GCRF: official development assistance (ODA) capacity and benefits study

Question 1

Executive summary

Accepted Answer

The Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) is one of the United Kingdom (UK) government’s funds, managed by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), set up to address the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals^{[footnote 1]}. GCRF was designed to build on UK ‘strengths, boosting research excellence, international partnerships (especially in developing countries) and research with impact, supported by transparent and rigorous decision making processes for funding and spending.’^{[footnote 2]} In doing so, it would ‘strengthen capacity for research, innovation and knowledge exchange in the UK and developing countries through partnerships with excellent UK research and researchers.’^{[footnote 3]}

Running between 2016 and 2025 and representing £1.5 billion of official development assistance (ODA)^{[footnote 4]}, GCRF aims to support research and innovation (R&I) that addresses the challenges faced by the LMIC, via 3 main objectives:^{[footnote 5]}

promoting challenge-led disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, including the participation of researchers who may not previously have considered the applicability of their work to development issues
strengthening capacity for research, innovation and knowledge exchange in the UK and developing countries through partnership with excellent UK research and researchers
providing an agile response to emergencies where there is an urgent research need.

The evaluation of GCRF seeks to assess the extent to which the Fund has contributed to its objectives and to achieving impact, and consists of a multi-year evaluation (2020–25) delivered in 3 stages (Stage 1a, Stage 1b and the ongoing Stage 2). The overall GCRF evaluation takes a theory-based design, examining aspects of the Theory of Change of GCRF. The present study is one of 3 modules in Stage 2 of the evaluation and seeks to assess the benefits of GCRF to UK R&I systems. More specifically, this study aims to assess the extent to which GCRF has contributed to the UK’s capacity to deliver cutting-edge R&I for development. Such capacities were identified by GCRF stakeholders in the Theory of Change (ToC) as the main UK benefit expected from ODA R&I funding. The ToC framing emphasises that the benefit relates to building up the UK’s global reputation as a capable and credible partner, as an aspect of the UK’s ‘soft power’ on the global stage.

Approach to the study

The present study used process tracing methodology to develop and test hypotheses to ascertain the contributions of GCRF to the UK’s capacities for R&I. First, we conducted a document review of previous GCRF evaluation reports^{[footnote 6]} and a wider review of literature on comparator programmes to identify the main benefits of ODA funding to countries providing that funding. The benefits fall under the heading ‘R&I systems capacity for development’, and consist of:

(a) capacities for equitable international partnered research,
(b) new skill sets and methodologies,
(c) new contextual knowledge and experience, and
(d) new relationships/partners.

Second, we mapped the existing evidence in reports from the GCRF evaluation against these benefits and developed a set of 6 hypotheses to assess the mechanisms through which GCRF contributes to achieving these benefits (Table ES1). Third, we used process tracing to support or reject each of the hypotheses.

Table ES1: The 6 working hypotheses for the study and the UK benefit they seek to test

Hypothesis	UK benefit
1: UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of the pump priming funding provided by some partner organisations.	Capacities for equitable international partnered research
2: The observed trend of greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a UK university level is because of GCRF structures, foundational principles and requirements.	Capacities for equitable international partnered research
3: GCRF funding requirements have caused UK-based researchers to develop and internalise new practices around equitable partnerships because they received guidance and learning from fund managers, alongside practical learning from cohort members.	Capacities for equitable international partnered research
4: UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty, and improve social inclusion/equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI). They have done this because receiving GCRF institutional funding in three-year blocks provided them with opportunities to learn-by-doing and improve practices over several years.	New skills and methodologies
5: The scope, scale and time frame of GCRF awards meant that awardees could gain contextual knowledge/experience about the LMIC, which led to boosted capacities at the systemic level of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem.	New contextual knowledge and experience
6: The UK academic research community formed new partnerships at institutional and inter-institutional levels and/or with other stakeholders, such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC, because of GCRF’s strategic requirement for grant awardees to plan for impact.	New relationships/partners

Question 2

Key findings

Accepted Answer

Capacities for equitable international partnered research

In this study, capacity for equitable international partnered research is defined as the capacity of UK researchers (and others in the system, such as funders) to establish and maintain equitable partnerships with those based in LMICs. Equitable partnerships can be characterised as having “mutual participation, mutual trust and respect, mutual benefit and equal value placed on each partners contribution at all stages of the research process”^{[footnote 7]}. The capacity of R&I to conduct equitable partnered research is a key dimension of research making an impact. In the ToC of GCRF, a key short-term outcome of the Fund is to ‘enhance UK R&I organisations’ reputation as highly capable, equitable partners of choice for LMICs to deliver challenge-oriented work’.

There is strong evidence of an increase in UK capacity for partnered research, based on the evidence from prior stages of the evaluation of GCRF. This study found that:

institutional-level resources and support enabled by quality-related (QR) allocations delivered by the Four Nations^{[footnote 8]}provided opportunities for early career researchers to gain experience and build capacity in equitable partnered research.
although wider GCRF investments helped researchers with little or no development experience to set up equitable partnerships, it is less clear whether pump priming^{[footnote 9]} played a key role.
the scale and scope of GCRF, as well as QR funding, enabled interdisciplinary research, bringing new disciplines into research for development by providing funding for research they would not otherwise be able to do.
GCRF provided top-level structures (i.e. guidance and requirements) and prioritisation of equitable partnerships and peer learning to support practical implementation and good practice around equitable partnership, further influencing policies and guidance in the UK.

New skills and methodologies

This study defines ‘new skills and methodologies’ as new skills and knowledge acquired by research institutions and/or individual researchers to help improve gender equality, reduce global poverty, and contribute to improved social inclusion/equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI). These new skills and methods are important because the more HEIs implement processes and procedures to tackle these systemic issues, the more impact they will have through their research and the greater will be their capacity to undertake equitable partnered research with stakeholders in other countries, particularly in LMICs. There is moderate evidence of an increase in UK capacity related to new skills and methodologies related to SI/EDI, based on the evidence from prior stages of the evaluation of GCRF. This current study found that:

GCRF played an important role in helping UK higher education institutions (HEIs) to implement structures and systems to improve gender equality, although more should be done on other aspects of EDI.
GCRF’s institutional funding in three-year cycles has helped HEIs to learn about and introduce new practices and methodologies to advance gender equality and, to a lesser extent, EDI. Changes in UK-wide standards also contributed to these policy changes.

New contextual knowledge and experience

This study defines ‘new contextual knowledge and experience’ as increased understanding by UK researchers of the LMIC context. Having contextual knowledge and experience enables UK researchers and HEIs to engage sensitively and in an informed way with LMIC communities and contexts, and is therefore a key aspect of successfully delivered research for development. There is moderate evidence of an increase in UK capacity related to new contextual knowledge and experience, based on the evidence from prior stages of the evaluation of GCRF. This study found that:

the scope, scale and time frame of GCRF enabled the broadening out of existing contextual understanding to a whole system level, beyond the pockets of contextual knowledge and experience that existed previously, although this was not consistent across the Fund.

