Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36852183›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of development research2023

How are Research for Development Programmes Implementing and Evaluating Equitable Partnerships to Address Power Asymmetries?

Mieke Snijder, Rosie Steege, Michelle Callander, Michel Wahome, M Feisal Rahman, Marina Apgar, Sally Theobald, Louise J Bracken, Laura Dean, Bintu Mansaray and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of development research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Mieke SnijderTomorrow's Cities Urban Disaster Risk Hub, Institute of Development Studies, Falmer, Brighton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8766-3015
Rosie SteegeTomorrow's Cities Urban Disaster Risk Hub, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales Sede (FLACSO), Quito, Ecuador.
Michelle CallanderGender and Justice Security Hub, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Michel WahomeOne Ocean Hub, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
M Feisal RahmanLiving Deltas Hub, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Marina ApgarTomorrow's Cities Urban Disaster Risk Hub, Institute of Development Studies, Falmer, Brighton, UK.
Sally TheobaldTomorrow's Cities Urban Disaster Risk Hub, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales Sede (FLACSO), Quito, Ecuador.
Louise J BrackenLiving Deltas Hub, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Laura DeanTomorrow's Cities Urban Disaster Risk Hub, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales Sede (FLACSO), Quito, Ecuador.
Bintu MansarayARISE Hub, College of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences, Freetown, Sierra Leone.
Prasanna SaligramARISE Hub, George Institute for Global Health India, New Delhi, India.
Surekha GarimellaARISE Hub, George Institute for Global Health India, New Delhi, India.
Sophia Arthurs-HartnettTomorrow's Cities Urban Disaster Risk Hub, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales Sede (FLACSO), Quito, Ecuador.
Robinson KarugaARISE Hub, LVCT Health, Nairobi, Kenya.
Adriana Elizabeth Mejía ArtiedaARISE Hub, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Victoria ChengoTomorrow's Cities Urban Disaster Risk Hub, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales Sede (FLACSO), Quito, Ecuador.
Joanes AtelesTomorrow's Cities Urban Disaster Risk Hub, African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTs), Nairobi, Kenya.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The complexity of issues addressed by research for development (R4D) requires collaborations between partners from a range of disciplines and cultural contexts. Power asymmetries within such partnerships may obstruct the fair distribution of resources, responsibilities and benefits across all partners. This paper presents a cross-case analysis of five R4D partnership evaluations, their methods and how they unearthed and addressed power asymmetries. It contributes to the field of R4D partnership evaluations by detailing approaches and methods employed to evaluate these partnerships. Theory-based evaluations deepened understandings of how equitable partnerships contribute to R4D generating impact and centring the relational side of R4D. Participatory approaches that involved all partners in developing and evaluating partnership principles ensured contextually appropriate definitions and a focus on what partners value. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41287-023-00578-w.

Indexed as

Equitable partnershipsEvaluation researchMonitoring, evaluation and learningParticipatory evaluationResearch for developmentTheory-based evaluation

Identifiers

PMID36852183
PMCPMC9947878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.