Empirical Findings Across Cases

Abstract

In this chapter, we respond to our research sub-questions by presenting the results of our data analysis across all empirical cases: (i) What are and what constitutes the different modalities of knowledge interaction of our partners? (ii) What do we know about the effectiveness of knowledge cooperation of our partners? (iii) How are modalities of knowledge interactions used by partners?

In this chapter, we respond to our research sub-questions by presenting the results of our data analysis across all empirical cases:

• (1) What are and what constitutes the different modalities of knowledge interaction of our partners?

• (2) What do we know about the effectiveness of knowledge cooperation of our partners?

• (3) How are modalities of knowledge interactions used by partners?

6.1 Constitutions of the Modalities of Knowledge Interactions

In this section, we answer the sub-question “What are and what constitutes the different modalities of knowledge interactions of our partners?”. There are many different modalities of knowledge interactions, as our typology shows, and as analysed in the empirical cases. Study visits, training programmes, working groups and experts are the modalities that our partners use the most often, although some devised their own modality.

Study visits usually have the purpose of capacity development, and are practised in similar ways: a delegation visits a certain country, project or team to benchmark their performance against them and to learn more about their successes and activities to take forward learnings into their own countries, projects or teams. One of the reasons that study visits are widely used (at RCI, RIS, USPC, WASCA, DigiCenter, IGEF) is that they offer an intensive and fast learning experience for delegations. At the same time, study visits are a great opportunity to get to know each other and each other’s development experiences. The interpersonal relationships, direct contact and the visibility of developmental successes in the international cooperation landscape can promote trust-building between participants. This trust can also be regarded as the prerequisite for further relationships and joint projects in the future. This has been shown to be relevant, for example, for Rwanda Cooperation Initiative (RCI). They have institutionalised follow-ups after study visits to explore possibilities for project implementations after the needs of delegations have been jointly identified. While study visits are the main modality format for some institutions and are set as a format, such as in the case of UNDP Seoul Policy Centre (USPC) and RCI, others initiate study visits upon demand. IGEF carries out study visits, once members of sub-groups have identified their learning needs, and then supports them in their implementation via its support office.

Training programmes, as with study visits, allow for fast learning in a set time-frame and for participants to hear about each other’s experience while learning from trainers. The Water Security and Climate Adaption in Rural India (WASCA) case shows that training programmes can have a multiplier effect when a “train-the-trainer” approach is used. Through the training of trainers participants become experts in the topic and gain skills to take forward and disseminate knowledge.

Working groups usually work together over a longer period of time to solve a specific problem or to have an exchange with various stakeholders on a certain topic to become more informed. They can be topic-specific (in the Rwanda DigiCenter e.g. on cybersecurity or gaming) and/or take the form of focus group or multi-stakeholder group (at IGEF they include ministries, businesses, research institutions and other stakeholders in the thematic areas of the sub-groups, e.g. sustainable energy supply and energy use). The communities of practice of the Rwandan-German Digital Transformation Center (DigiCenter) use activities such as expert talks, panel events and the showcase of individual projects.

Experts can be both international and national, and can either be integrated into the workflows or be external to the partner (Bandola-Gill et al., 2022). For example, RCI hired an external consultant through the support and funding of USPC to establish a South–South cooperation strategy in line with the Rwandan political strategies. WASCA integrates national staff into the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act offices at state level to create better communication structures among administrative and technical staff, while the DigiCenter uses an international as well as a national expert who serve as staff in Rwandan governmental institutions where they have their office spaces.

While the above-mentioned modality formats are well established, others are rather rare and specialised, including RCI’s Rwandapedia, Hackathons at the DigiCenter and the Local Business Council at the Indo-German Energy Forum (IGEF).¹

Moreover, we observe a trend towards using triangular and trilateral cooperation as a context modality. By design, USPC and RCI are using triangular cooperation modalities, based on their mandate, while WASCA and RCI upscale working flows to and with additional partners through triangular cooperation. Triangular cooperation provides opportunities to reflect upon power relations in this context.

Another key take-away is that modalities of knowledge interaction should not be considered individually, but only in context. No modality is designed in a vacuum, so there is a need to take into consideration other already existing formats and activities, previous trials of modalities, as well as project or organisational goals and externalities such as preferences of partners, national strategies or trends in the development cooperation landscape. SDG Partnerships at USPC are a good example of the interlinkage of different formats that are flexibly used, based on the needs of partners.

