Successes and challenges of north–south partnerships – key lessons from the African/Asian Regional Capacity Development projects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Increasing efforts are being made globally on capacity building. North-south research partnerships have contributed significantly to enhancing the research capacity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) over the past few decades; however, a lack of skilled researchers to inform health policy development persists, particularly in LMICs. The EU FP7 funded African/Asian Regional Capacity Development (ARCADE) projects were multi-partner consortia aimed to develop a new generation of highly trained researchers from universities across the globe, focusing on global health-related subjects: health systems and services research and research on social determinants of health. This article aims to outline the successes, challenges and lessons learned from the life course of the projects, focusing on the key outputs and experiences of developing and implementing these two projects together with sub-Saharan African, Asian and European institution partners. DESIGN: Sixteen participants from 12 partner institutions were interviewed. The data were analysed using thematic content analysis, which resulted in four themes and three sub-categories. These data were complemented by a review of project reports. RESULTS: The results indicated that the ARCADE projects have been successful in developing and delivering courses, and have reached over 920 postgraduate students. Some partners thought the north-south and south-south partnerships that evolved during the project were the main achievement. However, others found there to be a 'north-south divide' in certain aspects. Challenges included technical constraints and quality assurance. Additionally, adapting new teaching and learning methods into current university systems was challenging, combined with not being able to award students with credits for their degrees. CONCLUSION: The ARCADE projects were introduced as an innovative and ambitious project idea, although not designed appropriately for all partner institutions. Some challenges were underestimated from the beginning, and for such future projects, a more structured approach needs to be adopted. ARCADE partners learned that integrating courses into current university systems and awarding students credits are essential.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it