New relationships/partners

New relationships are those formed between academic partners because of GCRF funding, as well as new collaborations and networks between policymakers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other stakeholders (in communities and relevant actors in the UK and in lower and middle income countries (LMICs). Expanding the number of international partnerships between UK researchers and partners in LMICs has the potential to lead to greater impact from research. There is strong evidence of an increase in UK capacity related to new relationships/partners, based on the evidence from prior stages of the evaluation of GCRF. The current study found that:

building partnerships between the UK and the LMIC is a strategic priority for UK research funders; as a UK research programme, the GCRF has been a catalyst for new relationships and partnerships.

Question 3

Conclusions and recommendations based on these findings

Accepted Answer

Building on these findings, we can identify a set of cross-cutting conclusions and accompanying recommendations for actions DSIT and partner organisations (POs) can take to build on the learning from GCRF in future investments, as set out in Table 1.

Table 1: Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusion	Details	Recommendations
GCRF has contributed to UK capacity development.	Recent UK government strategies place emphasis on the important role of sustainable development for global harmony and the UK’s global and domestic spheres of interest. The Integrated Review Refresh (IRR) 2023 highlights the role of development in supporting the UK’s own security and prosperity by ensuring everyone has the opportunity of a good life – enabling inclusive growth, building peace and preventing conflict – and sets sustainable development as the second UK priority. GCRF has contributed to building capacity related to ODA research in the UK, including developing local contextual knowledge, engaging with local communities and stakeholders, and developing and maintaining equitable partnerships. Investment is needed to sustain these capabilities, and there are areas of practice that need further focus such as aspects of EDI beyond gender.	1. DSIT should reflect on the successes and capacity strengthening achieved from GCRF and ensure that ISPF and other futures funds learn from and build on this progress. Investment should include targeted resources to build and maintain UK capacity. Specific examples detailing how this should be implemented are provided in this table.
Dedicated resources are needed for relationship development.	Working with local stakeholders is a key aspect of good development practices. The GCRF strategy states: ‘Capacity building and networking of researchers in the UK and the LMIC will make it possible to initiate research that is more relevant to practice and policy, and to bring innovations with an impact on development swiftly into the market.’ It also sets the expectation that Southern partners will be engaged in research design and planning for implementation and uptake. Building and maintaining relationships is key to conducting effective and impactful STRI for development. Having time and resources allocated to this in programme design was key to the success of GCRF. For some awards, particularly larger investments like the Hubs, GCRF provided the time and resources to work closely with the community and stakeholders and for strong networks to be built involving a variety of stakeholders. However, this was not consistent across the Fund, particularly smaller project awards typically did not support relationship development and relied on existing contacts.	2. POs should ensure dedicated resources are provided to support researchers in developing contextual knowledge and experience which are needed for effective partnership development and positive award outcomes. This could include, for example, seed funding to support relationship development as an initial stage in funding awards, networking awards to support relationship development, and longer-term large-scale investments that are sufficient to enable system level capacity and relationship development. Short term awards without a capacity development or networking focus are unlikely to be effective in building or maintaining capacity and should not form a significant part of the portfolio. 3. DSIT should look at PO plans to ensure they have made adequate provision for capacity and relationship development in their planned programming and consider these criteria in their ongoing monitoring of PO and programme level performance.
Flexible QR funding played a key role in capacity development.	QR funding is a key feature of UK research funding. In GCRF, a proportion of funding was allocated through this mechanism in 3-year cycles, with HEIs required to produce a strategic plan for its investment. This enabled some capacities to be institutionalised – for example through the hiring of a GCRF manager at some HEIs – and facilitated non-competitive collaboration among researchers. GCRF highlights the importance of QR funding in supporting collaboration and building capacity by providing researchers with opportunities to learn-by-doing and improve practices over several years which extend beyond the research itself. High-value, long-duration funding, such as QR funding, provides flexibility to the institutions that are awarded funding to utilise the resource as they consider best, be this through providing funds to high-risk projects that may struggle to secure funding through standard peer-review grant processes, hiring dedicated research staff, or building partnerships and networks.	4. DSIT should consider offering flexible institutional funding to support capacity development in future funds, with QR providing a useful mechanism to deliver this investment. This should include a requirement for institutional strategic planning, and should emphasise investment in capacity, seed funding and relationships development. 5. POs should consider including flexible funding opportunities in their investment portfolios that allow high-risk projects and partnership development to be supported. At the PO level this is most feasible through large scale investments (e.g. similar to the hubs in GCRF).
Improving practices requires both formal structures and opportunities for peer learning.	Peer networks were found to be instrumental in developing and sharing best practice. These peer networks were enabled by top-level priorities outlined in GCRF guidance and incorporated into the design and structures of some GCRF investments, as highlighted through the creation of equitable partnerships and EDI practices around gender. Top-level priorities, underpinned by the right structures to disseminate them, create momentum and focus, with peer learning key for practical implementation of key GCRF principles, like equitable partnership. However, there is also evidence that learning was not consistent across the Fund; rather, there were pockets of learning where there were cohorts or peer networks and specific funding that facilitated it (e.g., through SFC peer networking events). In addition, we found that although institutional learning was achieved, this did not translate to learning across POs.	6. DSIT should develop clear requirements for strategic priorities, such as interdisciplinarity, EDI, local stakeholder engagement, and impact for investments including ISPF, and create top-level structures for their oversight (e.g., policies, reporting requirements) to provide impetus for POs and award holders to implement them. This should build on the learning from progress made in gender equality through GCRF, for example, but on EDI specifically should extend to cover aspects beyond gender. 7. DSIT should provide a forum and resources for peer support and learning across POs in ISPF. POs should actively engage in sharing experiences and lessons learned through those fora. 8. POs should build in to their programme design opportunities for peer support and learning between award holders and institutions. This may be particularly valuable for institutional level investments (e.g. centres, hubs). It would also likely be valuable for fellowship programmes, where cohorts can be given the opportunity to interact and learn from each other.

Question 4

Introduction

Accepted Answer

This report presents the findings from one study of the evaluation of the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), which aimed to gather and present evidence on the benefits to the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) capacities for research and innovation (R&I) that have been catalysed by GCRF.

This section states the purpose and structure of this report before summarising GCRF and its objectives. The various elements of GCRF are briefly described, and evaluation questions (EQs) and methods are summarised.

This report is structured as follows:

section 1 introduces the report and provides an overview of GCRF
section 2 presents the methodology for this study and its limitations
section 3 presents the findings on the main benefits to the UK from GCRF
section 4 gives the overall learnings, discusses our findings in a broader development context, and outlines our suggestions for future R&I and official development assistance (ODA) funds provided by the UK government
annexes provide supplementary material, including our working hypotheses, alternative hypotheses that we tested, and the GCRF Theory of Change (ToC).

Policy context for the study

The global context has been volatile since the inception of GCRF. General progress towards meeting the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has been hampered by many factors, including the climate crisis and increasing threats to democracy and civic space.^{[footnote 10]} In this context, the UK government (as well as other nations) has been searching for new approaches to support equitable growth, with research at its core due to its role in supporting capacity building, stimulating economic growth, and overall collaborative approach to addressing global challenges in a transformative, long-term systemic way.

