An organizing framework to break down Western-centric views of knowledge in North-South research.

Global challenges, such as climate change, persistent poverty, and food insecurity are complex problems. These societal, environmental, and economic challenges cross scientific disciplines, communities, and geographies, requiring interdisciplinary, North-South solutions. Nevertheless, prevailing sustainability science responses are Western-centric. Some seminal studies have attempted to understand and engage with diverse knowledge systems. These include decolonial and Indigenous methodologies, such as "Two-Eyed Seeing", which emphasizes the importance of using both Western and Indigenous knowledge to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the world, and participatory action research, which highlights the importance of involving participants in the research process and promoting social change through collaborative effort. However, apart from in-country research collaborations with traditional Indigenous knowledge, most North-South studies overlook the role or influence of Western-centric views and therefore fail to recognize and incorporate diverse worldviews and knowledge systems. This may, in part, reflect the tendency to categorize research into disciplinary silos, but more likely is the unintentional, yet prevalent, view that Western science is "objective and neutral." As more scholars from multiple disciplines and geographies focus on interdisciplinary North-South research, it is critical that researchers reflect on dominant research approaches and knowledge production. Studies can co-construct, reproduce, or control the forms of knowledge generated-whether intentional or unintentional. This paper presents an organizing framework to help researchers navigate, understand, and engage with diverse forms of knowledge in undertaking North-South research. The framework draws on empirical observations from the authors' interdisciplinary research and from empirical cross-cultural literature. It comprises three contextual levels of influence, featuring guiding principles and subsequent practical actions researchers can use to navigate the complexities of knowledge co-construction in North-South research. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11625-024-01478-6.

"People are now working together for a common good": The effect on social capital of participatory design for community-level sanitation infrastructure in urban informal settlements.

Communities with higher levels of social capital perform better than communities with lower social capital in community-level water and sanitation interventions and have better health outcomes. Although research recommends bolstering social capital to improve intervention outcomes, few studies provide empirical evidence on the effect of intervention activities on social capital. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of participatory design and community engagement activities on social capital among urban informal settlements in Suva, Fiji and Makassar, Indonesia enrolled in the Revitalizing Informal Settlements and their Environments trial using the Short Adapted Social Capital Assessment Tool. We performed confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to test tool performance and built structural equation models to assess intervention effect on CFA-informed, sub-scale scores for cognitive and structural social capital. Qualitative in-depth interviews in Fiji and Indonesia and focus group discussions in Fiji provided nuanced understanding of intervention effects on social capital from residents' perspectives. Results confirmed the hypothesized two-factor solution but revealed differences by country and by gender in Indonesia. The intervention appeared positively related to cognitive social capital among men and women in Indonesia and negatively related to cognitive and structural social capital among men and women in Fiji. While effect sizes were small and cluster-adjustment for a small number of settlements yielded non-significant effects, trends were consistent across models and bivariate analyses and were corroborated by qualitative findings. Several contextual factors may explain these results, including timing and duration of intervention activities and influence of COVID-19. Qualitative data suggested that the relationship between participatory design and social capital may be bidirectional, helping to explain why certain settlements appeared to be better equipped to benefit from intervention activities. Practitioners and program designers should carefully consider the social pre-conditions of communities in which they intend to work to optimize program outcomes and avoid unintended consequences.