When comparing our cases with respect to the range of their modalities, GIZ is the partner with the widest set of modalities in knowledge cooperation and the most diverse set of topics in our research case. We argue that this is based on GIZ’s size, extensive experience and resources. While our case selection is not representative for GIZ as an organisation, the projects we investigated all have fundamentally different mandates. The IGEF support office has a secretariat role for high-level political dialogue in the energy sector; WASCA harnesses evidence-based and scientific methods for local decision making in water resource management in the scope of a governmental social protection scheme; the DigiCenter embeds digitalisation into the bilateral, regional and global level to enhance innovation. We assume that one of the reasons could be that GIZ is a long-standing, traditional implementing agency with comprehensive financial and human capacity as well as the experience to experiment, succeed and fail. It not only has the capacity to strengthen tested and proven modalities in development cooperation, but also to try out new approaches. Thus, there is a diversity of modalities that projects can choose from and get support for from in-house experts in the “Subject and Method area” (Fach- und Methodenbereich) of GIZ.

We argue that partners often rely on well-established modalities of knowledge interactions in the international cooperation community. In our understanding, the number of toolboxes in development cooperation are, to a certain extent, limited. Based on our conceptual definition of modalities presented above and our empirical findings (see Chapter 6 and 7) we developed a typology (see Fig. 3.1). This typology compiles all the modality functions, formats and activities that we have identified in our analysis according to our concept of modalities. Beyond the initial modality concept itself, context modalities were also included as a new layer in the typology to highlight that modalities can happen in the scope of SSC, ODA or triangular or trilateral cooperation.

Using established modalities of knowledge interactions therefore enables the use of established blueprints to gain a head start. Simultaneously, partners can build the capability to adapt modalities of knowledge interaction to the specific context of an organisation or project. The importance of learning from each other through replicating and adapting modalities becomes evident in two different ways. Firstly, the learning from others informs the partners’ selection of specific modality formats and activities. Secondly, sharing learnings and best practices is the mandate of many of the knowledge actors we engaged with.

6.2 Effectiveness of Knowledge Cooperation

In this section, we elaborate on what we know about the effectiveness of knowledge cooperation of our partners. While we addressed this question case-specifically in the previous chapter by using our sensitising concept as a guiding analytical tool, here we further comment on insights across cases along the four dimensions and the sub-dimensions of the sensitising concept.

6.2.1 Ownership

Most of our partners understand themselves as being demand-driven (GIZ DigiCenter, IGEF, USPC, RIS, RCI). They want to react to the needs of their partners, engage concerned stakeholders and create effective knowledge cooperation in this way. For example, USPC wants to encourage demand-driven processes through their calls for interest. Possible partners in developing countries can send requests to them via their respective UNDP country offices, and USPC connects them to experts: specialised institutions in South Korea. In the example of the WASCA project that links its activities to the existing MGNREGA programme, acting on the explicit demand of the main clients is not explicitly stated as a project goal, but the needs of MGNREGA staff is nonetheless addressed.

Some of our partners steer partnerships jointly with the goal of enabling shared ownership in the cooperation: RCI, RIS and USPC create partnership structures in which key decisions are jointly taken. RCI, for example, organises study visits, and includes their partners in the design of schedules, as they can give feedback on must-have thematic areas or stakeholders they want to talk to. RCI’s partners thereby have some degree of ownership in the process, while RCI mostly steers the process. At USPC, the co-creation of knowledge stands at the forefront of the cooperation with involved stakeholders. USPC’s partners in the partner country and stakeholders from the ROK share their skills and expertise and thus steer the process jointly within the SDG Partnership, while USPC provides the cooperation frame.

Ownership varies in the focus of projects due to the context in which they operate. For example, the IGEF support office is less concerned with the external perception of their ownership, as its mandate is to enable knowledge interactions among Indian and German stakeholders, and thus to be rather in the background of the knowledge processes.

Ownership has many facets, and sensing and communicating needs is not always fully possible. In some situations small activities such as adding logos of involved partners on knowledge products can be a game changer for sensing ownership, as the case of IGEF shows.

6.2.2 Relationship Dynamics

Roles between our partners and their partners are clearly stated across all cases, i.e. providing support through the coordination of interactions, the funding or evaluation and benefiting from the partnership through learning or specific outputs. This division into “provider” and “beneficiary” also affects the relationship dynamic and can limit the ownership of those who are engaging with our partner institutions.

Accordingly, the dynamics of knowledge interactions are often shaped by a transfer without (immediate) knowledge backchannel (as for example at RCI, RIS, USPC, WASCA). Knowledge transfer in international and development cooperation is often linked to the understanding of cooperation, where a provider sends knowledge and a beneficiary receives it. This sender–receiver relationship can fit the purpose of a specific modality, for example if a partner wants to learn from an institution in the form of a study visit or training programme with the purpose of capacity development or benchmarking.

