# data[].attributes.body
Introduction

Importance of decolonizing research ethics in the UK and globally

Tensions between ethical reflexivity and research governance frameworks

Aims of the module: provide a platform for reflection and tools to navigate these tensions

# data[].attributes.body
What is a Decolonial Approach to Research?

Acknowledging the epistemological system and avoiding ethnocentric assumptions

Being sensitive to the identities and worldviews of researchers and participants

Overcoming self-centered tendencies and recognizing power asymmetries

Thinking reflexively about research team composition and credit allocation

# data[].attributes.body
Working with Research Participants

Obtaining informed consent in diverse contexts

Using local languages and avoiding jargon

Adapting consent processes to local norms (written, recorded, detailed notes)

Demonstrating evidence of proper consent processes to funders

# data[].attributes.body
Case Study 1: Consent Form Issues in the Field

PhD student did not follow funder guidelines on consent forms

Suggestions:

Carefully read and follow the funder guidelines on consent

Use SOAS consent form template as a resource

# data[].attributes.body
Dealing with Data

Transferring data back to UK/Europe is subject to legal requirements

Considering the implications of special category data and online dissemination

Proactively considering identities of research personnel and local power dynamics

# data[].attributes.body
Case Study 2: Sharing Sensitive Data with Local Partners

Researcher obtained sensitive data from African Union

Suggestions:

Carefully consider data ownership and sharing rights with local partners

Ensure data use aligns with original consent and local laws

# data[].attributes.body
Hiring Research Assistants and Personnel

Hiring early-career researchers raises similar ethical issues

Discuss expectations, flexibility, and acknowledgment transparently

Consider how identities of research personnel may impact local acceptance and data quality

# data[].attributes.body
Working with Local Partners

Funders expect egalitarian partnerships but provide little guidance on implementation

Structural barriers often give UK-based PIs more decision-making power

Communicate expectations transparently and provide co-design opportunities

Consider funding translation of contracts for local partners

# data[].attributes.body
Promoting Equitable and Fair Research Partnerships

Structural Barriers to Egalitarian Partnerships

Funders often require UK-based PIs, limiting opportunities for local partners to lead collaborative projects

This gives UK-based PIs more decision-making power over project design and implementation

The material power imbalance can extend to issues like intellectual property rights and publication credits

Strategies for More Equitable Partnerships

Communicate expectations transparently with local partners and provide opportunities for co-design

Consider translating contracts and agreements into local languages to ensure understanding

Recognize that funders generally do not cover expenses for facilitating communication and collaboration between partners

Researchers may need to invest time and resources to enable equitable partnership development

Funders are increasingly expecting researchers to demonstrate how they are promoting fair and equitable partnerships

The UKRI report "Promoting Equitable and Fair Research Partnerships" highlights the systemic barriers that often give UK-based principal investigators more decision-making power and credit in collaborative research projects, even when the contribution of local partners is crucial. To address this, the report recommends that researchers communicate expectations transparently, provide opportunities for co-design, and consider translating contracts into local languages. However, it notes that funders generally do not cover the expenses involved in facilitating equitable partnerships, so researchers may need to invest their own resources in this area. Overall, funders are placing greater emphasis on demonstrating how research projects are promoting fair and egalitarian collaborations.

# data[].attributes.body
The key challenges in establishing equitable research partnerships between UK-based researchers and partners in low- and middle-income countries include:

1. Structural barriers that often give UK-based PIs more decision-making power, such as funders requiring UK-based PIs and providing fewer opportunities for local partners to lead collaborative projects. This material power imbalance can extend to issues like intellectual property rights and publication credits.

2. Communicating expectations and parameters of the research project transparently to local partners and providing opportunities for co-design. Translating contracts into local languages can help ensure understanding, but funders generally do not cover the expenses involved in facilitating communication and collaboration between partners.

3. Justifying salaries for partners abroad according to local standards, which can be challenging where equivalent funding infrastructure is not in place. Researchers need to demonstrate locally appropriate salaries in other valid ways.

4. Navigating tensions between funder guidelines grounded in an industrialized society framework and the particularities of local contexts beyond their remit. Researchers need to effectively communicate to funders why culture-specific approaches are most suitable.

5. Monitoring and demonstrating that international partners are being reflexive and ethical about their research practices, while being sensitive to UK-based researchers' position in foreign societies. Local partners may insist on informal norms that are more culture-sensitive but do not align with funder expectations.

Overcoming these challenges requires researchers to invest time and resources into facilitating equitable partnerships, communicate transparently, provide opportunities for co-design, and demonstrate to funders how they are promoting fair collaborations that consider local contexts.

# data[].attributes.body
here are the key best practices for negotiating budgets with international research partners:

1. Communicate Expectations Transparently: Ensure that budget details, including specific rates and time commitments, are thoroughly discussed and agreed upon with partners early in the proposal development process. Avoid finalizing proposals too quickly, as this may not give partners enough time to engage with the budget.

2. Justify Salaries According to Local Standards: When budgeting for partner salaries abroad, justify the amounts according to what national research councils or local institutions would typically pay researchers of that level. This can be challenging where equivalent funding infrastructure is lacking, but researchers should demonstrate locally appropriate rates through other valid means.

