Empirical Approach

Abstract

In this chapter, we elaborate on our empirical focus. This requires an introduction to the debates around the impact and effectiveness of development cooperation. Additionally, we present what we call our sensitising concept, which offers a starting point for the design of our methods, and sets a direction for our explorative research process. In the last section of this chapter, we elaborate on our collaborative case study approach.

In this chapter, we elaborate on our empirical focus. This requires an introduction to the debates around the impact and effectiveness of development cooperation. Additionally, we present what we call our sensitising concept, which offers a starting point for the design of our methods, and sets a direction for our explorative research process. In the last section of this chapter, we elaborate on our collaborative case study approach.

3.1 Empirical Focus

To set a focus for our empirical data collection, we dive into the debate surrounding the impact and effectiveness of development cooperation. Of specific interest is the strand of the discussion that deals with questions of effectiveness on the micro and organisational levels, as we are concerned with the effects of modalities of knowledge interaction that happen in an organisational and programme setting. In this section, we further describe why we need an analytical framework as sensitising concept to guide our research process on modalities of knowledge interaction.

3.1.1 Debates Around the Impact, Effectiveness and Evaluation of Development Cooperation

Empirical evidence on the impact and effectiveness of development cooperation serves to identify the best way to organise the cooperation and to legitimise it vis-à-vis respective partner countries as well as the general public. But how to yield effective development cooperation? A huge body of literature is dedicated to this question. Different communities take up the controversial debate at the macro and micro levels about what can improve the quality and effectiveness or how it can be measured.

The main discussion strand at the macro level concerns global principles. Two distinct narratives and concepts of development cooperation are emerging here: North–South cooperation (NSC) (or ODA) and South–South cooperation (SSC). NSC received a lot of attention at the first High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, held in Rome in 2002, followed by further meetings in Paris in 2005 and Accra in 2008, where new norms and guiding principles were introduced (Ashoff & Klingebiel, 2014; Bhattacharya & Khan, 2020, p. 15; Keijzer et al., 2020) (Table 3.1). In the Paris Declaration, Southern partners were viewed primarily as recipients, and it was not until the Accra High-Level Forum (HLF) that SSC was included in the discourse on aid effectiveness (Besharati et al., 2015, S. 24). At HLF-4 in Busan, the concept of “development effectiveness” came into focus, and a new platform, the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC), was subsequently established, bringing together traditional donors, recipient countries, “provider–recipient” countries,¹ the private sector, civil society and legislators (Esteves & Klingebiel, 2021, p. 202). Building on the previous HLFs, the GPDEC formulated four principles of effective development cooperation: (i) ownership of development priorities by developing countries, (ii) focus on results, (iii) inclusive partnerships, and (iv) transparency and shared responsibility. However, this platform did not succeed in adequately engaging some of the major emerging development partners, such as China,² India and Brazil, who still see the GPEDC as too OECD DAC-driven (raising concerns of political legitimacy) and a pretext to force them into an unjust “burden sharing” and the liberal Western aid regime (Bhattacharya & Khan, 2020, p. 18; Bracho, 2021, p. 379; Esteves & Klingebiel, 2021, p. 204).

Table 3.1 North–South and South–South conferences that led to the formulation of principles

Although SSC does not form a unified bloc and has widely differing development policy approaches within it, SSC providers diverge from NSC providers in the extent of operationalisation and principles that guide them (Bhattacharya & Khan, 2020, p. 19). Historically, SSC has formulated its own principles at Global South conferences, such as those held in Buenos Aires (1978) and Nairobi (2009) (Table 3.1). Independent of, but influenced by, the GPEDC project, Southern providers themselves have had a growing desire to bring their own concepts and narratives, in line with the times (Bracho, 2017, p. 18). Some Southern forces, therefore, launched a series of more or less interlinked initiatives to promote a new SSC narrative, such as the RIS-initiated “Delhi Process”³ and the Network of Southern Think Tanks (NeST) (Bracho, 2017, p. 18; RIS, 2013, p. 6).