Simultaneous to modalities with knowledge transfer as interaction mode, our partners often apply modality formats and activities that serve the purpose of co-creation or, to an extent, of knowledge exchange (USPC, RCI, RIS, WASCA, IGEF, DigiCenter). Within our case selection, we have not, however, witnessed the “pure” form of knowledge exchange. This lack of “pure” knowledge exchange processes shows that relationship dynamics in knowledge cooperation are always shaped by hierarchies and knowledge asymmetries, both by design, or by chance, even though the mandate of some of our partners is to establish knowledge exchange (RCI, USPC). However, reflections on power relations and the challenges of establishing knowledge exchange, as well as the initial knowledge “multidirectional” experiences do exist. Also our partners want to learn from other governmental institutions, such as when DigiCenter in Rwanda send experts into Rwandan ministries. However, in this particular case the knowledge backchannel to the DigiCenter is rather weak, and so is their learning experience if exchange is not institutionalised into the workflows.

Knowledge interactions are multi-layered and intertwined processes. In our case selection, partners use modalities that entail simultaneous and subsequent knowledge transfer, exchange and/or co-creation processes in the multiplicity of activities that is applied with a variety of stakeholders. In the case of WASCA, in particular, we observed that knowledge interactions between a certain set of actors at one point in time might cause further interactions either between or beyond the same set of actors in the future. A prior interaction that is one-directional from a knowledge “sender” to a “receiver” may lead to another knowledge interaction, but in the reverse direction at a later point. This makes it difficult to adequately categorise different knowledge interactions. Interestingly, and according to the observation above, knowledge exchange has been understood in broader terms by some partners compared to our own conceptual understanding. RCI staff considered knowledge exchange not necessarily as a procedure in which two of the same partners exchange knowledge (a knowledge exchange only between partner A and B), but that one partner can transfer knowledge to another (A to B) and another partner could transfer knowledge back to the first partner (C to A), as shown in Fig. 6.1.

Fig. 6.1

Source Authors’ own figure

Knowledge exchange understanding of Rwanda Cooperation Initiative

Further, we realised that our partners often play the role of knowledge facilitator and by that contribute to the institutionalisation and structure of knowledge interactions. Knowledge facilitators are not part of the interaction process itself, but they predominantly establish contacts between different actors and offer modality formats for exchange and transfer processes to occur. This became particularly apparent in the cases of RCI and IGEF. Their coordination of modality formats and activities sets a frame for, and gives structure to, the knowledge interactions. To what extent this approach is stimulating or limiting for these knowledge interactions and their effectiveness has to be investigated through further research.

In addition, trust is a component that shapes the relationship dynamic in a knowledge cooperation (Keijzer et al., 2018, 2020), which is why some of our partners also identified trust-building as a function for their modalities of knowledge interactions. Trust is built through several ways, including informal events, accessible means of communication (e.g. through WhatsApp), or through establishing long-term relationships.

For RCI, in particular, as a relatively new actor in SSC and knowledge cooperation, it is important to be taken seriously as a “provider” alongside other donors in interactions with them. On the one hand, it is important to guarantee trust between RCI and other donors, and to enable good relations between RCI and partners who are similarly shaped by the discourses of powerful actors in development cooperation.

6.2.3 Innovation and Co-creation

It is common that innovations and new products evolve through conducted modalities of knowledge interactions through the creation of suitable learning and co-creation spaces. Many of our partners (RCI, USPC, RIS, DigiCenter) aim to create tailor-made solutions for their partners that can contribute to better learning experiences. At RCI, schedules of study visits are created in a tailor-made manner to respond to the specific needs of the study trip participants. While we have had limited insights into the impressions of the partners of our case organisations on the quality of modality formats and activities, a survey that we conducted with former study trip participants at RCI showed that study visits are valued due to the tailor-made activities and good learning experience. Given the knowledge sender–receiver relationship dynamic in most of the cases, the learning is generally uni-directional.

However, in knowledge co-creation processes learnings are likely to be spread across all involved actors. For example, USPC has anchored procedures for co-creating ideas among stakeholders from the ROK and partners in SDG Partnerships that can manifest in actions such as the establishment of online platforms for knowledge cooperation or the adaption of governance practices and even laws in the partner country. The learnings are evolving around a new approach, which different parties have had an influence on, and they can therefore learn from each other. Also, at RCI, knowledge co-creation plays a role in the modality format project implementation, whereby consultants from Rwanda support a project in a partner country. Skills, expertise and knowledge from both parties are combined for the co-creation, for example the establishment of an e-tax system. Also, the DigiCenter provides tangible solutions that evolve from knowledge co-creation. The modality formats hackathon and communities of practice have the purpose of enabling participants to co-create solutions by exchanging ideas.

