'Glocalizing' land-use and forest governance in the tropics: examining research partnerships and international forest policies affecting Brazil, DRC and Indonesia.

Background: International and market forces are key drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, with transnational and market-based solutions in land-use and forest governance often missing economic, distributive, and environmental targets. Methods: This paper tackles both the framing and effectiveness of transnational initiatives affecting forest lands and peoples in the Global South, and the quality of relationships between institutions in the Global North and the Global South. Through more equitable research partnerships, this paper draws lessons from case studies in Indonesia (legality verification system in different forest property regimes), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (lifting of a moratorium on new logging concession), and Brazil (FSC in the Amazon region and the Amazon Fund). Results: International partnerships have privileged market-based instruments and commodity exchange between Global South and Global North countries, and the benefits of such mechanisms are unevenly distributed. Complementary and alternative policy instruments are discussed for each geography. Conclusions: Glocalizing land-use and forest governance implies in advancing equitable research partnerships between institutions in the Global South and Global North, and strengthening a community of practice for critical enquiry and engagement in partnerships for sustainable development. Land-use, climate and forest governance mechanisms must redress power dynamics, and partnership models, and commit to improving well-being and sustainable livelihood outcomes.

Power and respect in global health research collaboration: Perspectives from research partners in the United States and the Dominican Republic.

Research partnerships between institutions in the Global North and institutions in the Global South have many potential benefits, including sharing of knowledge and resources. However, such partnerships are traditionally exploitative to varying degrees. In order to promote equity in South-North research partnerships, it is necessary to learn from the experiences of researchers collaborating internationally. This study analyzed transcripts from eleven semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers working at Clínica de Familia La Romana, an institution in the Dominican Republic with decades of experience with research and research partnerships with institutions from the Global North. The findings of this study suggest that respect for resources invested in research, as well as for the researchers and institutions themselves, are vital components to a successful global health research partnership. These findings have implications for individual research partnerships, as well as the policies of journals and institutions providing funding that affect these partnerships.

How does embedded implementation research work? Examining core features through qualitative case studies in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Innovative strategies are needed to improve the delivery of evidence-informed health interventions. Embedded implementation research (EIR) seeks to enhance the generation and use of evidence for programme improvement through four core features: (1) central involvement of programme/policy decision-makers in the research cycle; (2) collaborative research partnerships; (3) positioning research within programme processes and (4) research focused on implementation. This paper examines how these features influence evidence-to-action processes and explores how they are operationalized, their effects and supporting conditions needed. We used a qualitative, comparative case study approach, drawing on document analysis and semi-structured interviews across multiple informant groups, to examine three EIR projects in Bolivia, Colombia and the Dominican Republic. Our findings are presented according to the four core EIR features. The central involvement of decision-makers in EIR was enhanced by decision-maker authority over the programme studied, professional networks and critical reflection. Strong research-practice partnerships were facilitated by commitment, a clear and shared purpose and representation of diverse perspectives. Evidence around positioning research within programme processes was less conclusive; however, as all three cases made significant advances in research use and programme improvement, this feature of EIR may be less critical than others, depending on specific circumstances. Finally, a research focus on implementation demanded proactive engagement by decision-makers in conceptualizing the research and identifying opportunities for direct action by decision-makers. As the EIR approach is a novel approach in these low-resource settings, key supports are needed to build capacity of health sector stakeholders and create an enabling environment through system-level strategies. Key implications for such supports include: promoting EIR and creating incentives for decision-makers to engage in it, establishing structures or mechanisms to facilitate decision-maker involvement, allocating funds for EIR, and developing guidance for EIR practitioners.

Towards post-colonial capacity-building methodologies - some remarks on the experiences of health researchers from Mozambique and Angola / Em torno de metodologias de capacitação pós-coloniais: algumas notas acerca das experiências de pesquisadores de saúde de Moçambique e Angola

Abstract This paper analyzes capacity building in practice, addressing the expectations, imaginaries and experiences of health researchers from Mozambique and Angola. The empirical data stems from the Erasmus+ funded project "University Development and Innovation - Africa (UDI-A)", a consortium established between European and African institutions to promote the mobility and empowerment of African academics, the establishment of North/South research partnerships and the strengthening of African institutions. Through qualitative research methods - semi-structured interviews and a focus group with African participants, and participant observation - this article analyzes the experiences of African academics working in the health field, their perceptions of capacity building and aspirations during their stay in Portugal in 2018. By addressing some of their concerns and achievements, this paper reflects on the performativity of capacity building methodologies, exploring a wide range of issues that emerge within the framework of North/South partnerships, inquiring whether it would be possible to decolonize capacity-building methodologies.

Resumo Este artigo analisa dispositivos de capacitação na prática, explorando as expetativas, os imaginários e as experiências de pesquisadores de saúde de Moçambique e Angola. Os dados empíricos resultam do projeto "University Development and Innovation - Africa (UDI-A)", financiado pelo programa Erasmus+, um consórcio estabelecido entre instituições europeias e africanas para promover a mobilidade e a capacitação de académicos africanos, o estabelecimento de parcerias de investigação Norte/Sul e o fortalecimento das instituições africanas. Através de metodologias qualitativas - entrevistas semiestruturadas e grupos de discussão com participantes africanos, e observação participante - este artigo analisa as experiências de académicos africanos trabalhando no setor da saúde, as suas perceções da capacitação e as suas ambições durante a estadia em Portugal em 2018. Através da análise das suas preocupações e sucessos, este artigo reflete acerca da performatividade das metodologias de capacitação, explorando um vasto leque de tópicos que emergem no contexto das parcerias Norte/Sul, questionando a possibilidade de uma descolonização das metodologias de capacitação.