In light of this, the UK government launched GCRF, which we will introduce in the following section (1.2). ‘In November 2015 the UK government announced its new UK aid strategy to further the sustainable development and welfare of developing countries while placing international development at the heart of the UK’s national security and foreign policy’.^{[footnote 11]} This strategy explicitly stated that cross-government funds would be set up to address the UN SDGs, leading to the development and implementation of GCRF.

Since the implementation of GCRF, the UK’s policy on international development has evolved, in part due to continuing volatility, driven in the second half of the fund’s life by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. GCRF’s objectives and emerging outcomes were able to remain relevant to current priorities. For example, the UK government’s 2023 White Paper on International Development stated that ‘the UK has the most positive impact when it is focused on transformative, long-term systemic change’ and that ‘we should return to a long-term, predictable focus for policy and funding, built on locally-led development’.^{[footnote 12]} GCRF’s emerging outcomes, both in the UK and in LMICs are contributing to this aim by mobilising research and innovation communities and building capacities to forge and sustain new, long-term relationships with researchers in LMIC countries that lay the foundations for systemic change. .

Question 5

1.2.  Global Challenges Research Fund overview

Accepted Answer

GCRF is a large-scale fund, running from 2016 to 2025 and representing £1.5 billion of ODA to support R&I that addresses the challenges faced by the LMIC.^{[footnote 13]} The Fund aims to maximise the impact of R&I to improve lives and opportunity in the developing world. In other words, GCRF aims to harness UK science in the search for solutions to the challenges faced by developing countries while also developing the UK’s ability to deliver cutting-edge R&I for sustainable development. Its strategic importance is underpinned by a global context of faltering progress in achieving the UN’s SDGs by the original target year of 2030.^{[footnote 14]}

The 3 main objectives of GCRF are to:

promote challenge-led disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, including the participation of researchers who may not previously have considered the applicability of their work to development issues
strengthen capacity for research, innovation and knowledge exchange in the UK and developing countries through partnership with excellent UK research and researchers
provide an agile response to emergencies where there is an urgent research need.

Through these objectives, GCRF aims to contribute to make practical progress on the global effort to address the UN SDGs. As a secondary objective, GCRF also aims to build the position and role of the UK R&I sector as global leaders in addressing global development challenges.

GCRF is overseen by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) - formerly the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) - and delivered through 17 partner organisations (POs),^{[footnote 15]} who manage and disburse funding through the existing system of universities and other research organisations as well as to their partners in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Its mechanism of delivery aligns with the recently published UK White Paper on global development,^{[footnote 16]} which emphasises the UK’s approach to development of working closely with partners in an equitable way and in mutually respectful relationships as well as promoting locally led development.

Figure 1 illustrates the GCRF investment strategy through individual allocations to POs, the collective funds and investments made to promote coherence in the Fund. Since 2016, DSIT has provided GCRF funding through 3 channels:

(1) annual allocations to UKRI, individual research councils and national academies to design and develop their own GCRF programmes;
(2) a collective fund, with the aim of supporting cross-council and cross-academy initiatives to promote large-scale interdisciplinary and challenge-focused initiatives, delivered in the form of 6 ‘signature investments’; and
(3) quality-related (QR) allocations made through the 3 UK HE funding bodies, and through Northern Ireland’s Department for the Economy (DfE), to higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK.

Figure 1. GCRF investment strategy

Source: Carden, F., Vogel, I., Hepworth, C. and Stevenson, C. (2023) Evaluation of the Global Challenges Research Fund: Midpoint Synthesis Report: Assessing quality, impact positioning and early outcomes against GCRF’s Theory of Change: Synthesis of the evidence from the assessment of Research Quality plus Positioning for Use plus Results (RQ++) of GCRF awards. Brighton: Itad.

Note: FLAIR - Future Leaders – African Independent Research; DfENI - Department of Education (Northern Ireland); HEFCW - The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.

In GCRF, programmes are designed and managed by GCRF’s POs. They involve the allocation of an amount of funding for the commissioning of a specific portfolio of grants. A set of specific objectives guides the commissioning of projects to contribute to GCRF’s goals. Programmes often specify ways of working, e.g. in partnership with institutions in LMICs, through interdisciplinary work and involving stakeholder engagement. Research topics and countries are not usually specified although, in the innovation programmes, development challenges and geographies are framed and awards are commissioned to respond to these.

POs fund a wide range of GCRF-badged R&I activities, including:

research studies, from basic science through to applied R&I, via small, medium and large-scale projects
international partnerships between R&I institutions and the partner organisations (POs) themselves, with other R&I funders in LMICs
innovation and technology accelerators, and support to innovation ecosystems
research capacity building through Fellowships and PhDs and through building R&I infrastructures (e.g. technologies and IT systems)
thematic and regional network creation
impact and research translation activities, including commercialisation of innovations
a wide range of engagement activities, including policy dialogues in LMICs.

GCRF also funds large investments that combine many of these activities in multi-year interventions (‘signature investments’) delivered by UKRI and other POs, such as the Interdisciplinary Hubs and the Growing Research Capacity (GROW) awards. In addition, a portion of GCRF ODA funding was allocated via QR funding through the HE Funding Councils. To ensure alignment with GCRF strategy and ODA requirements, UK universities and research institutions receiving GCRF-related QR funding had to provide three-year strategies outlining how the ODA block grant funding would be utilised and how they would track results.

GCRF’s portfolio is very diverse, covering a wide range of disciplines, geographies and development challenges. There are six ‘signature investments’, which are the flagship programmes and awards that represent about half the spend in the portfolio and which are intended to align closely with GCRF’s strategy and ToC. These strategic initiatives, which represent the ‘essence’ of what GCRF was set up to achieve, are:

GROW;
Interdisciplinary Hubs;
UKSA’s International Partnerships Programme (IPP);
Challenge Leaders;
the Future Leaders – African Independent Research (FLAIR) programme; and the
Four Nations^{[footnote 17]} funding (GCRF allocations distributed to HEIs in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland).

The 6 ‘signature programmes’ involve more hands-on management of the portfolio by the PO than other calls to optimise the portfolio’s development impact potential.^{[footnote 18]} This programme management includes policies and frameworks that must be met, addressing elements such as gender, equity and inclusion, detailed monitoring and reporting, cohort linkages, support for skills building from the programme level, and links to wider networks of collaborators and research users.

Question 6

1.3.  Aims of the evaluation

Accepted Answer

The evaluation of GCRF assesses the extent to which the Fund has contributed to its objectives and impact. This has a dual learning and accountability purpose, as set out clearly in the evaluation objectives:

to assess whether the Fund is achieving its aims (learning and accountability)
to assess whether it is on course to achieve impact (accountability)
to support DSIT in their development of a cross-fund and fund-specific key performance indicator (KPI) framework to provide a robust measure of the Fund’s impact and value for money (VfM) (learning and accountability)
to provide evidence of what works and make interim assessments of VfM to feed into GCRF learning loops to improve the Fund while it is in operation (learning and accountability)
to inform the design of a VfM case for future funds (learning).