Despite the dynamics of the SSC concept, the debate on an appropriate definition and framework for measuring South–South cooperation and its effectiveness is still ongoing (Ali, 2018, p. 4; Fues, 2016, p. 1). So far, there has been no unanimous consensus among all SSC stakeholders on a defining set of SSC principles (Esteves & Klingebiel, 2021, p. 208). Nor has there been standardised reporting or measurement mechanisms that provide information on SSC effectiveness (Ali, 2018; Bracho & Grimm, 2016; Chaturvedi et al., 2015; Fues et al., 2012; Mackie et al., 2013; Quadir, 2013). While there is the IBSA (India, Brazil and South-Africa) Declaration on South–South cooperation from 2018, which reaffirmed certain principles of SSC, namely that it is a partnership among equals, guided by the principles of respect for national sovereignty, national ownership and independence, equality, non-conditionality, non-interference in internal affairs and mutual benefit (Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, 2018), this definition has not been jointly agreed by all South–South providers. The fact that a global consensus on SSC is difficult to achieve was also demonstrated by the Second UN High-Level Conference on South–South cooperation in Buenos Aires (BAPA+40) in 2019, as well as the challenge in establishing a single or multiple analytical framework(s) for assessment of SSC (Esteves & Klingebiel, 2021, p. 208). However, this does not mean that there have been no attempts to assess the effectiveness of SSC. Examples include the criteria established by the India–Brazil–South Africa Facility for Poverty and Hunger Alleviation, also known as the IBSA Trust Fund, or the frameworks proposed by individual researchers such as Milindo Chakrabarti at the Delhi Process V conference in 2019 (RIS, 2019, p. 41); or Besharati et al. (2017) and their five dimensions and 20 indicators.

Despite the different historical and political narratives of SSC and NSC, some argue that there are commonalities in terms of cooperation principles (Ali, 2018; Bracho, 2017; Klingebiel & Gonsior, 2020). There are some common elements in the outcome documents of the various relevant high-level fora. For example, both forms of cooperation affirm, at least in principle, the prioritisation of ownership and alignment with the priorities of the recipient country (Bhattacharya & Khan, 2020, S. 21). The recognised principles of the Nairobi Outcome Document—namely transparency, mutual accountability, and results orientation—are also very much in line with those of the Paris Declaration and the Busan Outcome Document (Bracho, 2017, p. 28). In addition, there is a rising demand on both the SSC and NSC sides to move towards results orientation and impact assessment, as outlined in the GPEDC principles, and recently in the BAPA+40 (Bhattacharya & Khan, 2020, S. 21). In view of these similarities, some are already arguing that “the practices of traditional donors and Southern providers are converging and beginning to resemble each other” (Fues, 2015, p. 37).

At the micro level, the debate on effectiveness is about the evidence of impact at the operational level (projects and programmes) and concerns development agencies, focusing on organisational behaviour. Here, the focus is especially on four aspects of results-based management: portfolio management, accountability, knowledge building and communication (Janus et al., 2020, p. 1). Another strand of the literature on development cooperation effectiveness at the micro level focuses on impact assessments of interventions. Effectiveness is interpreted as the causal link between the intervention and socio-economic effects at the micro-level (Janus et al., 2020, p. 1). Central references for the OECD are the six DAC criteria for the evaluation of development cooperation, which were developed by the Network on Development Evaluation (EvalNet): relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability (OECD, 2020, p. 2).

3.1.2 An Analytical Framework as Sensitising Concept

In this section we explain the development of our analytical framework of dimensions that we use to make statements about the effectiveness of cooperative modalities of knowledge interactions. It is important to note that the framework by no means claims to be complete in its scope and depth, considering all aspects covered. Rather, it was used as a sensitising concept, which suggests directions for the research, but does not define or fully operationalise the analysis. Researchers need a theoretical perspective to “see” relevant data. The availability and flexible use of conceptual perspectives leads to the “theoretical sensitivity” described by Glaser and Strauss (1967), the ability to reflect on empirically given material in theoretical terms (Kelle & Kluge, 2010). Therefore, the presented analytical framework is a reference point for our data collection and analysis.

