Suchergebnisse

SUMMARYNorth–South research capacity building (RCB) partnerships have attracted considerable academic attention during the last two decades, especially with regard to issues related to partnership governance. Less attention has been given to the management aspects of partnership implementation, but in order for partnerships to comply with general governance‐level recommendations, a better understanding is needed of how specific context‐dependent factors influence the development and execution of projects. In this article, we aim to contribute to the understanding of factors influencing the design phase of RCB partnerships and examine how they influence the balance between performing collaborative research and developing general organizational capacity. Data collection was based on a survey (n = 25), and individual interviews and focus group discussions with 17 Danish project managers from the Danish Bilateral Programme for Enhancement of Research Capacity in Developing Countries. Our results lead to rejection of the proposition that RCB projects are either focused on building capacity for research or conducting merit‐based research. Because of the 'politics' of the front‐end process, reality is more complex. We identify 11 specific factors influencing front‐end project management related to structure, process and relationship, and we theorize about how these factors influence the choice between research and more general capacity development activities. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Drawing on the triple helix framework and organizational institutionalism, this article applies a qualitative research approach to analyze structures, institutional logics, power relations that shape inter-organizational relations and the structuration of a knowledge production system in an emerging economy. Findings highlight the emergence of a fifth-helices knowledge production system includes the state, science and education, industry, international actors, and society. The system comprises two major segments, one associated with the traditional command economy and characterized by institutional control that reproduces an ill-adopted and less transparent system based on systemic power. At the border of this system, a marketand quality-oriented segment emerges through marked-oriented evolution and collaborative co-evolution processes driven by institutional agency. The system-level dynamics are characterized by political ambidexterity that enables the state to maintain control by privileging traditional science and education constituencies, and at the same time support the transition of the knowledge production system towards international methodology and quality standards through relational mechanisms such as cooperation, harmonization, and partnership. Our research shows that the proposed framework offers a valuable basis for deriving realistic policy and program recommendations to guide national and international actors in designing interventions and collaboration within knowledge production systems in developing countries.

AbstractTwinning and its contribution to institutional capacity building in developing countries is the theme of an ongoing debate in Public Administration and Development. Unlike earlier contributions this article focuses on twinning in the context of research capacity enhancement. Using a 3 year Danish–Malaysian twinning research project as case our objective is to evaluate whether the general premises regarding a twinning project, as formulated by the Danish Development Cooperation Agency (Danida), appropriately support the twinning ambitions when the capacities in focus concern research. Besides institutional capacity building, twinning is expected to favour local ownership, involvement of the Danish resource base and continuing of cooperation after termination of funding. From 21 semi‐structured interviews with project participants it was found that although new research capacities had been gained, the prospects on continued cooperation are rather discouraging, both sides pointing to the lack of truly joint research experiences as the main reason. To care for this important incentive, the twinning premises are recommended to be modified to allow for the Northern resource base to advance its own research, and for Southern partner to demonstrate in‐house research capacities. Further, the North–South balance in project management needs to be more equal. This apart, the twinning premises appear sound. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.