The evaluation provides evidence of GCRF’s contribution towards impact and engages with DSIT’s developing processes for learning about aid effectiveness. Given the complexity of the Fund, the evaluation is designed in 3 stages, conducted over 5 years from 2020 to 2025, as summarised in the ‘main evaluation’ section of Figure 2.

Figure 2. Overview of GCRF evaluation

The overall GCRF evaluation takes a theory-based design, examining aspects of the ToC of GCRF over the Fund’s lifetime (for the ToC, please see Annex B). Between 2020 and 2023, the evaluation examined the scope and potential to lead to impact in a development setting (Stage 1a) as well as the process, early results, research quality, and positioning for use (Stage 1b). The evaluation is now in Stage 2 (running between 2023 and 2025), which involves assessing the benefits of GCRF to UK R&I systems (the purpose of this report – see section 1.3.1) and how GCRF’s portfolio is moving into use and promoting outcomes in LMICs.

UK ODA capacity and benefits study

Since the 2010s, there has been an interest from the UK government in understanding the benefits that flow back to the UK as a result of ODA spend. This study focuses on ‘capacities’ as a key benefit of GCRF, which we define in this study as the UK’s capacity to deliver cutting-edge R&I for development. Such capacities were identified by GCRF stakeholders in the ToC as the main UK benefit expected from ODA R&I funding. The ToC framing emphasises that the benefit relates to building up the UK’s global reputation as a capable and credible partner, as an aspect of the UK’s ‘soft power’ on the global stage.

The ‘UK ODA Capacity and Benefits’ study (from here on referred to as the ‘UK Capacity study’) aims to gather and present evidence on the benefits to the UK’s capacities for R&IR&I that have been catalysed by GCRF, which were identified in GCRF’s ToC as important for addressing the SDGs. It is primarily an analytical module building on existing evidence from prior assessments and data, and it draws heavily on previous stages of the evaluation to build a picture of the impact of GCRF on UK capacities for partnered and challenge-oriented research. Although there are other primary and secondary benefits that may develop as a result of participation in ODA R&I programmes and funds, this study focuses solely on UK capacity as a primary benefit, as this was the main primary benefit anticipated in the ToC for GCRF overall, and from this, other kinds of benefits can flow.

More specifically, the UK Capacity study aims to assess the UK’s capacity to deliver cutting-edge R&I for development (GCRF EQ3b) and addresses the following aspects of the ToC of GCRF:

Shorter-term outcomes

UK R&I organisations’ reputation enhanced as highly capable, equitable partners of choice for LMICs to deliver challenge-oriented work
Changes in R&I capabilities for challenge-focused, interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral work.

Longer-term outcomes

R&I capabilities improved and maintained in LMICs and UK over a 10–15-year time frame (see ToC for GCRF).

It is also aimed at supporting learning on what constitutes good development practice, how ODA funding supports capacity building at a systemic level, and where further work is needed. Research funded by the Newton Fund and GCRF must primarily benefit a country (or countries) included in the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) list since these 2 funds are classed as ODA within the UK Aid budget.

Question 7

2.  Methodology

Accepted Answer

The evaluation of GCRF takes a theory-based approach, assessing progress in line with the ToC of GCRF. For this study, the approach consisted of reviewing the literature and existing evidence from 3 years of the evaluation of GCRF, developing and testing hypotheses to ascertain the contributions of GCRF, and assessing the data via a theory-based approach (discussed in section 2.1.4). It was therefore an analytical study, which drew primarily on existing evidence already collected as part of the evaluation, with some additional data collection to fill gaps where necessary.

The study ran from March to December 2023 and utilised a method called process tracing (PT) (see section 2.1.4 for more information on PT), allowing the robust assessment of causal inference. It applies various ‘tests’ (based on Bayesian probability logic) to causal hypotheses, to update the evaluators’ level of confidence that a programme has contributed to an outcome.^{[footnote 19]} We used PT rather than other similar methods, such as outcome harvesting, as PT is more appropriate where the likely outcomes are largely known, and it is less time-consuming. An advantage of PT is that it provides clear direction on what evidence to look for and the criteria with which to judge the strength of that evidence. However, undertaking PT requires drilling into specific aspects of programme theory to better understand the causal processes leading to the outcomes, in order to inform improvement of current and future ODA International R&I Funds. In addition, PT is not adequate to answer ‘how much of an impact an intervention had on average on an outcome of interest’ and should not be used to fulfil this objective. Hence it is best applied where specific aspects or causal pathways are being analysed, as in this case.

Question 8

2.1.  Approach to hypothesis development and process tracing

Accepted Answer

2.1.1. Step 1. Scoping phase

In the first phase of the study we undertook a targeted review of literature to identify potential UK capacity benefits and how they have been measured. This included a targeted review of academic and grey literature focusing on comparable interventions and the UK or source country capacity benefits they achieved. Comparable interventions included research for development investments involving collaboration and cooperation between the funding source country and LMICs in their delivery. The aim was to identify the capacity benefits from research for development for funding countries and how they have been measured and characterised. The documents reviewed were:

Following the literature review, we drew up a long list of possible benefits of ODA funding to donor countries – the main benefit of the donor country’s improved R&I system capacity to support development and its 4 sub-components, plus 2 kinds of secondary benefits stemming from the principal benefit (economic and commercial benefits and science diplomacy).

We drew on the longlist of benefits to set the parameters for further analysis in steps 2 and 3.

2.1.2. Step 2. Review of existing data

In step 2, we mapped existing data and evidence from the evaluation of GCRF against a range of potential UK capacity benefits. Sources for this are identified in Table 1 and included the Stage 1a management and foundations assessment, the Stage 1b process evaluations and survey, and RQ++ and results assessments. The aim was to review all existing evidence and data to identify the available evidence on benefits to UK capacity resulting from GCRF. We then conducted a cross-analysis of the different benefits and generated a longlist of benefits to UK capacity. From the longlist, we did a prioritisation exercise to identify a set of 4–6 capacity benefits that could be tested using a PT approach. The shortlisting and prioritisation process was based primarily on diversity of the examples, their relevance to the Fund and to DSIT’s future needs, and the strength of the evidence available to support their analysis.

