While Norhed was being established, three models for programme design were considered. In 2010, the models were presented to central stakeholders in Norway and potential partner countries via an open consultation process. In the first model, higher education and research collaboration was to be defined by university-based researchers who would define and design proposals for North–South partnerships based on their mutual research interests. In the second model, collaborations were to be defined by institutions in the South. This mirrors the model used by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), where selected HEIs in the South define proposals for their respective institutions based on their own institutional needs and
priorities (see Hydén 2016). In the third model, collaboration was to be defined by the authorities in the LMICs (mirroring the system then fol-lowed by the Dutch agency Nuffic), and would hence be more closely connected to national needs and priorities.
In the debates about each model that followed, the first was consid-ered to have a stronger research focus while the second and third were considered more likely to emphasise educational and institutional capacity building. Furthermore, models two and three were expected to have a stronger focus on long-term planning linked to institutional and national priorities, while model one was seen as more likely to include the notion of mutuality in partnerships as well as regional South–South collaborations. Overall, model one was preferred, based on its emphasis on research and the greater possibilities it offers for facilitating South–
South–North partnerships. This model was also considered likely to be most attractive to Norwegian partners, given their interests in mutu-ally beneficial and collaborative research. Consequently, the decision supported by key stakeholders, via a hearings process, recommended that Norhed proceed with a researcher-led model rather than one that is directed at an institutional or governmental level.
This bottom-up approach, with its emphasis on research-initiated projects and academic freedom, is well worth noting as it represents the very core of the thinking behind the Norhed programme, and thus the foundation of Norwegian support to higher education and research in general. This approach is supported by the design of the programme, which issues open and competitive calls for proposals that emphasise the quality of research and teaching. Support for research-initiated projects includes direct support for public institutions in the South.
This differs strongly from Norad-funded initiatives in other sectors such as primary education and health, where funding is increasingly channelled through multilateral organisations and global funds. Of the total Norwegian development budget for 2018, only 4 per cent was channelled directly to public institutions in recipient countries.6
The gravitation towards a stronger demand-driven orientation – that is, with activities being directed by the priorities of partner countries – is another vital element of the Norhed model. This not only aligns Norhed with the 2005 Paris Declaration and the 2008 Accra
Agenda for Action, but also with contemporary Norwegian policies on development collaboration. Furthermore, this approach helps to sus-tain the internationalisation of Norwegian institutions to some degree even though this is not a major priority of the programme.
Ownership and relevance led by the South
An evaluation of Norwegian support for capacity development (Norad 2015) shows that the ownership of interventions is a key factor in suc-cessful projects. LMIC partners being in the driver’s seat is therefore seen as essential for institutional capacity development. In this context, own-ership translates as drafting project proposals and assuming full responsibility for implementing and managing projects, including the co-ordination of partners and reporting to donors. Even more important here is ownership of knowledge production. This includes decision- making about what is taught and how, as well as the defining of research topics and research objectives (see also Mamdani, this volume).
By supporting this kind of ownership, Norhed is helping facilitate processes that support the decolonisation of knowledge, as partners in the LMICs increasingly define the substance and relevance of what is taught and researched in institutions. In many LMICs, knowledge pro-duction involving local researchers is very limited. In 2015, for example, The Guardian reported that Africa produced only 1.1 per cent of global scientific knowledge and estimated that the continent had only 79 sci-entists per million inhabitants. In Brazil and the USA, this figure stood at 656 and 4 500 scientists respectively.7 In this context, Norhed is fostering capacity within African HEIs in relation to the production of research and knowledge. In this regard, Norhed support also provides a crucial means for amplifying the voices and perspectives of researchers in LMICs who are under-represented in global research production.
Relevance and ownership are closely related. For Norhed, the rele-vance of knowledge production to sustainable development is key. In this, the programme intends to be responsive to the priorities of the higher education sector in partner countries. Ideally, the needs and priorities identified by partner institutions should be linked to govern-ment policies and priorities at national and/or regional level. In
addition, projects are expected to enhance the sustainability of eco-nomic, social and environmental development in the partner countries.
Relevance therefore refers to how academic institutions are responsive to both strengthening the higher education sector and having a positive impact on society at large. For Norhed, being relevant in highly diverse countries, and in contexts that have different needs and priorities, means that flexibility in its range of interventions is key. For this rea-son, the Norhed model allows for a certain flexibility which project partners have the latitude to convert into contextually relevant research and education outcomes of high quality.
In Norhed, support for capacity development in higher education in the South is based on co-operation between universities in Norway and its partner countries. The North–South model has been continued from previous programmes, with the asymmetrical relations typically of previous programmes (whereby the Norwegian institutions often took the leading role) having shifted to emphasise mutual partnerships led by partner institutions in the South. The model has also expanded to encompass a stronger emphasis on South–South partnerships. This is adding impetus to inter-regional collaborations between LMICs, where such networks are increasingly helping to improve the relevance and quality of higher education and knowledge production.
As the main partners, institutions in the South carry primary responsibility for project management, co-ordination and financial accountability. This also means that they have the latitude to influence the competency-strengthening components and the research agendas of joint projects. In dialogues between institutional partners, research agendas are established in ways that facilitate knowledge production based on the needs and interests of all partners. Similarly, in projects that focus on skills and capacity development in institutions in the South, the Southern partner is defined as the lead institution and this is embedded in the partnership model.
