Transforming North-South research partnerships

Lessons learned from energy, technology & enterprise global challenge research fund projects

Bibliographic Data

ID13065056
AuthorsBenjamin L Robinson (0000-0002-4727-1129, University of Nottingham, corresponding author), Miles Clifford (0000-0001-6379-2672, University of Nottingham), Sarah Jewitt (0000-0002-7159-0621, University of Nottingham)
Year2022
Volume93
Pages102837-102837
Publication date2022-10-14
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueEnergy Research & Social Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2214-6296 • E-ISSN: 2214-6326
PublisherElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.erss.2022.102837
OpenAlexW4306253868
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited29

The Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) provided a mechanism for academia to undertake projects relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals but there have been limited opportunities to critically interrogate such projects. In this paper we will use the Technology Implementation Model for Energy to deconstruct the purpose, assumptions and expectations, engagement strategies, and reflective processes of four GCRF projects in order to better understand relationships between researchers and those being researched. Thus, the aim of this paper is to explore and understand the lived experiences of four inter-disciplinary GCRF Primary Investigators implementing poverty alleviating technologies in a range of sectors to generate recommendations that can be applied to wider academic communities engaging with vulnerable populations. Our key findings show that despite the integration of Theory of Change models and the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) framework in GCRF-funded projects, project aims continue to be driven by researchers rather than reflecting end-user needs. Whilst some projects looked to generate feelings of ownership, adequate engagement strategies and reflective learning practices, these processes are often not formally embedded in project activities resulting in a decoupling of researcher expectations and end-user assumptions – ultimately derailing project outcomes. Our recommendations for academics operating within the International Development space are to 1) Talk early, often and transparently, 2) Keep Thinking – who benefits?, 3) Be reflective, responsive, and open to change and, 4) Use a systematic approach to facilitate this process

Business · Knowledge management · Order (exchange · Political science · Process (computing · Process management · Public relations · Responsible Research and Innovation · Computer Science · ICT in Developing Communities · Innovation and Socioeconomic Development · Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access