Content uploaded by Stephen Mago
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephen Mago on Jun 23, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Preparing document for printing...
100%
Cancel
North-South research collaboration and the sustainable development goals: Challenges and opportunities for academics
... Due to the complexity and magnitude of the SDGs, a substantial number of resources, funding, knowledge, and technology are needed to accomplish the goals (Almeida and Davey 2018;Berrone et al. 2019). This is made possible through partnerships, which strategically overcome gaps by providing cost-effective solutions, knowledge, innovative tools, infrastructure, financing, and resources across economic, social, and environmental domains (Berrone et al. 2019;Horan 2019;Mago 2017). In addition, researchers found that partnerships increase efficiency, promote innovation and co-learning, enable risk sharing, and help create social value by incorporating interests of various actors (particularly local actors) going beyond economic interests alone (Baimenov and Liverakos 2019;Banerjee et al. 2020;Berrone et al. 2019;Brolan et al. 2019;Horan 2019). ...
... With the adoption of the 2030 Agenda in recent years, several cross-sector partnerships have emerged at local, sub-national, national, regional, and global levels that use integrated efforts to advance transformative action. Some distinct partnerships among these include cross-sector partnerships focused on education and research, information, and data sharing, and involving civil society organizations (Castillo-Villar 2020; Haas et al. 2021;Horan 2019;Mago 2017;Oliveira-Duarte et al. 2021;Thinyane et al. 2018). According to scholars, universities have an important part in achieving the SDGs because of the research potential and academic and professional networks they have established (Mago 2017;Moreno-Serna and Purcell et al. 2020). ...
... Some distinct partnerships among these include cross-sector partnerships focused on education and research, information, and data sharing, and involving civil society organizations (Castillo-Villar 2020; Haas et al. 2021;Horan 2019;Mago 2017;Oliveira-Duarte et al. 2021;Thinyane et al. 2018). According to scholars, universities have an important part in achieving the SDGs because of the research potential and academic and professional networks they have established (Mago 2017;Moreno-Serna and Purcell et al. 2020). In recent years, collaborations between universities and industry, civil society organizations, and governments have increased significantly, particularly in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, and Indonesia (Castillo-Villar 2020). ...
This chapter discusses partnerships and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Using a systematic literature review, an overview of the current academic articles on the topic is provided. The chapter details which SDGs are being pursued through partnerships, at what scale, in what countries, and through which sectors (public, private, and/or civil society). It synthesizes existing empirical research on partnerships in the context of the SDGs in terms of partnership definitions, types, roles, contribution to the SDGs, and challenges. Future research directions are also offered.KeywordsPartnershipSDGsGlobal goalsAgenda 2030Systematic literature reviewSDG 17
... Cooperation among different countries is another crucial aspect of collaboration that is necessary for achieving progress towards the SDGs, especially when considering the global scope of the goals. For example, North-South collaboration can be beneficial for knowledge sharing; in particular, countries with limited funding possibilities for research can benefit from potential financial resources resulting from collaborations [8]. ...
... SDG 4 is a focus in Europe and South America, and partly Africa. SDGs 1, 2,5,7,8,9,11,12,14,15 are not among the top 5 occurring themes in all continents according to the used keywords. Table 3. Focal SDGs per Continent. ...
In 2015, the UN adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), addressing social, environmental, and economic targets. Global partnerships, transnational, and interdisciplinary research are essential for achieving progress towards the SDGs. This study analyzes 4593 research articles at the meta-level, explicitly referring to the SDGs. This a comparably small amount of research items directly addressing the goals. However, comparisons with existing approaches using different queries are possible. Research that links to the SDGs through its title, keywords, or abstract facilitates knowledge sharing on the goals as it is easier to identify relevant work. Using scientometric means, we assessed the corresponding sources, research areas, affiliated countries, thematic foci, and the availability of funding acknowledgments. The results are useful for identifying research gaps and potential collaboration possibilities. The outcomes suggest that most research referring to the SDGs comes from the research areas Life Sciences & Biomedicine and Social Sciences. The most predominant SDG among the analyzed research articles is SDG 3 (“good health and well-being”). A relatively high share of open access articles contributes to the idea of knowledge sharing for the SDGs. Nearly 37% of all articles count as international publications, i.e., as being co-authored by authors from affiliations of multiple countries.
... Literature on North-South research partnerships continued to emphasise their role in supporting knowledge sharing and reducing research inequalities (Baud, 2002;Hassan, 2006). But critique was increasingly vocal of the ways in which such partnerships position northern partners as 'givers' and southern partners as 'receivers' (Binka, 2005;Mago, 2017) and the difficulty in centring southern partners in formal partnerships (Bradley, 2007). Dodson's report (2017) sought to address these challenges by identifying key actions funders could take to build equitable partnerships. ...
This paper provides a distinctive analysis of the value of international intermediation alliances for co-production, based on the way they operate in practice. While much attention is paid to ideal or normative models of co-production, there is less understanding of the complexities that pervade co-production practices in specific contexts or how this shapes outcomes. Despite longstanding critiques and reflection, international partnerships can reinforce unequal power dynamics embedded in already unequal global research and knowledge production circuits. However, such partnerships, despite their structural problems, can also give rise to more informal relations wherein the long-term value of international co-production inheres. We call for a re-examination of these complex sets of informal relations, beyond the structures of partnerships, that enable co-production across local and global divides. Drawing on comparative international evidence, we propose a framework for understanding and action based on the concepts of alliances, allyship and activism. These three characteristics of international co-production partnerships can constitute socio-material infrastructures that help maintain relationships of solidarity and care over time beyond the remit of individual projects. While this is relevant in any co-production context it becomes particularly important in international research projects so that they do not paradoxically reproduce colonising structures of knowledge production in the search for more just cities.