Table. GCRF evaluation data sources reviewed for the UK capacity study^{[footnote 20]}

	Stage 1a: Management and Foundations Assessment	Stage 1b: Process Evaluations	Stage 1b: RQ++ Analysis	Stages 1a and 1b: VfM
Purpose/scope	Overview of the Fund’s management processes.	Detailed process evaluations of the Fund’s 6 signature investments.	Analysis of research quality of GCRF outputs.	Rubrics-based analysis of VfM, drawing on data collected through wider evaluation mechanisms.
Approach and method	Quantitative data science analysis of 1,050 UKRI awards. Management review focusing on 8 programmes as well as cross-fund processes.	Process evaluations of the Fund’s 6 signature investments: Interdisciplinary Hubs, GROW programme, UKSA’s IPP, FLAIR, Challenge Leaders Initiative, and GCRF QR funding delivered through the Funding Councils.	RQ++ dimensions assessed, aligned with data science analysis: research legitimacy, research importance, positioning for use, high-quality research, sustainable partnerships, and networks for use.	Assessment made for a sample in first 2 years of evaluation. Assessment case on the 4Es approach (Efficiency, Economy, Effectiveness and Equity).
Evidence base (awards, survey, etc.)	Awards, 8 programmes, and cross-fund management processes. Modules focusing on following foundations for research impact: relevance (sample of 26 awards); fairness (sample of 48 awards); gender equality, social inclusion and poverty (sample of 54 awards). Coverage of all POs.	6 signature investments; 69 awards. Fund-wide survey of award holders and partners (n = 3,456 responses, covering 2,336 awards).	Sample of 150 awards and comprehensive data science analysis. Coverage of all POs. Cross-fund analysis of whole of GCRF using data science techniques.	In 2021: sample of 45 Stage 1a awards. In 2022: at the programme level for 6 signature investments and for a sample of 32 awards within those investments.

2.1.3. Step 3. Development of hypotheses on GCRF’s contribution

Based on the areas of benefits and the claims in the ToC and the evaluation evidence available, we developed 6 hypotheses (see Table 3, section 3). For each of these hypotheses, a range of possible PT tests was developed (see Figure 3 and Annex A). Drawing on the evaluation expertise and knowledge of GCRF within our team, we further refined the hypotheses and tests to ensure they were robust and rigorous and to ensure that we could effectively test the hypotheses given the evidence available. We also consulted with officials in DSIT to identify the priorities and align the hypotheses. The 6 hypotheses were:

Hypothesis 1: UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of the pump priming funding provided by some partner organisations.
Hypothesis 2: The observed trend of greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a UK university level is because of GCRF structures, foundational principles and requirements.
Hypothesis 3: GCRF funding requirements have caused UK-based researchers to develop and internalise new practices around equitable partnerships because they received guidance and learning from fund managers, alongside practical learning from cohort members.
Hypothesis 4: UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty, and improve social inclusion/equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI). They have done this because receiving GCRF institutional funding in three-year blocks provided them with opportunities to learn-by-doing and improve practices over several years.
Hypothesis 5: The scope, scale and time frame of GCRF awards meant that awardees could gain contextual knowledge/experience about the LMIC, which led to boosted capacities at the systemic level of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem.^{[footnote 21]}
Hypothesis 6: The UK academic research community formed new partnerships at institutional and inter-institutional levels and/or with other stakeholders, such as NGOs,^{[footnote 22]} local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC, because of GCRF’s strategic requirement for grant awardees to plan for impact.

For further information on the hypotheses and how they map to the identified benefits and each corresponding hypothesis, see Table 3.

2.1.4. Step 4. Analysis of data through process tracing tests

Drawing on existing evidence collected, we tested each hypothesis using a PT approach to assess inferential weight of evidence with regard to those benefits to UK capacity within GCRF.

PT is a qualitative method for assessing causal inference using 4 tests (Figure 3) to determine the necessity and sufficiency of evidence to prove or disprove a hypothesis. It uses probability tests to assess the strength of evidence for specified causal relationships and offers the potential to evaluate impact by establishing confidence in how and why an effect occurred.^{[footnote 23]}

We can summarise the benefits of PT as follows:

PT can be used for a relatively small number of ‘known’ outcomes from which to trace back, whereas an alternative method (outcome harvesting) would require more time-consuming collection (or harvesting) of a wider range of outcomes (including unexpected and unknown outcomes).
PT provides clear direction on what evidence to look for and the criteria with which to judge the strength of that evidence.

Alongside these challenges, we need to be aware of some key challenges when doing PT:

PT does not allow us to find unintended outcomes, some of which may be negative.
PT cannot help in identifying how important a particular cause was to the achievement of the outcome relative to other causes.^{[footnote 24]}
As PT requires a focus on specific aspects of programme theory (given the more intensive and specific nature of the analysis), it is best applied where specific aspects or causal pathways are being analysed in detail, as in our case here.

We analysed some of the causal pathways as specified in the ToC for GCRF (see Annex A). Figure 3 outlines the PT tests in more detail. PT tests of these kinds are sufficiently robust and flexible to capture the wide range of impacts the Fund seeks to achieve across UK capacity for different actors and capability types.

Figure 3. Process tracing tests

Source: INTRAC (2017). Process Tracing

Note: in quadrant 4 above, there is a spelling mistake in the original source: ‘eliminates all other hypothesis’ should be ‘eliminates all other hypotheses’.

We followed the steps as outlined in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Steps involved in doing process tracing research

Source: Ricks, J.I. and Liu, A.H. (2018) ‘Process-Tracing Research Designs: A Practical Guide’. PS: Political Science & Politics 51(4):842–46. doi:10.1017/S1049096518000975

This was done through reviewing the existing evaluation data to see where tests could be conducted based on the information available. This analysis enabled the team to make clear statements regarding the impact of GCRF on UK capacity, as supported by the evidence. For each test, we reviewed the evidence collected and assessed whether that test could be passed or failed or whether the evidence was inconclusive. An ‘authoritative source’ was considered to be a piece of evidence which has already passed a thorough test under the responsibility of credible authorities (e.g. peer-reviewed papers) and is not disputed among differing authorities. Convergent triangulation sources are independent from one another and have different vested interests. For example, project participants and stakeholders supported claims that solutions developed through GCRF projects have improved the UK’s R&I capacity.

2.1.5. Step 5. Additional data collection

The team also conducted 4 key informant interviews (KIIs) with stakeholders to supplement the existing evidence. Two of the interviewed stakeholders work in UKRI, one in the UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR), and one in the Royal Society.^{[footnote 25]} Unfortunately, a potential fifth person whom we contacted was unable to speak with us, due to their limited capacity. We selected these stakeholders because of their experience in working on EDI as well as on international partnerships. Moreover, we believed that these stakeholders would be able to enlighten us on UKRI policy and ODA funding and on the role of GCRF in the wider UK development research landscape. UKRI is an important stakeholder in GCRF as more than half of GCRF awards were disbursed via this PO. The UKCDR has also done significant work recently on equitable partnerships and the wider UK development research landscape.

Question 9

2.2.  Strengths and limitations of the study

Accepted Answer

2.2.1. Strengths

A key strength of this study is that it gives a real assessment both of the benefits to UK capacity and of how confident we can be in the role of GCRF in those benefits. It also brings together existing evidence and data from the wider GCRF evaluation in a new way to offer additional insights.

Unlike other studies within the GCRF evaluation, no sampling was required for this analysis. Instead, the team reviewed evaluation evidence from the entire evaluation portfolio thus far (see Table 1). This includes all qualitative evidence (e.g. at the level of awards), quantitative evidence (e.g. the Fund-wide survey), and the comprehensive data science evidence at the portfolio level. It is worth noting, however, that the analysis is based on existing evaluation data. As such, it is subject to the caveats with regard to sampling in earlier stages of the evaluation – in each module, we have only analysed a sample of GCRF awards. At this stage in the evaluation, this covers a broad spread across the GCRF portfolio but of course we have not analysed every award in-depth and there will likely be examples of practice and capacity development we have not identified. With recent data collection including a comprehensive data science analysis at the portfolio level and a Fund-wide survey, we do not anticipate significant limitations to the analysis based on prior sampling approaches as we can complement our analysis with these broader data sets. Rather than sampling from within the portfolio, instead the key decision process that shaped the nature and content of the analysis was the selection of the hypotheses that we tested within the PT approach.

