creation of long term linkages between institutions 
and individuals (including but not limited to south-north links) is 
crucial to a proper sharing of scientific and technological results 
and (more importantly perhaps) processes. It would also develop a 
deeper understanding and sharing of the understanding of 
development issues and ethics.  

1a- Ethics

I have worked both in the academic and the NGO sectors. Why do 
(northern) NGOs seem to have the exclusivity of addressing -or at 
least discussing- ethical issues concerning development? I find it 
very odd that so many researchers reject the idea of tackling 
ethical issues whilst they work in the fields of development, and I 
would like to suggest that this is the case equally in the north and 
in the south. Should it be DfID's role to encourage discussions and 
debates of such issues? I think so.  

1b- Research processes

In the north, we have a long and prosperous history of scientific 
development. The scientific establishment has been extremely well 
funded (compared to the situation in developing countries), and 
many research and development processes are so deeply 
embedded that we may not even remember that they are not 
necessarily universal. Conversely, the research community in rich 
countries is likely to be very far removed from many realities of poor 
communities and the processes required to work with and for them. 
 
1c- Research results

I am sure I do not need to elaborate on the unacceptable reality 
that results are simply not available in the field (If you want to find a 
report written on a project that took place in -say- northern Ghana a 
few years earlier, then look for the European/American partner or 
donor, not for the local partners).  

2- PROJECTISATION

Why is it that ethics, processes and results are poorly shared? I 
believe that one of the causes is the projectisation of development 
work. Projectisation means short term associations of researchers 
and institutions:  

2a- There is no time, and no need for real partnership, in-depth 
understanding and real sharing. In fact, my experience of DfID 
funded research is that this is passively discouraged and certainly 
not funded. Over a period of 3 years, I think that collaborations are 
just starting to mature. Perhaps it would be important to recognise 
the human nature of the actors involved in development research?  

2b- The research itself is very often incompatible with short-
termism. Agricultural research, very often dependent on 
seasonality and over the lifetime of a project, after the period of set-
up and before the writing-up there will be 2 perhaps even only 1 
season of work. This cannot be the correct approach.  

2c- We have all (or most of us) been complaining of the lack of 
impact of past research. This observation has been used to 
terminate some types of research approach, and to start new ones. 
But as long as we remain locked in short term projects, I suggest 
that no approach will have a real impact, because after the project 
is over, there is no collaborative structure left that will take 
responsibility for applying and sharing the results. And relying on 
local partners is often futile: they have to look for new partnerships 
to build a new project!  

2d- Evaluation and Monitoring is difficult in a short term project. It 
has been mentioned that DfID's approach to M&E could be 
improved. I suggest that it would be improved by being applied to 
long term work and partnerships.  

3- A LONG TERM VIEW OF COLLABORATIONS AT THE 
CENTRE OF DfID's APPROACH TO RESEARCH.  

By developing and supporting long term partnerships between 
development organisations and individuals from the UK and from 
developing countries, DfID could help set up a network of 
partnerships that would know that their impact and their 
responsibility does not finish at the end of a 3 year project, these 
partnerships would spend less time and energy setting up 
partnerships and more developing them. Accountability would shift 
from an exercise of final report writing to the real world of what 
happens to our results after we complete a piece of work...  

Or am I day-dreaming?

Bruno
---------------------------------
Dr Bruno M D Tran
<address removed>
http://bmdtran.net
----------------------------------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.677 / Virus Database: 439 - Release Date: 04/05/2004


=============================================================
To send a reply to this message that goes to all list members,
make sure that you send your reply to <address removed>

To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to "<address removed>", with the 
message body:

unsubscribe science-and-technology <your-email-address>