TRAINING (2.5.1)

This Guide supports research partners to develop ethically sound, efficient and effective partnerships.

Image: NASA

Set the agenda together

to ensure relevance and shared ownership.

  • Identify and involve stakeholders and project partners from the outset.
  • Define the common goal and research approach jointly.
  • Clarify and manage different objectives and expectations.

Jointly setting the agenda is a key step to achieving broad ownership and relevance. A joint agenda – and working towards a common goal – helps to ensure high individual motivation and engagement among actors. Before embarking on a collaborative research or teaching endeavour, partners should explicitly consider the unique value the project aims to bring to all involved parties, the study region, and its population. And they should ask: What forms of collaboration – simple or complex; local or global; disciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary; and/or interinstitutional – are best suited to achieve the project’s objectives? Depending on the expected added value and the form of collaboration, the challenges and complexity of applying the six principles can vary significantly.

Research projects funded by the Global North and carried out in the Global South often face ethical challenges, lack relevance, and are likely to fail in application or scaling if they don’t actively or sufficiently involve the on-site academic community, practitioners, or experts. To address ethical principles and create impact, a project must include the relevant stakeholders right from the start – ideally, at the proposal-writing or pre-project stages. Early inclusion of all stakeholders – including non-academic experts and underrepresented communities – ensures that the project can integrate complementary priorities, expertise, and perspectives. Early inclusion allows the relevant partners to jointly set the agenda, discuss implementation, and develop shared ownership.

Setting a research agenda involves thinking through each stage of the research process. Specifically, identifying and involving relevant stakeholders, strategic partners, and research partners at the outset, and then jointly developing the project: identifying and framing the overall purpose of the research and formulating the research questions; analysing risks and opportunities; planning the research design, approach, and data collection methodology; planning the analysis and interpretation of data; developing the monitoring, evaluation, and learning scheme of the research and collaborative process; and planning the dissemination, application, and implementation of results.

Meaningful co-creation/co-design of a research agenda requires time and money. You will need to allocate sufficient resources to plan and develop the project together, ensuring its relevance for everyone involved. When planning the process and co-creating the agenda, take into account differences in (non)academic calendars, culture, time zones, and language – as well as other potential hurdles. Finally, remember that you may have to be flexible if circumstances change: leave space in your planning for adjustments during the process, as conditions during implementation often differ from initial expectations.

Tool:

Work with the relevant actors in transdisciplinary teams when addressing complex real-world challenges (see also P5). Key stakeholders, strategic partners, or research partners may include:

  • Researchers from different disciplines
  • Administrative staff, communications, editing, and design
  • The people and societies being studied
  • The users and beneficiaries of research outcomes
  • Agencies commissioning research and/or using the results
  • Regulatory bodies or ethics committees
  • Local and national policymakers and government officials
  • Private corporations and non-profit organizations
  • The public

To identify key project partners, systematically map all relevant actors for a specific topic. Discuss what role they might play in a research project and how best to approach them. This requires thorough knowledge of the actor landscape, including diverse interests and potential areas of conflict. What motivates each actor to contribute to a joint research endeavour?

In-depth:


To involve all actors at the start of agenda-setting process, initiate a participatory process by organizingand leading one or several workshops or roundtable meetings.

Consider balancing in-person and online meetings:

  • In-person meetings allow for more in-depth immersion, collaboration, and informal exchange (see P3 and P6).
  • Online meetings enable more frequent exchanges, save time and money, and have a lower ecological footprint compared to physical travel (see “Integrate environmental considerations into research practice” below).

In-depth:


To plan a joint research endeavour, start by jointly identifying the challenge you seek to address – and jointly define an overall goal. This goal must be relevant for all involved partners. Ensuring that the intended goal and impact of a research project are as clear as possible is vital for aligning expectations, roles, and methods (P3). Moreover, it guides the decision of which actors to involve and what types of partnership, knowledge, and action are needed. The content of common goals can vary widely, ranging from pure knowledge generation to contributing to transformation or advancing academic careers.

