The Two Blind Spots of the ‘Equitable Partnerships’ Debate

By Eyob Balcha Gebremariam

There might be more than two, but I want to focus on these two blind spots, both in the scholarly debate and in the policy domains of “equitable partnerships”. The first is the dominance of the “development frame”. Unless we question the funding of research partnerships through development assistance, our efforts to achieve equity and justice will remain below par.

The second blind spot is academic passport positionality. The values of equity and justice extend beyond specific research projects. They also concern the dignity of researchers. Most researchers from the global South face several hurdles when crossing borders to pursue their academic work, whereas researchers with global North passports are treated favourably. Such systemic problems require deeper reflection and a systemic response. At present, most “equitable partnership” debates and policy frameworks are poorly equipped to acknowledge and understand the problems of passport positionality.    

I share this reflection after my experience of attending the second equitable partnerships conference in Pretoria from 4^th to 5^th February, which brought the two blind spots to the fore.

The millstone around the neck

The development frame is like the proverbial millstone around the neck of the “equitable partnerships” debate. Every effort to breathe the air of equity and justice into the life of research collaborations is smothered by the multiple waves of power imbalances that emerge from the development episteme. Research collaborations remain inherently unequal and hierarchical unless we dare to decouple their financing from development assistance.

This is particularly true of the global South as a whole and of research collaborations involving knowledge actors based in formerly colonised regions. In Africa, the dominance of the development frame is evident in how scientific research collaborations in, on, and about Africa are conceived, financed, and implemented. The Africa Charter for Transformative Research Collaborations articulated this in the fourth layer of its conceptualisation.

At the conceptual level, most research collaborations define Africa as a site of deficiency that needs to be fixed. The ‘white saviourism’ mindset often dictates the diagnosis and defines Africa in terms of what it is not, rather than what it is. In this approach, contextualised and historicised perspectives are rare. Instead, facts are taken at face value.

Destitution, cycles of conflict and poverty, and images of helpless Black bodies already set the scene. Hence, the driving motive is helping countries achieve their development goals or catch up with the West. Scientific curiosity and excellence are rarely at the forefront of Africa-facing collaborations. The problem is that such approaches often disregard the historical, epistemic and political-economic reasons for the imbalance in the relationship.

The deficit model that shapes research collaborations strongly presumes that financing should come only through development assistance. Hence, scientific research or scholarly projects are funded through the logic of charity and the political priorities of the donors. Often, researchers are explicitly required to contribute to one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This can be a good way to streamline resource expenditure.

However, the SDGs can also constrain scientific advancement in Africa. African scientists conducting remarkable scientific explorations and experiments will struggle to secure funding or partnerships because their projects may not strictly align with any of the 17 SDGs, as is often expected. We may cautiously use the percentage of scientific publications as a proxy for the extent to which national resources and international partnerships are invested in specific fields of study. 

For example, between 2017 and 2019, the EU28’s average share of publications in cross-cutting, strategic technology and engineering-related areas was 44.3%. North Africa has an even better record at 50%. However, this figure is significantly lower in the other regions of Africa, at 19.8% in Southern Africa, 19.8% in Central and Eastern Africa, and 17.9% in Western Africa.

It is less than 10% in countries such as Congo, DRC, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Madagascar, Seychelles, The Gambia and Uganda. By contrast, the average share of scientific publications in the health sciences for the same African countries is 68.5%. This also positions Africa as a laboratory for medical experimentation.

Research collaborations are rarely implemented differently. The saviour mindset is inherently hierarchical and moralistic. The deficit model also leans towards altruism and charity. Hence, projects are designed with a unidirectional gaze. Often, charity-oriented approaches are professionalised as ‘capacity-building’ interventions. Africa-based knowledge actors are often perceived as perpetually in need of capacity development. Conversely, there is an imagined, uninterrupted flow of capacity from the global North.

Initiatives guided by the development frame define ‘equitable partnership’ as an intervention for Africa. Such interventions are often less informed by justice-centred orientations. Hence, they remain focused on technical challenges rather than power asymmetries. Such approaches remain quite minimalist at both the diagnostic and intervention levels and carry a high risk of reinforcing inequities.