The benefits that we reviewed span not just the capacity of researchers and innovators themselves but also institutional capacity for HEIs, businesses and funding POs. Other benefits beyond capacity development, such as economic benefits, societal benefits and knowledge outputs, as well as capacity development outside of the UK, are out of scope because they have not been captured by the evaluation evidence from the whole GCRF evaluation portfolio to date.

2.2.2. Limitations

Methodological limitations

PT can be used to test the causality only for outcomes that are known to have occurred. As such, we could not apply the method to analyse outcomes that are still emerging or uncertain, which may be the case for some types of benefits, since the Fund is still active and the time lags to outcomes and impact for R&I funds are known to be long.

PT is resource-intensive, and the evidence required to assess one particular version of change is substantial and expands as additional alternative hypotheses need to be explored. Therefore, to ensure we can capture robust evidence on both the main and the alternative hypotheses we focused our analysis on a small number of well-defined outcomes that were feasible to test within the resource envelope.

In addition, there are risks associated with deriving outcomes to analyse from the Fund’s ToC. This is because it is easy to be too focused on the pathways specified there and not open to potential alternative routes through which outcomes can occur. This is mitigated by developing alternative hypotheses which are also investigated; however, inevitably the evidence for these alternative hypotheses is less complete as the focus of the evaluation is on GCRF. That means we have more existing evidence on causal pathways within the investment than those outside it.

Limitations of the evidence

One limitation was that we did not find conclusive evidence of GCRF’s role in contributing to benefits in some cases. Depending on the PT tests that we conducted and the results of those tests, we found GCRF’s contributions to some benefit types to be inconclusive. This is useful in itself: where there is a gap in evidence, we can consider what would have been necessary to address this, to inform data collection for future investments. We have documented these evidence gaps in Annex A of this report.

Finally, there are also risks of bias in asking people who were responsible for delivering a ToC how they think it went. We mitigated these risks by triangulating a range of evidence: prior evidence that has already been published in GCRF evaluation documents, multiple case studies, and KIIs.

Question 10

3.  Findings: benefits to the UK from GCRF

Accepted Answer

R&I plays an increasingly important role in addressing the needs of the world’s poorest countries and populations by contributing to economic growth, addressing health challenges, and helping countries find solutions to the UN’s SDGs.^{[footnote 26]} Donor countries also stand to benefit from participating in ODA R&I programmes and funds, including by strengthening their own R&I system capacity. By improving the UK’s capacity to do challenge-oriented, equitable partnered research, the UK could raise its profile internationally and become a ‘partner of choice’ for R&I amongst LMICs.

In this section, we discuss our findings on whether (and how) GCRF has contributed to increasing the UK’s capacities, looking at each hypothesis and the context and rationale behind each one and presenting the evidence against the different hypotheses.

Question 11

3.1.  Mapping the possible benefits to the UK from GCRF

Accepted Answer

The first step towards understanding whether GCRF has contributed to boosting UK capacities for R&I was to identify and map a set of possible benefits through a document review of GCRF-related reports and a wider literature review on comparator programmes. We found that some reports made no mention of benefits to the donor country (e.g. IDRC, Sida, the Wellcome Trust Annual Report), although no evidence does not necessarily mean that there has been no benefit – just that it was not a focus of these funders. Where benefits to the donor country were identified in the wider international literature, we found the main benefit to be ‘R&I systems capacity for development’. The literature we reviewed further categorised this benefit into 4 sub-categories:

(a) capacities for equitable international partnered research;
(b) new skill sets and methodologies;
(c) new contextual knowledge and experience; and
(d) new relationships/partners.

In addition, economic and commercial benefits (i.e. economic impacts on UK grant recipients, their supply chains and the wider UK economy) and science diplomacy (i.e. ensuring the UK is engaged in global initiatives and international networks) were also identified as secondary benefits that stem from R&I systems capacity for development, although we found insufficient evidence on these secondary benefits to assess whether they had been delivered and how, and so they were not taken forward for PT.

3.1.1. Research and innovation systems capacity for development

In this section, we briefly describe each benefit and the evidence available for it.

Table 2 shows the existing evidence on the benefits to the UK in R&I capacity for development for the UK from GCRF. We reviewed 16 GCRF evaluation reports that were produced between 2021 and 2023. presents our key findings informing the hypothesis development (see section 3.1.2).

Table 2. Summary assessing the strength of evidence based on findings for the benefits to the UK from GCRF related to R&I systems capacity

Benefit	Assessment	Evidence
Capacities for equitable international partnered research	Strong evidence for this benefit in GCRF	15 of the GCRF reports mention this benefit. Wider literature review found that this featured strongly for many comparator funds.
New skills and methodologies	Moderate evidence for this benefit in GCRF	6 of the GCRF reports mention this benefit. Wider literature review found that this was mentioned for some comparator funds.
New contextual knowledge and experience	Moderate evidence for this benefit in GCRF	4 of the GCRF reports mention this benefit. Wider literature review found that this was mentioned for some comparator funds.
New relationships/partners	Strong evidence for this benefit in GCRF	8 of the GCRF reports mention this benefit. Wider literature review found that this featured strongly for many comparator funds.

Capacities for equitable international partnered research

Capacities for equitable international partnered research are considered to be a benefit of ODA funding, as highlighted in the ToCs for GCRF and the Newton Fund. In the GCRF ToC, a key outcome of the Fund in the short term is that UK R&I organisations’ reputation as highly capable, equitable partners of choice for LMICs to deliver challenge-oriented work is enhanced. Similarly, the Newton Fund’s ToC sets out 3 expected outputs/outcomes, wherein the mid-term outcomes specifically use the phrase ‘partner of choice’.

In addition, reports for Norad and the Second European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership Programme (EDCTP2) also reference the role of equitable international partnered research in research for development. In its annual report for 2021–22, Norad defines capacity to do equitable, international research on development as the ‘ability and willingness to be a predictable, long-term partner in development’. It states that being able to take a long-term approach needs to be coupled with ‘credibility’ and competence and effective ‘use of knowledge’.^{[footnote 27]} The report mentions that Norway is seen as a reliable long-term partner in development aid because of its credibility in areas where it has had successes in the domestic arena, such as its attempts to achieve gender equality.^{[footnote 28]}

The second interim evaluation of the European-funded EDCTP2^{[footnote 29]} also refers to equitable partnerships and how the programme aims to achieve this. First, the EDCTP2 programme explicitly operates as a ‘partnership of equals’ between African and European partners. To this end, EDCTP2 dedicates extensive efforts to ensure that its work is closely aligned with African priorities, and it advocates strongly for African ownership of health research in the region. Second, the programme utilises a model of financial contributions that helps to ensure equity in the collaborations, whereby all partners contribute financially to EDCTP2 in a manner proportionate to a country’s income levels.