3. Incorporate Time and Costs for Collaboration: Funders generally do not cover the expenses involved in facilitating communication and collaboration between partners. Researchers may need to invest their own resources in translation, travel, and other activities to enable equitable partnership development.

4. Be Prepared to Negotiate: Even when partners initially agree to a proposed budget, issues may arise later if they feel the salaries or other costs are not appropriate. Researchers should be prepared to negotiate reasonably with partners to resolve such concerns.

5. Maintain Transparency and Flexibility: Throughout the project, continue communicating transparently with partners about budget allocations and be open to adjusting the budget if circumstances change, while ensuring compliance with funder guidelines.

The key is to proactively engage partners in budget discussions, justify costs according to local contexts, and be willing to invest time and resources into enabling equitable collaborations, even if funders do not cover these expenses directly. Maintaining transparency and flexibility is crucial for navigating budget negotiations successfully.

Share

Rewrite

# data[].attributes.body
Here are some key best practices for documenting budget negotiations with international research partners:

1. Document all budget discussions and agreements in writing, even if they are preliminary. Summarize key points in an email and share with partners to ensure there is a written record that all parties endorse.

2. Justify salaries for partners abroad according to what national research councils or local institutions would typically pay researchers of that level. Document the sources and rationale for these rates.

3. Incorporate the time and costs involved in facilitating communication and collaboration between partners, as funders generally do not cover these expenses. Document how you plan to fund translation, travel, and other activities to enable equitable partnership development.

4. Be prepared to negotiate reasonably with partners if issues arise, while ensuring compliance with funder guidelines. Document the negotiation process and final agreements.

5. Maintain transparency and flexibility throughout the project in communicating about budget allocations, and document any adjustments made to the budget if circumstances change.

6. Ensure all budget-related agreements with partners are recorded in writing, such as through email summaries that partners endorse. This creates a clear paper trail.

7. Consult with your local partners, local universities, and other SOAS researchers to determine appropriate payment rates for research assistants and document the sources you used.

The key is to proactively document all budget discussions and agreements in writing, justify costs according to local contexts, and maintain transparency with partners throughout the project. Careful documentation will help demonstrate to funders that you are promoting fair and equitable budget practices.

# data[].attributes.body
Ethical reflexivity is an attitude to be cultivated throughout the research process

Helps avoid issues proactively and demonstrates commitment to funders

Engaging with research governance framework constructively while prioritizing local interests

# data[].attributes.headline
Istratii, R. (2023). Ethical Reflexivity and Research Governance: Navigating the Tensions. SOAS University of London. https://doi.org/10.25501/SOAS.00037746

# data[].attributes.subject
Istratii, R. (2023). Ethical Reflexivity and Research Governance: Navigating the Tensions. SOAS University of London. https://doi.org/10.25501/SOAS.00037746

# data[].attributes.body
Istratii, R. (2023). Ethical Reflexivity and Research Governance: Navigating the Tensions. SOAS University of London. https://doi.org/10.25501/SOAS.00037746 ESRC. (n.d.). Core Ethical Principles in Research. Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved from https://esrc.ukri.org/funding/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics/core-ethical-principles/ ESRC. (n.d.). Research with vulnerable people. Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved from https://esrc.ukri.org/funding/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics/research-with-vulnerable-people/ ESRC. (n.d.). Working with disabled young people. Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved from https://esrc.ukri.org/funding/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics/working-with-disabled-young-people/ ESRC. (n.d.). Anonymity and consent in research with asylum seekers. Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved from https://esrc.ukri.org/funding/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics/anonymity-and-consent-in-research-with-asylum-seekers/ ESRC. (n.d.). Enabling data deposit. Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved from https://esrc.ukri.org/funding/guidance-for-applicants/research-data-policy/enabling-data-deposit/ ESRC. (n.d.). Data sharing and informants' safety. Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved from https://esrc.ukri.org/funding/guidance-for-applicants/research-data-policy/data-sharing-and-informants-safety/ ESRC. (n.d.). Ensuring data confidentiality. Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved from https://esrc.ukri.org/funding/guidance-for-applicants/research-data-policy/ensuring-data-confidentiality/ ESRC. (n.d.). Difficulties in depositing data. Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved from https://esrc.ukri.org/funding/guidance-for-applicants/research-data-policy/difficulties-in-depositing-data/ NCRM. (n.d.). Managing anonymity and confidentiality in social research: the case of visual data in community research. National Centre for Research Methods. Retrieved from https://www.ncrm.ac.uk/resources/online/managing_anonymity.php UKRI. (2021). Promoting Equitable and Fair Research Partnerships. UK Research and Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/UKRI-180321-Promoting-Equitable-and-Fair-Research-Partnerships.pdf UKCDS. (2015). Building Partnerships of Equals: The role of funders in equitable and effective international development collaborations. UK Collaborative on Development Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.ukcdr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/UKCDS_Building_Partnerships_2015.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Decolonial and Feminist Research Methodologies

# data[].attributes.subject
Decolonial and Feminist Research Methodologies