3.1.2.1 Process of Designing the Analytical Framework

We created the analytical framework in an iterative process, based on our explorative research approach. We prepared a framework draft, used it as a sensitising concept to guide data collection (see Sect. 5.1), and have continuously reviewed and adapted the framework based on findings and input from our partners.

In the first step, we reviewed the analytical work of international cooperation organisations and academic papers with reference to frameworks, dimensions or criteria in order to analyse effectiveness and assess aspects of modalities in development cooperation. These include (some of the) above-mentioned criteria from Southern researchers, including Chakrabarti / Chaturvedi (2021) and Bhattacharya and Khan (2020) as well as criteria used by cooperation institutions such as the Japan International Cooperation Agency, GIZ, IBSA, NeST Africa, the Global Partnership for Effective Triangular Cooperation (GPI, 2022) and the OECD-DAC, GPEDC (GPEDC, 2011). To ensure stringency, we reviewed a variety of papers and reports that consider different approaches towards assessing modalities in development cooperation. This included, for instance, publications from McEwan and Mawdsley (2012), Miyoshi and Nagoya (2006), OECD (2021), and Keijzer et al. (2018).

In the second step, we synthesised, mapped and organised the acquired data into a three-level structure that depicts dimensions, sub-dimensions and forms of expression (Fig. 3.1). We did this in a way that Yin (2009) describes as linking data to propositions and logic models, pattern matching and cross-case synthesis. Firstly, we used a three-fold structure similar to comparable frameworks. Secondly, we compared criteria and their meanings to understand and filter overlaps and to eventually match patterns. For example, the OECD-DAC criterion “relevance” overlaps substantially with the understanding of “demand-driven” cooperation used by a variety of Southern actors (Bhattacharya & Khan, 2020). Lastly, we synthesised the literature and different examples of criteria frameworks. We used the concept of modalities of knowledge interaction as our guide to deductively filter criteria, as knowledge interactions may have more appropriate characteristics than cooperation approaches with other purposes. Thus, we used dimensions that are widely used in different frameworks, such as Sustainability, as well as others that have a minor influence in the literature, but play an important role in relation to knowledge interactions, such as Innovation & Co-creation.

Fig. 3.1

(Source Authors’ own picture)

Work in progress of the clustering of dimensions, sub-dimensions and forms of expressions

While dimensions, sub-dimensions and forms of expressions arose from a deductive process, in other words the analysis of numerous documents, we inductively and iteratively adapted the analytical framework based on findings during the data collection process. With Rwanda Cooperation Initiative we conducted a workshop in order to establish a better understanding of their opinions and needs when assessing knowledge cooperation. With all partners, we validated first findings along the framework dimensions. This helped us to identify new sub-dimensions and forms of expressions or, in some cases, proved a dimension to be redundant.

As our interest lies in how knowledge interactions relate to power structures the dimensions Ownership and Relationship Dynamics play an important role. While Ownership regards the way a cooperation is established and steered and which particular role participants are taking, Relationship Dynamics focuses on the different forms of knowledge interactions and trust amongst participants that influences their relationship. Moreover, Innovation & Co-creation is closely linked to how learning experiences take place and how innovations can evolve based on co-creative processes. The last dimension, Sustainability, refers to the embeddedness and context of modalities of knowledge interaction that can guarantee long-lasting consequences in response to achieving the 2030 Agenda.

Our dimensions mostly consider the micro-level interactions and consider impact at the level of the organisation and individual, as these are the levels at which knowledge interactions usually take place. However, we also included sub-dimensions that acknowledge the macro-level—the sub-dimension: “Dynamic of knowledge interactions in the development cooperation sphere”.