In-depth:


Systems knowledge
Systems knowledge
Systems knowledge

Begin by anticipating the outcomes and associated outputs needed to achieve the common goal, which will allow you to plan focused research activities. It is often implicit that results must be innovative and of high academic quality while also demonstrating societal or environmental relevance and contributing to transformation. Moreover, it is expected that research partnerships contribute to capacity development. Consequently, the triangle of innovative research, capacity development, and societal relevance/impact can form the basic goal-orientation for partnership-based research. When planning and managing research partnerships, the tensions between these core goals must be taken into account. This can be done through one of the following strategies:

  • Clearly prioritize one or two of these goals (e.g. combining research with capacity development).
  • Maintain all three goals but clearly phase and/or subdivide the endeavour into components that specifically address each goal. This approach is particularly helpful for research partnerships that go beyond individual, short-term projects and encompass networks, programmes, long-term proactive alliances, communities, and cohorts.

In-depth:


The type and extent of involvement among the different actors varies, and should therefore be clearly defined. Involvement ranges from fully dedicated core partners who have decision rights in all steps, to peripheral strategic partners who are consulted or informed only as needed (see also P3).

In-depth:


Acknowledge that different stakeholders and partners may have different expectations and goals with regard to a joint project. To ensure cohesion, different expectations must be aligned towards a shared, jointly-developed goal. In doing so, it is important to value and acknowledge diverse views, objectives, and expectations. Including different perspectives and priorities is vital to ensuring joint ownership.

For example, having different expectations and aims might mean that academic partners focus on scientific outputs and safeguarding the integrity of scientific inquiry, while actors from practice focus on usability, application, and capitalizing on results. Some actors may be pursuing political objectives, while others may have individual goals, like advancing their academic careers or networking. Bringing these expectations and aims together requires a culture of open communication, integrative project management, and a clear common goal that everyone wants to help achieve.

Further ressources:

Research partnerships offer significant potential benefits but also carry various risks, which can negatively affect individuals or institutions. To mitigate potential risks, it is important to first map them out and then develop strategies for dealing with them. While being overly cautious might stifle important research and prevent meaningful change, ignoring potential risks can prevent adequate preparation for handling them. Contextual awareness is crucial for properly identifying and addressing risks, balancing their negative impacts with positive outcomes of the collaboration, and distributing risk equitably among members (see also P3).

In-depth:


Environmental sustainability considerations should be integrated into all stages of research planning and implementation. Minimize your project’s ecological footprint by consulting existing environmental impact assessments and institutional guidelines. Throughout the research life cycle, plan with sustainability in mind. This includes optimizing travel routes and prioritizing public or low-emission transport, as well as sourcing sustainable food and packaging options at events. Continuously assess the environmental impact of project activities.

In-depth:


Geopolitical dynamics such as conflicts or shifts in international relations can rapidly alter the context of a research project. Disruption can also be caused by pandemics, local protests, elections, funding cuts, or the unavailability of key strategic partners due to personal circumstances. A flexible agenda helps to ensure that the research remains responsive and robust, even when confronted with unexpected developments. Since research projects often evolve during implementation, it is vital to regularly – and jointly – reflect upon, and, if needed, adapt the research agenda throughout the project.

In-depth:

Create a plan for science–society–policy interaction to effectively engage the target audience and disseminate research results. Involve a range of strategic partners (e.g. industry, consultancies, associations, NGOs, science–policy interfaces) who can assist with this endeavour (see P5).

Further ressource:

Further resources and literature

Inclusive agenda-setting requires structural conditions that allow research partners to jointly define research priorities. This includes financial support for pre-proposal and seed funding, which facilitate the collaborative development of research ideas and ensure equal participation in proposal development.

Funders can strengthen global research agendas by co-financing specific projects or programmes. This allows research partners to pool resources and strengthen shared ownership. Effective co-design of research agendas is possible when the relevant stakeholders are integrated into the design of programmes and calls.