Due to the difficulties of designing a system that is able to assess impacts, innovative products resulting from knowledge cooperation are hard to track. Learnings can also lead to actions once the knowledge interactions have finished and thus materialise beyond the cooperation timeline. Also opportunities to action knowledge gained can be limited if there are institutional barriers at the partners’ organisation that hinder implementation of what has been learned.

6.2.4 Sustainability

Impact assessments track and ensure the quality of the impact of modalities that contribute to project and organisational goals. In this regard, our partners face similar challenges. In all cases, the measurement of long-term impacts came up as an issue: namely that M&E indicators cannot capture the complexity of long-term effects. This is not only an issue in knowledge cooperation, but throughout development and international cooperation where M&E systems are used. Making a causal link is often challenging, as outputs by several partners acting in the same sector can overlap. RIS took a more oppositional position towards M&E, seeing it mainly as a policy tool of North–South cooperation (or ODA) and therefore redundant for SSC, which is focused on solidarity and does not require the measurement of results.

Embedding knowledge cooperation into existing procedures and policies can support the permanence of the impact of a partnership or project. For example, WASCA enables the long-lasting MGNREGA programme to support its administrative structures through evidence-based tools. RIS wants to connect state and national policies in their cooperation with other countries, so that RIS’s partner not only benefits from national Indian policies, but also from state-level policies. WASCA and RIS use existing structures and policies for the implementation of projects.

Our partners had to show adaptability during the COVID-19 pandemic to sharpen modality formats and activities or to make them usable in the virtual space. For example, USPC had a focus on study visits prior to the emergence of COVID-19, but switched to e-consultations during COVID-19. However, others, such as RCI, continuously used their existing modality format study visit in a slimmed-down version and postponed many of their activities. Also, beyond COVID-19 times, partners such as USPC and RIS have the drive to continuously reinvent their modality formats and activities to react on internal and external issues, such as trends in development cooperation, global crises or intellectual debates. RIS has created new spin-offs and established new research areas, while USPC adapts its activities within SDG Partnerships.

Designing a project exit strategy is a relevant aspect of sustainability in knowledge cooperation in some cases, depending on the frame and function of the projects or modalities. We understand a project exit strategy as an organisation’s or project’s goal to create sustainable impact without the active involvement of the organisation or project once the project has come to an end. In the case of WASCA, MGNREGA staff are trained so that they can independently use a GIS-tool for better water resource management with no need for the future engagement of WASCA. We also observed that some of our partners do not necessarily need an exit strategy. At IGEF, there is no exit strategy, given the long-term high-level political Indo-German engagement in the energy sector. Experienced staff hold specific knowledge; ensuring their knowledge is not lost to the partner once the staff changes to a new position contributes to the sustainability of a project. The integrated experts that the DigiCenter sends out to Rwandan governmental institutions hold specialised knowledge. However, there is no comprehensive knowledge management or exchange among the DigiCenter's integrated experts. Once their contract ends, a lot of knowledge will be lost, which can have a negative effect on the sustainability of knowledge interactions.

Once a knowledge cooperation was perceived as successful by our partners and their counterparts, they usually continue their partnership or scale their joint projects up. RCI has institutionalised follow-ups after each study visit to talk with previous delegations about further collaborations. RIS follows up with participants from trainings for further networking and possible new common activities.

6.3 Functions of Modalities of Knowledge Interaction

In this section, we answer the sub-question “How are modalities of knowledge interaction used by partners?” by highlighting both the logics of a modality and the functions that different modality formats have.

Our partners use modalities following different logics. They mostly employ their modalities either to pursue project outputs or other wider institutional purposes. In this way, modalities serve as means to an end. In contrast, the causal chain can also take a different form when they use modalities for the purpose of the modality itself (modality outputs). In the following, we describe the two different types/logics in detail:

• Project outputs: In this case, modalities are intended to meet project outputs. This is reflected in the cases of GIZ and USPC, which set project targets and track them with institutionalised systems (progress and end reports or/and M&E) or outputs agreed upon the organisation (RIS).