While there is a vivid debate about which dimensions to use to assess cooperation modalities, we decided to incorporate dimensions from different debates to cover the diversity of approaches in international cooperation in a synthesised framework. Central to this is the bringing together of different data sources to understand the phenomenon and the factors or conditions that influence knowledge interaction modalities. We do so, as we are collaborating with a diverse set of stakeholders that have different experiences in regard to choosing, realising and evaluating modalities.

3.1.2.2 The Framework

The establishment of the following framework answers the research sub-question “How can we define dimensions for effectiveness in knowledge cooperation?” With the framework, we respond to two functions:

• Firstly, we aim to capture different dimensions that are vital for analysing different aspects of modalities of knowledge interaction and to enable statements to be made about the implementation and effectiveness of these modalities.

• Secondly, the framework is used as a tool to reduce complexity and make modalities of knowledge interactions tangible.

Table 3.2 depicts the analytical framework. A more thorough description of the dimensions, sub-dimensions and the forms of expression highlighted in the framework can be found in Appendix 2.

Table 3.2 The sensitising concept of this study

The framework allows us to analyse what constitutes knowledge interaction and to find out what we know about the effectiveness of the knowledge cooperation of our partners. Our aim was not to evaluate the four cases according to a standard grid to assess the success of modalities of knowledge interaction according to fixed criteria. Rather, we used it to guide the data collection process. The framework helped us to formulate interview and survey questions and guided our observations. Additionally, the framework informed our analyses, after having gone through an iterative adaption. Thereby, the proximity and the role of our partners in this collaborative study had an impact on the distance to the “object of study”. These methods will be further explained in Chapter 4.

3.2 Collaborative Case Study Approach

By applying a case study approach that is designed along collaborative, explorative and iterative principles, we aimed to acquire context-specific insights. We focused on the modalities of our partners, but as it was not feasible to undertake a comprehensive analysis of all their modality formats and activities, we decided jointly with our partners which modality formats to analyse closely. Such a collaborative decision-making process ensures that we not only do research about an organisation, but include aspects of interest to them and, to a certain extent, do research with them.

As remarked by Gilham (2010), relying on different methods for data generation is an often-used approach in case studies and is necessary to capture a more thorough and fully faceted picture of the research subject; we also do so. To understand our cases well, we make use of a triangulating multi-method design that includes the triangulation of data gained by different methods (Flick, 2004, pp. 180–181). Here, we consider triangulation as a “strategy for justifying and underpinning knowledge by gaining additional knowledge” that allows for a consecutive knowledge production (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, as cited in Flick, 2004, p. 179). This allows us to cross-refer different kinds of evidence from surveys, documents, interviews and observations, and to relate them to one another. In addition, we conduct our data interpretation as a group to guarantee “investigator triangulation” (Flick, 2004, pp. 178–179). By this, we aim for a coherent understanding of the research matter as much as “its meaning to the affected” (Fielding & Fielding, 1986, as cited in Flick, 1991, p. 433).

3.3 Case Selection

The selected cases are organisations in the field of development cooperation. In total, we analyse four cases in and from four countries in three different world regions. The organisations are Rwanda Cooperation Initiative (RCI), Research and Information System for Developing Countries in India (RIS), the UNDP Seoul Policy Centre (USPC) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit in Rwanda (GIZ Rwanda) and in India (GIZ India). Figure 3.2 shows their locations and the order in which we collect data.

Fig. 3.2

(Source Authors’ own figure)

Map displaying the locations of our partners

This case selection reflects our aim to explore a diversity of organisations active in international cooperation that realise different modalities of knowledge interaction. While the organisations were founded in different contexts, they share the idea that they can offer advice to stakeholders in other countries based on narratives of the countries’ success in terms of the development of their economy, society or politics. All organisations we investigate have been, are currently or aim to be cooperating to different degrees with each other. The organisations state that they partially pursue related goals such as the contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the work of some of them is based on a similar political mandate, such as fostering South–South cooperation. Another reason for our case selection is these organisations’ previous engagement in cooperation projects with the German Development Institute (now the German Institute of Development and Sustainability), which has created the trust and respect needed for our research.