Due to hierarchy, the global North will typically claim the authority to set the agenda for research collaborations. The development frame creates the incentive, while the political and economic interests of the global North will shape key terms of partnerships. Priority areas for African counterparts are easily deprioritised, further reinforcing both deficit-model thinking and scientific dependency.

Unless we dare to cut the millstone from our necks, genuine equity and justice within ‘equitable partnerships’ will remain beyond reach.

Academic passport positionality

Debates and policy insights on “equitable partnerships” often centre on research projects and the unequal division of roles and responsibilities. The lived experiences of researchers from the global South are less often articulated and examined. At best, they are presented as anecdotal incidents or stories of resilience and perseverance. The fact that global South researchers are living manifestations of unjust and unequal relations in the knowledge production ecosystem remains on the margins of our discussions.

Narration and documentation are acts of resistance. Powerful systems, institutions and individuals often disregard, trivialise and silence stories of resistance. By sharing my story, I resist the unjust experience I face because of my passport.

I am a permanent resident in the UK with an Ethiopian passport. In this piece, my focus is not on the extensive paperwork I had to submit to apply for a visa to travel to South Africa. This included, among other documents, three months’ payslips and three months’ bank statements, confirmed by the bank. I understand the legal and administrative rationales. But the question remains: to what extent are we ready to critically examine these hurdles to crossing borders as key elements of our conversations about ‘equitable partnerships’?

Let’s focus on the challenges of returning to the UK. These include legal barriers, administrative hurdles, navigating the risk-averse approach of airport officials, technological mishaps, and either good or bad luck. Any one of these, or a combination, can create a huge amount of stress, discomfort, mistreatment, or an opportunity for kind treatment.

Every trip brings its own surprise. The usual process is to log in to an app on my phone at the check-in counter to show that I have the right visa to fly to the UK. Sadly, this time a permanent residence permit was not enough. The airport official said I was flagged and would not be allowed to proceed, but could not explain why. I was asked to step aside and wait. I immediately called the UK Border Agency and, after the usual security checks, was told that everything was in order.

The problem was now lessened but still not resolved. The UK Border Agency official I spoke to on the phone said the airline has a number to call if necessary. When I asked the airport officials, I was told they could only send emails and were awaiting a reply. I followed the hierarchy, and two other supervisors repeated the same response. In fact, I was told, “We don’t make international calls”.

Now the issue is to handle the case amicably, negotiate calmly, and know how to respond to the most illogical answers. After almost an hour and twenty minutes, another colleague told one of the supervisors that they could override the notice because everything was in order. I observed the supervisor’s unease about overriding the automatic command. Finally, I passed through the check-in counter in South Africa to travel to the UK, not because I had the right visa type, but because the airline official was willing to do the most logical thing.

The hurdle was unexpected, but luck was on my side. The senior person decided to override the automatic command despite their highly risk-averse approach. I was fortunate to have another colleague who encouraged the person to use their common sense. This was the only reason I did not miss my flight. Despite fulfilling all the necessary legal and administrative requirements, there might always be one thing I can’t solve.

Equitable partnership is not only about decision-making on conceptual, methodological, or financial issues in research projects. It should also entail a thorough understanding of the lived experiences of researchers with global South passports, including the experiences of crossing borders. 

I have attended several workshops and conferences on “equitable partnerships”. The issues of ‘passport positionality” are often not adequately discussed. As a global South passport holder, I experience considerable emotional stress when travelling to academic events. These include the financial, time and psychological impacts. The ability of scholars like me to contribute meaningfully to debates is severely constrained by historical factors that have normalised marginalisation and, too often, the mistreatment of people based solely on their passports. This is not just an individual experience. The structures of inequity, injustice and racism that dictate who is allowed to cross borders at ease and with dignity need to come to the fore in “equitable partnerships”.

Conflict of interest: the contributor is the co-author and co-facilitator of the Africa Charter for Transformative Research Collaborations.

Acknowledgement: I thank my colleagues Isabella Aboderin, Divine Fuh and Puleng Segalo for their comments and encouragement in writing this reflexive piece.

Eyob Balcha Gebremariam is Honorary Research Associate at the University of Bristol and Research Fellow at the University of South Africa

Image: Osarugue Igbinoba on Unsplash

Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of the EADI Debating Development Blog or the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes