ArticleResearch policy2024
Responsible north-south research and innovation: A framework for transdisciplinary research leadership and management.
Article in Research policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accelerating innovation in sustainable development through transdisciplinary impact research.iScience · 2026Review
- Brain drain or brain circulation? a perspective from Latin American scientists.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Determinants of collaboration dynamics and challenges in North-South data-driven health research in the African context: an epistemic injustice perspective.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Building Bridges: A framework for redefining and decolonizing implementation science in low- and middle-income countries.PLOS global public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The number, scale and ambition of transdisciplinary research initiatives between the global north and the global south is increasing, yet there is very little theoretical or empirical scholarship on how to lead and manage implementation to promote responsible practice. Within science, technology and innovation (STI) studies and decolonising research frameworks, and utilising collaborative autoethnography, this study codifies experience with implementing the 'Revitalising Informal Settlements and their Environments' (RISE) program (2017-2020). Our specific aim is to explore the leadership and management tensions and challenges of implementing transboundary transdisciplinary research. The findings reaffirm the importance of research leaders and managers carefully operationalising north-south research by critically reflecting on power asymmetries between disciplines, partners and locations, leveraging the potential for transdisciplinary consortia to build research capabilities in the global south, and creating a culture of reflexivity on the historical and social positionality in which research is designed, funded, implemented and evaluated. The findings foreground the role of boundary-spanning 'integrators' and 'pracademics', roles that have received little attention to date but are essential for effective delivery and societal impact beyond scientific advances. A framework for implementing north-south transdisciplinary research is outlined with five domains: (1) collaborative leadership; (2) agile management; (3) flexible consortia; (4) researcher positionality; and (5) co-design and participation. The framework can support efforts for responsibly designing and implementing large, transdisciplinary, cross-country research programs in line with ambitions for decolonising north-south research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.