• Wider institutional goals: Modalities can also serve the purpose of larger goals, such as “country branding”. This can take the form of showcasing a country’s experiences. We see this phenomenon in three of our empirical cases: RCI with its home-grown initiatives, RIS with the sharing of the Indian, and USPC as facilitator of the ROK development experiences. In the case of GIZ, solutions and best practices “made in Germany” are taken forward.

• Modality outputs: In this case, the modality itself is the objective, or—to put it another way—goals arise from the modality itself. An example here provides the case of USPC, where the creation of SDG Partnerships, the modality itself, is the actual goal. Concrete objectives on what the modality should deliver are subsequently added on in a contextual manner, depending on the different partners and topics.

Based on the analysis of our empirical cases, we summarise the broader functions of modalities of knowledge cooperation in a typology (see Fig. 3.1 ). Considering all of our empirical cases, it becomes clear that the modality functions of capacity development, policy advisory, networking and policy dialogue are the most prominent. This is not surprising, as they are often related to the well-established modality formats that typically address these matters:

• Capacity development as a classic development cooperation function appears to be a goal that all our organisations pursue with their modalities (DigiCenter, WASCA, RIS, USPC, RCI, IGEF). We refer here, for example, to the DigiCenter, which names “capacity building” in its project matrix and realises it with modality formats such as trainings on the internet of things and machine learning; or WASCA, with its training programmes for MGNREGA officials. Another example would be RIS, with modality formats such as the IBSA fellowship programmes, the information technology programmes and summer schools.

• Policy advisory as another classic development cooperation function also occurs in the majority of our cases (IGEF, RCI, USPC, RIS, GIZ DigiCenter). This often involves advising the government counterpart (e.g. DigiCenter) or the main partner ministry (e.g. RIS) via modality formats such as policy briefs, discussions, or via an (integrated) expert or consultant. Another example is WASCA, where the expert advises the local government administrations on the use of science-and GIS-based planning.

• Networking is an important component in modality formats such as communities of practice or working groups (DigiCenter), or at USPC, where e-consultations also serve to establish contacts, as well as in policy discussions aimed at bringing together partner country offices.

• Policy dialogue lies in the nature of the functions of actors IGEF, RIS and USPC. In the case of IGEF, modality formats such as the annual forum in the presence of important political decision-makers serve primarily for dialogue on ways to achieve the energy transition and cooperation between Germany and India. Similarly, USPC is engaged in supporting independent policy dialogue on the issue of measuring and monitoring diverse types of development cooperation, for example.

While the above-mentioned modality functions are often found, others are rather rare or case-specific in terms of the organisation’s thematic focus, mandate, or goal:

• Discourse shaping is visible in the case of RIS, where modality formats such as research (publications), fora like the Delhi Process, or the NEsT network are tools to shape the global development agenda. The same applies to USPC, which is contributing in the form of support to new SSC agencies such as RCI as part of the SDG Partnership with Rwanda.

• Ecosystem support is an objective of the DigiCenter and RIS. At DigiCenter, formats such as accelerator programmes support young entrepreneurs in building and expanding their businesses in order to create a thriving ecosystem in Rwanda in the long term. RIS, in turn, supports the Indian research community at the national and state levels and builds talent through its trainings.

• Policy brokering as a function is a unique feature of IGEF. Through its modality formats, IGEF provides support to link policy and practice in Germany and India, despite the complex policy-making scenarios and the multiplicity of actors and interests in both countries.

• Trust-building as a specifically outlined function is also IGEF specific. In a high-level project like IGEF, trust-building is an essential foundation to increase confidence in the work of the IGEF support office and thus also in Indo-German political relations.

• Academic knowledge contribution is specific to RIS as a think tank. Modality formats such as Research (collaboration), which includes the creation and publication of scientific reports, journals or books are representative of this function.

• Operational support to partners means short-term, on-demand support to address operational challenges. In our empirical cases, we find this function at the DigiCenter, which, for example, supported the Rwandan Ministry of ICT & Innovation in the technical support of a Corona tracking app which was required at short notice.

• Identifying community leaders is also rather RIS specific. It means that RIS identifies representatives within its network (e.g. participants from courses) and ecosystem across targeted areas (such as science diplomacy or traditional health), invites and supports them to become leaders of a (policy) community.

Considering these modality functions altogether, it is important to note that they can also occur as unintended functions, in other words functions that were not originally envisaged. Here we point to so-called “side effects”, in the sense that when an institution does X, not only Y comes out, but maybe also Z (whether desired or not). In a figurative sense, this means that capacity development, for example, also goes hand in hand with networking. Which leads us to conclude that these functions are not always to be seen separately from each other, but in sum and in a complementary manner.