New skills and methodologies

Development of new skills and methods was also found to be a key component of systems capacity from ODA research, gained at both an institutional and individual level. An online survey from Newton Fund award holders found that 226 respondents – 15% of the sample – strongly agreed with the statement that the ‘partnership helped the team to develop new skills, including intercultural skills’ (the average of added values across the respondents for the statement was 8.2/10).^{[footnote 30]} In this context, ‘partnerships’ refers to the science and innovation partnerships between UK researchers and collaborating countries supported by the Fund.^{[footnote 31]} At an individual level, 83% of UK-based respondents noted positively that the Fund had resulted in personal benefits for themselves as researchers because they felt that the collaboration had improved their own skills, compared to 5% who disagreed.^{[footnote 32]} Similarly, participants from EDCTP2 allowed participating partners ‘to build their knowledge, skills, and capacities’ to implement a common European Union (EU)-wide strategy for clinical research to fight poverty-related infectious diseases (a global challenge) in sub-Saharan Africa.^{[footnote 33]}

New contextual knowledge and experience

This benefit has been defined at the overall UK research base, institutional (UK research institutions) and individual levels. It has been measured, for example by the Newton Fund, as ‘the benefits of the knowledge generated by Newton Fund activities as applied to the UK’. Stakeholders were positive about the benefits of the Newton Fund for the UK in terms of knowledge generation; they emphasised that the wider learning from partner country expertise as a result of academic exchange should not be underestimated. The Fund was also found to strengthen the UK research base in new fields and enable the development of strong academic links, which are expected to lead to additional collaborations and wider institutional partnerships.^{[footnote 34]} ‘More widely, ‘Newton Fund collaborations were seen to be showcasing to UK researchers what expertise is available in partner countries and developing UK researchers’ awareness and capacity to engage in collaborations with researchers in the LMIC’. This could lead to increased confidence and capacity for UK researchers to undertake similar collaborations in the future beyond the Fund.

New relationships/partners

New relationships/partners are a key component of a donor country’s R&I systems capacity to help development progress. They comprise global influence and connections for the UK’s R&I community, building research networks via international collaboration, reputation, international credibility and soft power (‘soft power defined as supporting access and influence over development outcomes for the UK.’)^{[footnote 35]}

This benefit is described in the CERN evaluation,^{[footnote 36]} the Fund for International Collaboration,^{[footnote 37]} the Newton Fund,^{[footnote 38]} the Prosperity Fund,^{[footnote 39]} Norad^{[footnote 40]} and EDCTP2. This benefit has been measured as the number of collaborations^{[footnote 41]},^{[footnote 42]} and the strength of these networks and collaborations.^{[footnote 43]},^{[footnote 44]} This benefit has also been defined as those ‘accruing to the UK as a result of positive change to the UK’s reputation, diplomatic and research networks and “soft power”.^{[footnote 45]} This definition views ODA funding more as ‘a useful tool for economic diplomacy and engagement with government partners in the countries in which it operates’.

Economic and commercial benefits

Economic benefits, although mentioned in many studies, are not systematically measured or captured. Economic benefits were described in the IPP evaluation ^{[footnote 46]} as part of the GCRF, Newton Fund,^{[footnote 47]} Prosperity Fund ^{[footnote 48]} and CERN evaluations.^{[footnote 49]}

The Prosperity Fund was the first UK aid instrument to be explicit about the pursuit of secondary economic benefits at the same time as delivering on the Fund’s primary purpose (poverty reduction in partner countries, as the Fund spends International Development Association (IDA)/ODA money). The economic benefits can be defined as the impacts on UK grant recipients, their supply chains and the wider UK economy.^{[footnote 50]} This encompasses multiple dimensions and requires quantification of the socioeconomic value generated by projects within and beyond developing countries, part of which will be realised in the longer term as technologies become commercialised^{[footnote 51]} and research findings are implemented.

Another aspect of economic benefit is mutual prosperity, a contentious term in the debate about development aid. In broad terms, mutual prosperity consists of using UK aid to support global economic development, which ultimately benefits both the partner country and the UK through the expansion of global trade. The Prosperity Fund was also the first Fund to include mutual prosperity in the list of criteria for programme selection and to make it be explicitly stated and quantified in programme designs. The Prosperity Fund defined mutual prosperity as the ‘secondary benefits to the UK – defined as new economic opportunities for international, including UK, business and mutually beneficial economic relationships’. An evaluation of the Prosperity Fund portfolio in 2020/21 found that the Fund had contributed £1.62 billion of exports and investment, illustrating that the Fund has generated benefits for international business, including UK firms, as well as working towards its primary purpose of promoting inclusive economic growth and alleviating poverty.^{[footnote 52]}

Science diplomacy

The benefit of diplomacy through science is an impact of the benefit of UK R&I capacity to do development-oriented work. This benefit was only found in the CERN evaluation,^{[footnote 53]} where it was found that CERN has been instrumental in science diplomacy, with a constitutionally defined policy of openness and a commitment to provide a neutral space for global collaboration, the importance of which was recognised when CERN was granted observer status at the UN General Assembly. CERN also actively seeks to establish links with and promote research by countries across the globe, facilitating cooperation among the scientists and policymakers of many countries that are experiencing strained relations at the political level.

3.1.2. Hypothesis development

After identifying and mapping the evidence available for the different benefits from prior stages of the GCRF evaluation, we developed a set of 6 hypotheses (Table 3). These hypotheses set out the mechanisms through which GCRF leads to increased R&I systems capacity for development. For each hypothesis, we formulated a corresponding alternative hypothesis stating another possible way in which that outcome could have been realised.

Table 3. Our 6 working hypotheses and alternative hypotheses and the UK benefit they seek to explore

Hypothesis number	Hypothesis	UK benefit
1	UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of the pump priming funding provided by some partner organisations.	Capacities for equitable international partnered research Alternative: UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of pre-application funding for networking from other funding bodies beyond GCRF.
2	The observed trend of greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a UK university level is because of GCRF structures, foundational principles and requirements.	Capacities for equitable international partnered research Alternative: The observed trend of greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a university level has been caused by non-GCRF factors, such as a change in UK funding bodies’ policies or procedures.
3	GCRF funding requirements have caused UK-based researchers to develop and internalise new practices around equitable partnerships because they received guidance and learning from fund managers, alongside practical learning from cohort members.	Capacities for equitable international partnered research Alternative: UK-based researchers have developed and internalised new practices around equitable partnerships because of a change in emphasis on equity in UK research funding bodies’ policies or procedures, not because of GCRF.
4	UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty, and improve social inclusion/equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI). They have done this because receiving GCRF institutional funding in three-year blocks provided them with opportunities to learn-by-doing and improve practices over several years.	New skills and methodologies Alternative: UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty, and improve social inclusion/equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI) because of UK-wide standards beyond GCRF.
5	The scope, scale and time frame of GCRF awards meant that awardees could gain contextual knowledge/experience about the LMIC, which led to boosted capacities at the systemic level of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem.	New contextual knowledge and experience Alternative: Capacities at the systemic level of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem (of which partner organisations are a part) have been boosted in terms of levels of LMIC knowledge and experience because of changes in the scope, scale or time frame of other UK research funders’ awards.
6	The UK academic research community formed new partnerships at institutional and inter-institutional levels and/or with other stakeholders, such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC, because of GCRF’s strategic requirement for grant awardees to plan for impact.	New relationships/partners Alternative: The UK academic research community (at institutional and inter-institutional levels) and other stakeholders, such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC, formed new relationships/partnerships because of a change in UK research funders’ policies or procedures.

