小编按：

过去的5年间，中英全球卫生支持项目（GHSP）围绕服务于政府的政策制定这一核心目标，支持中国的12个核心机构开展了一系列研究、研讨、试点和相关能力建设活动。通过开展相关活动，这些核心机构带动了一批（超过40个）中国机构以各种形式参与到全球卫生的工作中来，同时，还与20个国家（既包括发达国家，也包括发展中国家）中35个机构建立了合作伙伴关系。境外合作伙伴的加入，一方面开拓了中方团队的视野，帮助中方快速地提升自身能力，提高产出质量；另一方面，也为实施机构带来新的碰撞与挑战。对于中方机构而言，既往多是被动地参与合作，以承担技术任务为主，而GHSP恰恰提供了新的平台，为实施机构提供角色转变的实践，其不仅是技术负责人，更是管理者和协调者。在文化理念、知识背景、甚至能力水平存在较大差异的情况下，如何做到求同存异、争取主动、实现双赢？这是项目已经遇到的现实问题，同时也是今后中国全球卫生事业高速发展后，所有中方机构必将面对的、无法回避的挑战。

GHSP技术指导组专家来自英国（老牌的发展援助大国）的Charlotte Laurence博士，有着丰富的国际发展援助领域的研究与管理实践的经历和经验。近日她在审核项目产出过程中，针对实施机构如何更好地与发展中国家的研究伙伴一起合作，提出了一些意见和建议，具有很强的普适性，相信对于多数正在或准备参与全球卫生工作的机构和个人都有一定参考价值。在此愿与诸位分享，期待对您有所裨益！

Some lessons from south-south health research collaborations.

The China UK Global Health Support Project sets out to develop China’s capacity for development cooperation in health.  This section of the report suggests some lessons that research organisations could apply when managing or collaborating on south-south research projects in the future.

Have confidence in unique perspective that China/Southern collaboration offers. China is a relatively new player in terms of funding international research on health.  As a new player, China can be very open to new ideas on the best way to collaborate on research, and experiment with different approaches.  It also has recent experience of being a ‘recipient’ of aid, so understands the frustrations it can bring as well as the benefits.

This gives China an opportunity to develop a new type of relationship with its southern research partners. Traditionally, donor-funded research is often commissioned to serve the funder’s specific project needs – for example measuring the impact of a donor-funded intervention.  This can create a difficult working relationship if the research does not fit in with the project timetable, or does not meet the client’s specific needs. Even where research is not directly linked to project operations, it often ‘follows the funding’, as some areas of interest are more interesting to donors, and can access funding more easily. 

China has an opportunity to develop a more consultative approach to develop research proposals and commission and manage research projects, hopefully producing research that is both good quality and meets the needs of both countries. 

If problems arise after commissioning research, arrange telephone/in-person/email meeting(s) to understand exactly what the problem is.  All parties should try to remain open, honest and constructive about any difficulties, so the parties can work together to develop a strong, achievable research proposal.Are the Terms of Reference fully clear, or are some parts confusing or ambiguous? 

● Are they too ambitious for the available resources and capacity of the local organisation? 

● Are there practical problems getting access to information on the subject being researched? (for example the most important documents are not publicly available, or in a foreign language?) If so, can anything be done to resolve this – for example could the Chinese research partner facilitate access to documents, or provide support with translations?

● Are there any unforeseen political sensitivities that make it hard to conduct the research?  If so, is it possible to adjust the research area to find a research topic that will it is easier to uncover useful material? 

Clarify and simplify the Research Proposal till all organisations are happy that the proposal is achievable and useful to both parties.  To help refine the choice of research areas, both parties need to be honest and clear about what areas they are most interested in. 

Keep narrowing down the research till you get a research that is practical and achievable.  For example, researchers may decide it is still too large and complex to look at the whole history of south-south collaborations in health, but could take a detailed look at a one component of it in a particular country or period of history.

If it is agreed that it is not possible to conduct the original research proposal, even in a simplified form, then design a new research project that is achievable within the budget, capacity and resources of the sub-contractor. 

Recognise the special insights of the partners.  Local researchers may not have as the same access to project data and reports as, for example a major international agency, but they are able to provide a valuable, and relatively rare southern perspective on how aid impacts on the day-to-day effectiveness of national health programmes.  Most research on aid delivery/effectiveness comes from the perspective of traditional donors.  Recommendations are often high level – for example good aid should be ‘harmonised’ and ‘aligned’ with national programmes, without saying what this means or how far this is achieved in practice.

Take advantage of the possibilities presented by the South-South research partnership. Local researchers will have much better and easier access to Local stakeholders (both working and retired) than many international organisations.  They may be able to get a more honest and impartial perspective than a researcher who is seen to be directly or indirectly representing a donor agency. Similarly, Chinese colleagues could translate interview schedules into Chinese, and conduct interviews with Chinese stakeholders.  Between the two organisations, it should be possible to find Local (and Chinese) stakeholders who could provide useful insights into south-south collaboration.

Other things to consider:

• Schedule in regular stakeholder planning meetings to review progress, identify problems quickly and develop solutions.
• Budget for experienced independent advisors who can advise and help to facilitate understanding and agreement between the research partners.  They could provide input at various inputs, for example reviewing research proposals, attending progress meetings, or providing email/telephone advice.
• Ensure reasonably budget for translation of source materials, interview schedules, interviews and meetings.

Finally, even if all these steps are taken, it may still not be possible to achieve all the research goals.  If so, researchers should be encouraged to be open about any problems encountered during the research so lessons can be learned in the future.

作者简介：

Dr. Charlotte Laurence

Dr. Charlotte Laurence is an independent consultant with over 15 years’ experience in designing, managing and reviewing health programmes and service delivery systems in Africa and Asia. Her PhD examined the impact of international agreements on the development of HIV/AIDS policies in the UK and Zambia.  This led to a growing specialization in using political analysis to understand the constraints to effective health service delivery, and design more effective delivery systems that better reflect on-the-ground realities.  She has led and participated in design teams in a number of countries including acting as lead consultant on the DFID-funded CHARTS Project and the joint Global Fund/DFID-funded HIV and AIDS Prevention and Care Programme in China.  Dr. Laurence’s publications include a report on Service Delivery in Difficult Environments and a good practice guide to identifying and working with Civil Society Organizations that represent the poor to government.  She was part of the high-level UNAIDS team that developed and piloted long-term national Technical Support Planning to identify and priorities technical support needs and improve its effectiveness.