... Universities are involved in co-production with public administrations on the national level, for example in Sweden's Innovation Lab 2030, which aims to support Swedish authorities in developing their innovation capacity to implement the 2030 Agenda (Palm and Lilja 2021). Mago (2017), however, highlights the challenges for stronger North-South collaboration between research institutes. In addition, scholars call for stronger citizen science (e.g. ...
The inclusion of non-state actors such as civil society, businesses, and research institutes as well as the establishment of partnerships as implementation mechanisms have become an integral part of global governance and intergovernmental diplomacy for sustainable development. This chapter assesses in how far the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals have held their promises for introducing innovative reforms in global diplomatic practices related to multi-stakeholderism, by making it more inclusive, integrative, and accountable. A mixed picture emerges, which is exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This chapter also discusses the voluminous literature about multi-stakeholderism, and offers recommendations on strengthening the role of diplomats and international bureaucrats, and for making the UN system more fit for this purpose. Global diplomacy has a crucial role to play in leveraging innovative forms of multi-stakeholderism, and substantive shifts are needed.
... The latter measure would encourage local knowledge mobilisation, involvement of the private sector as a stakeholder, creation of jobs and economic activities that distribute more benefits in the country and management of negative impacts through responsible investments (Jenkins et al. 2016;ILO 2019). Such knowledge and technology transfer can contribute to global partnership (SDG 17) (Mago 2017). Notably, all policy measures of a just energy transition contribute to the achievement of the Paris Agreement, through reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and of the 2030 Agenda, through co-benefits (Oei 2018). ...
In striving to achieve the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda, governments have the opportunity to implement their climate and sustainability goals more coherently. Such coherence requires the coordination of interdependent policies across different policy fields, sectors and actors. This paper explores how governments design and implement synergic solutions to concomitantly achieve both international agendas. With the empirical cases of Germany and South Africa, we investigate two independent approaches to the synergic solution of a just energy transition, whereby countries aim to phase out coal as a means to tackle climate change while also ensuring that the achievement of other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is not hindered. Methodologically, we apply a deductive qualitative approach consisting of literature review, semi-structured interviews, and content analysis. To that end, we examine relevant policies and institutional arrangements by applying a combined conceptual framework of energy justice and just transition in both countries. We find major challenges in overcoming environmental, economic and social burdens of the coal phase-out, especially related to jobs and inequality (SDGs 8, 10) and the Water-Energy-Food-Land nexus (SDGs 2, 6, 7, 15). Through the selection of Germany and South Africa, we illustrate how countries with different political, social and economic backgrounds strive to manage such a transition. Our developed framework and case-studies’ findings point towards important considerations when designing just energy transition pathways, such as ensuring inclusiveness in decision-making, thoroughly assessing social, economic and environmental impacts, and adequately coordinating across different actors and the local, provincial and national levels.
... The donor programs assisting the former colonies in the process of modernization included, as their part, a range of measures aimed at the transfer of modern technologies and associated scientific knowledge (Burch, 1987). International research collaboration between donor and aid-receiving country teams was encouraged by international development agencies and governments on both sides of the socioeconomic development equator via a variety of funding schemes as the main mechanism stimulating knowledge transfer (Mago, 2017). ...
Despite the growing complexity and multidimensionality of the system of international research collaborations, the colonial discourse casting the collaborative relationships in terms of polarized North–South antitheses persists and continues to exert influence on the nature of power distribution in the relationships, as well as on the conceptualization of some players in the relationship as superior donors, whereas others as inferior recipients. In this article, I demonstrate how dichotomic representation of the geopolitical entities involved in international research collaboration fails to acknowledge the existence and marginalizes a large and extremely talented academic community of Eurasian scholars, which has the potential to enrich and transform the global knowledge system if it becomes more actively and authoritatively involved in the international system of ideas exchange and knowledge generation. I argue that this invisibilization of post-Soviet research community is part of the logic of postcolonial governmentality, which creates the demand and draws the post-Soviet world into international trade in knowledge-related expert services, whereby profits and benefits from the trade are reaped by the countries, which self-categorize as the North, while undermining the potential of the former Soviet scholarly community to contribute to global knowledge production on equal terms.
Knowledge production and its possibilities and pitfalls in North–South research partnerships have gained increasing attention. The previous literature has identified certain pervasive challenges, and suggested a variety of ways to change partnerships, ranging from improvement of current collaboration activities to fundamental transformation of the hegemonic Eurocentric criteria for knowledge. Against this backdrop, we ask what kinds of learning can take place in research partnerships. We draw from two sources – an institutional approach and a classical categorization of learning proposed by Gregory Bateson – to develop a heuristic for analyzing institutional learning in North–South research partnerships. Moreover, based on previous empirical studies and our own experience with academic collaboration between Finnish and Tanzanian scholars, we reflect on the ways in which learning in its different forms shows in partnership practices that need to deal with different, intertwined institutional fields.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.