Decolonising research capacity development

By Maru Mormina and Romina Istratii

Why do many countries in the Global South remain behind when it comes to knowledge production and use, despite decades-long efforts to strengthen research capacity?

We think this is because the North still looks at the South with a ‘deficit mentality,’ according to which the latter has the problems and the former the solutions. From this standpoint, northern-led capacity development initiatives fail to recognise the South’s rich and diverse knowledge traditions and systems. Instead, they continue to impose monolithic blueprints of knowledge production, therefore re-inscribing colonial patterns of intellectual Western hegemony.

Of course, in many countries, research systems need support but current approaches are at best producing mixed results. A decolonial lens can help us identify alternative models.

Decolonising research capacity development in principle

The decolonisation discourse is often misused and overused. Nonetheless, it has helped to advance racial justice claims and frame geopolitical struggles. Decolonial critiques of knowledge production, in particular, have effectively mainstreamed the idea that knowledge exists in the Global South. And that it’s useful and valuable for everyone, not just for locals.

When applied to research capacity development, these critiques make the coloniality of interventions and their underlying ‘deficit view’ visible. This view is often deeply ingrained in both Northern and Southern mindsets.

Decolonising research capacity development in practice

Decolonisation touches upon the political, historical, economic, social, and the personal and affective dimensions of our collective identities. We authors are Southerners by origin, but we work at Northern universities. So, in some ways – perhaps inevitably – we’re cogs in a system designed to maintain knowledge imbalances.

By occupying this liminal space, caught in the complexities and contradictions of decolonisation, we’ve learnt to be mindful of our own imbricated positionalities. We’ve also learnt to be cautious of any language, assumptions or approaches that are mainstreamed as panaceas for international problems. For us, decolonising research capacity development starts with a reflection about its practices and fundamental purpose.

Research capacity development seeks to support the production of socially valuable knowledge, which advances the long-term wellbeing and resilience of individuals, communities and societies. But how can we achieve this in practice? Being mindful of the need to avoid one-size-fits-all answers, we discern the following three broad principles, which are informed by decolonial thinking:

1. Epistemic pluralism through cognitive justice
2. Equity of access through systems strengthening
3. Sustainability achieved through localisation.

1. Epistemic pluralism through cognitive justice

We can only get a better grasp on what social justice demands by tapping into different forms of knowledge. Yet, research capacity development strategies often privilege certain types of knowledge, whilst rendering others invisible. Decisions about which and whose capacities should be developed create winners and losers. Cognitive justice and epistemic pluralism, thus, need to be at the heart of research capacity development planning.

Epistemic pluralism requires capturing a more diverse pool of talent by widening access beyond already privileged individuals. One way to achieve this may be to diversify research funding away from the few ‘centres of excellence’ that currently receive it.

Cognitive justice means recognising the knowledge contribution of different groups. A commitment to cognitive justice requires us to broaden the scope of research capacity development interventions to include a diversity of knowledge producers. This means not just academic institutions, but also non-governmental organisations, think tanks, etc. It also requires us to include knowledge users eg., civil society and policymakers. The inclusion of such knowledge users and producers will create a strong and diverse knowledge force. This is necessary to ensure inclusive and legitimate deliberation on what socially valuable knowledge looks like in particular contexts, countries or sectors.

2. Equity of access through systems strengthening

Few recognise the potential of research capacity development to deepen domestic inequalities, especially in Southern countries. This is a particular risk if the benefits of knowledge production are unevenly distributed. For example, technological innovations mostly benefit those with the financial resources to adopt them early. The Green Revolution illustrates this. Without equity as a frame of reference, efforts to strengthen research and innovation capacity may end up deepening existing inequities or creating new ones.

Ensuring fair access to the benefits of knowledge production requires a strong social contract between these key actors:

1. The institutions tasked with creating knowledge (eg., universities and think tanks)
2. The institutions tasked with translating knowledge (eg., industry and government)
3. The governance institutions tasked with enabling the process, through appropriate regulatory frameworks and infrastructure.