This is a major shift from previous programmes, where the Norwegian partner would always assume the leading role. This approach also stands out as different from those adopted by other donor agencies such as the Finnish National Agency for Education (Edufi) which invariably places the Northern partner in the lead. The
intention behind this shift is to empower and secure ownership of projects by the Southern institutions. The model is built on the realisa-tion that, after decades of collaborarealisa-tion in the higher educarealisa-tion sector, it is time to pass the baton over to the Southern partners. The goal of any donor funding is for support to become surplus to requirements over time. To achieve this, Southern institutions must develop the capacity to manage international academic projects and to secure future funding both nationally and internationally.
By positioning the Southern partners as lead institutions, and emphasising the mutuality of partnerships, it is hoped that asymmetri-cal power relations will gradually level out. At the same time, the benefits to be derived by institutions across the North–South divide from jointly shaping research priorities and sharing perspectives are increasingly evident and acknowledged. Unlike the predominantly uni-directional transfer of knowledge and capacity from North to South that seems to have characterised earlier programmes, Norhed is delib-erately attempting to shift the discourse and the power balance towards an exchange of knowledge and skills.
Of course, it remains arguable whether asymmetrical power relations can be completely transformed simply by allocating project responsibil-ity to Southern partners. After all, the Norwegian HEIs retain the advantage of proximity to Norad and to Norwegian development policy in general. In addition, Norwegian project co-ordinators tend to be more senior academics, even having acted as academic supervisors (at PhD or postdoctorate level) to project leaders in the South. Thus, the persis-tence of pre-established power relations is an issue. A further concern are the power relations that sometimes develop between partners in the South, whereby institutions that have more experience in the manage-ment of externally funded projects collaborate with less-established institutions that have relatively less capacity.
However, while the notion of ‘equal partnership’ is often highlighted as a goal in development collaborations, we question whether this is actually preferable, or even possible. As Nada Wanni, Sarah Hinz and Rebecca Day point out, ‘a dynamic collaborative process between edu-cational institutions brings mutual though not necessarily symmetrical benefits to the parties engaged in the partnerships’ (quoted in
Ndaruhutse and Thompson 2016: 7–8). What we see in Norhed pro-jects is that the different partners in a project contribute in different ways, depending on the context of the research being conducted, and the varied experiences and insights they have to offer. Similarly, activi-ties undertaken at each partner institution vary for a range of reasons.
For this reason, it should be possible for the ‘lead partner’ in a project to vary depending on the type of research or intervention being con-ducted. Hence, roles and activities might not be equal or symmetrical in any normative sense, but instead each partner has a specific purpose and reason for being involved in the project, and the benefits are mutual according to the context.
A holistic approach to capacity development
While Norad’s earlier programmes tended to focus on offering scholar-ships, developing master’s programmes, or on researcher and PhD training, Norhed takes a more holistic approach. That is, learnings from previous programmes indicate that sustainable capacity develop-ment is seldom achieved via isolated interventions. Instead, the various segments of institutions’ core activities have to be seen as interrelated and interdependent. To improve the overall quality of graduates at a university, it is not sufficient only to establish new courses and teach-ing programmes. Rather, the research capacities of the academic staff have to be strengthened and then this has to be fully integrated into their teaching practice. Likewise, while improving institutional infra-structure, by providing or upgrading technical equipment and libraries is critically important, administrative systems related to procurement and financial accountability also need attention. By adopting a holistic approach, Norhed is attempting to boost institutional competencies related to infrastructural and administrative development as well as strengthen pedagogical and research skills.
Flexible and contextually adapted
To achieve the relevance alluded to above, Norhed was developed with the intention of being flexible and able to adapt to different contexts in
line with the needs and aims of its Southern partners. In fact, it can be argued that flexibility in Norhed begins during the initial stages of project development, starting with the project concepts, the identifica-tion of partners and project proposals. Partners are free to team up with the institutions they find most relevant within a broad range of eligible partners and disciplines. Thus, flexibility applies to how part-nerships are imagined and created, and is also clearly reflected in proposed research themes and the types of study programmes that are developed.
Norhed’s programme design insists that the four core characteristics mentioned are incorporated into all projects. The applicability of each characteristic is wide and allows for flexibility as long as projects mean-ingfully contribute to defined higher education outcomes and have long-term relevance. This flexibility is reflected in the current project portfolio. Although all projects should reflect these core characteristics, how they do so does vary significantly from project to project, and even between partners in the same project. Hence, it can be argued that, although the programme is structured around predefined areas of intervention, these should not be considered straight-jackets but rather a foundation to which projects can add content and relevance.
Although the intention is to allow for flexibility, it has to be acknowledged that Norhed partners don’t always experience Norad’s results-based management requirements as particularly flexible. The results-based framework, with standard indicators to monitor project progress, together with detailed annual narrative and financial reports, requires that partners have a good understanding of the principles of effective and efficient monitoring and reporting. The potential gap between Norad’s expectations and requirements, and the management capacity at the partner institutions can be a challenge and must be taken into consideration.