Localizing the education development research agenda in the Global South: The case of GPE KIX
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
Recent efforts in decolonization and localization have been influential in reshaping the long-standing norms of international development, whereby large-scale funders and actors in the Global North have shaped education development research agendas in low- and middle-income countries. This influence often stems from decision-making processes that appear opaque and mono-directional, flowing from North to South. Adopting a localization perspective, this article examines the attempts of a large-scale international development program—the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) Knowledge and Innovation Exchange (KIX)—to reverse this trend by engaging education stakeholders in over 60 low- and middle-income countries to inform its research and implementation activities and thereby localize the education development research agenda. It draws on reflections from key project implementers and details the process undertaken to ensure that the countries involved had opportunities to shape the GPE KIX research agenda and implementation activities, based on their national education priorities. The article explores practical challenges encountered in the effort to localize the program’s agenda, including conducting online, participatory data collection while navigating diverse language needs, time zones constraints and budget limitations. It addresses methodological dilemmas encountered, examining power dynamics, researcher and institutional positionality, the role of gatekeepers, tensions related to participant identities and biases, spaces of pushback, the use of research evidence and features of project design. Drawing on the experience of GPE KIX, the article discusses implications for future efforts to localize education development research agendas in the Global South. • Localization enables Global South actors to influence development research agendas. • Participatory agenda-setting requires thoughtful, flexible resource allocation. • Participatory research agenda-setting may face pushback from Global South actors. • Reflexive northern institutions support equal southern agenda-setting participation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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