This means that strengthening knowledge production alone is not enough. Equity asks us to think of research capacity development in systemic terms. Systems strengthening requires interventions not to focus on the actors in isolation – knowledge producers, knowledge users and governance institutions – but on the linkages between them. Strong, functioning relationships between these three parts of the knowledge ecosystem is what enables both knowledge production and a fairer diffusion and distribution of its benefits.

3. Sustainability achieved through localisation

We understand sustainability as the ability to meet the diverse needs of existing and future communities efficiently and at an appropriate scale. Therefore, sustainability is about continuity and productivity.

Continuity: Systemic research capacity development approaches require continuity of funding, resources and human capital, rather than subordination of research capacity development to skills development for specific tasks in research projects. These approaches also require flexibility, because capacity development is never a linear process. So, research capacity development cannot be ‘owned’ by Northern institutions, whose primary interest is the delivery of research, but by Global South actors themselves. This is so that capacity can be continuously developed to deliver on the ever-changing local priorities.

Productivity: Research productivity in the Global South will always fail to match that of industrialised societies if capacity is measured against the cognitive, rigidly defined and quantifiable skills associated with Western notions of excellence. By adopting this notion of capacity, research capacity development reinforces the ‘deficit view’ and imposes a scientific monoculture that doesn’t accommodate different forms of knowledge production. Instead of encouraging isomorphic mimicry, research capacity development should support context-appropriate ways of producing and evaluating knowledge. This also requires local ownership.

Localising research capacity development: True localisation means shifting power so that ideas are developed in local communities, to address their own needs. This requires systems and processes of knowledge production that are not vulnerable to external interests. Because these interests are usually leveraged through foreign investment, localisation can only be achieved by breaking the reliance on international research funding. Clearly, local financing is a political decision that each country must make independently – do they encourage home-grown knowledge production or continue relying on international organisations? Enhancing the demand for local knowledge requires cultural and societal change to overcome the deficit mindset.

Conclusion

This brings us full circle. The localisation of knowledge production requires approaches to research capacity development that are not homogenising, but responsive to changing local realities. Such approaches must harness a diversity of talent and be systemic, so that effective spaces can be created for science and society to redefine their social contract.

What do you think? Do you agree with our analysis and suggestions for decolonising research capacity development? Do you have other suggestions to share? Are you aware of working models to emulate?

To find out more:

This i2Inisghts contribution is adapted from Maru Mormina and Romina Istratii (2023). “Decolonising research capacity development”, in On Think Tanks. (Online): https://onthinktanks.org/articles/2838554-2/. A longer essay by the authors provides a more detailed analysis of the legacy of colonisation and can be found at: Mormina, M. and Istratii, R. (2021). ‘Capacity for what? Capacity for whom?’ A decolonial deconstruction of research
capacity development practices in the Global South and a proposal for a value-centred approach. Wellcome Open Research, 6: 129. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16850.1

Biography: Maru Mormina PhD is a senior researcher and ethics advisor at Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, UK. She is interested in how processes of knowledge production and use in public policy are shaped by patterns of epistemic injustice, both in local and global contexts. She has investigated the intersections between global inequalities in knowledge production and colonial and postcolonial structures, particularly in the context of research capacity development interventions. Currently, she is investigating the use and non-use of expert knowledge in public policy during crises. Much of this work has centred on the recent Covid-19 pandemic.

Biography: Romina Istratii PhD is a UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) Future Leaders Fellow in the Department of Religions and Philosophies, Co-Chair of the Centre for World Christianity and research associate of the Department of Development Studies at SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies), University of London, UK. She is co-Founder of ‘Decolonial Subversions‘ and Research Strategy Lead at the global cooperative EqADi. Relevant research interests include the decolonisation of epistemology and methods in international development research and practice, research reflexivity and ethics, cross-cultural knowledge exchange and equality, diversity and inclusion in international partnerships.