In a complicated and large-scale fund such as GCRF, numerous factors combine to promote the outcomes of interest, and they reinforce each other. Figure 5 maps out the hypotheses being tested and the proposed causal pathways from interventions to key outcomes.

Figure 5. Proposed causal pathways for UK capacity benefits from GCRF: from interventions to outcomes

Note: Each coloured arrow represents the pathway for a different hypothesis (H): blue: H1; green: H2; orange: H3; red: H4; grey: H5; purple: H6. Yellow boxes refer to elements of GCRF design; grey boxes are elements of the external environment; white boxes are the factors within the elements that contribute to the outcomes (in green boxes).

Each hypothesis was then tested using a PT approach (described in section 2.1.4) to evaluate the extent to which GCRF played a role in achieving those outcomes. It is important to acknowledge that the hypotheses are also related and that evidence presented for each is not mutually exclusive. The evidence is presented under the most relevant hypothesis, but it may also support other hypotheses.

Question 12

3.2.  Capacities for equitable international partnered research

Accepted Answer

3.2.1. Purpose for selecting the benefit for analysis

The capacity of science and innovation to address global challenges is a key dimension of research making an impact, and so we include this in the present study. In the ToC of GCRF, a key short-term outcome of the Fund is to ‘enhance UK R&I organisations’ reputation as highly capable, equitable partners of choice for LMICs to deliver challenge-oriented work’.

The importance of looking at capacity for equitable partnered research is further reinforced by the fact that this is a common area of focus in comparator programmes, including Norad, the Newton Fund and EDCTP.

3.2.2. Evidence for the benefit

Overall, there is strong evidence of an increase in UK capacity for partnered research, based on the evidence from prior stages of the evaluation of GCRF. For example, there was evidence from the signature investments of global R&I partnerships emerging, with 4 of the investments – GROW, Hubs, Challenge Leaders and Four Nations – highlighting examples of better, more equitable connections than in researchers’ previous experiences of collaboration.^{[footnote 54]} This is reinforced by evidence from the Fund-wide survey, which reported positive impacts on R&I partnerships across geographies and disciplines, with 84% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that GCRF signature investments contributed to sustainable R&I partnerships across geographies and disciplines/sectors, and 88% agreeing or strongly agreeing that other GCRF investments contributed to this.^{[footnote 55]} In addition, equitable partnerships feature in 15 of the prior GCRF evaluation reports.

3.2.3. Evidence for GCRF’s pathways to the benefit

To test the pathways for this increase in capacities for partnered research – and to identify the extent to which this can be attributed to GCRF – we developed 3 hypotheses (with corresponding alternative hypotheses) looking specifically at the role of GCRF pump priming funding^{[footnote 56]} in supporting equitable partnership development (hypothesis 1), the role of GCRF in promoting interdisciplinarity and bringing new disciplines into the research for development sphere (hypothesis 2), and exploring the development of practices to support equitable partnerships through and outside GCRF (hypothesis 3). These are set out in Table 3 (hypotheses 1–3), and detailed findings are then discussed.

3.2.4. The role of GCRF pump priming funding in supporting equitable partnership development

Table 4. Overview of findings on the role of pump priming funding

	Findings on the role of pump priming funding
Hypotheses	Hypothesis 1: UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of the pump priming funding provided by some partner organisations through GCRF funds. Alternative hypothesis 1: UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of pre-application funding for networking from other funding bodies beyond GCRF.
Strength of evidence to support the hypotheses	Moderate evidence to support the working hypothesis. Inconclusive evidence for alternative hypothesis.
Summary of findings	Institutional-level resources and support enabled by QR allocations delivered by the Funding Councils provided opportunities for early career researchers (ECRs) to gain experience and build capacity in equitable partnered research. Although wider GCRF investments helped researchers with little or no development experience to set up equitable partnerships, it is less clear whether pump priming played a key role.
Lessons for future investment	Pump priming funding to establish relationships and learn about research for development can be a useful way to develop capacity – particularly among those who are new to the area, including ECRs. QR funding is the main way through which this has been delivered effectively in GCRF. Future investments should consider offering flexible institutional funding to support capacity development.

Pump priming funding was part of GCRF QR funding, which enabled the establishment of equitable partnerships.

‘Pump priming’ refers to activities that can be used to underpin GCRF and Newton Fund bids to other funders, including relationship building.^{[footnote 57]} In the context of GCRF, pump priming funding was provided primarily through the HE Funding Council (QR) GCRF allocations, although other funding bodies (such as the AMS, UKRI, UKSA, and the Royal Society) also offered such funding through their GCRF grant programmes and calls – often called networking grants (or ‘pre-calls’).^{[footnote 58]}

Turning to the pump priming funding that was part of GCRF QR funding, the Four Nations evaluation report highlighted: ‘funding through GCRF QR/block grants has led to the development of relationships between UK-based HEIs and those in LMICs, as well as co-teaching and collaborative research activities.’^{[footnote 59]} The uniqueness of this funding source to support pump priming in the research for development context is also highlighted, and is seen as ‘a distinct feature of GCRF QR/block grants’, with informants noting that it is not easy to get funding for such activities through other routes. It is also noted that there is ‘strong evidence suggesting that projects would not have taken place had it not been for the small allocations to build relationships or pilot data collection’^{[footnote 60]} and that the flexible funding supports the deepening of existing partnerships by ‘enabling researchers to pivot in response to partner needs’.^{[footnote 61]} Another respondent interviewed as part of the Four Nations evaluation report also highlighted the benefits of pump priming: ‘pump priming allowed them to set up bigger projects more effectively, and easily – it facilitated project development’.^{[footnote 62]}

As well as clear evidence that pump priming supported partnership development, there is also strong evidence to suggest that the QR funding allocations, via pump priming activities, supported capacity development. These pump priming activities, including the opportunities for travel that were sometimes involved, were considered ‘key to supporting researchers gain an understanding of contextual complexities and establishing levels of trust among partners’.^{[footnote 63]} The main beneficiaries of this capacity development were ECRs in the UK, who were able to access wider networks and gain hands-on experience through their involvement in pump priming projects. This was felt to be particularly valuable in enabling them to position themselves for future funding. HEIs considered this capacity development as a pathway not just to build the skill sets of those ECRs but also to ‘grow a critical mass of researchers who could effectively navigate and lead with expertise within their individual institutions’.^{[footnote 64]} These pump priming investments were supplemented with specific support structures reflecting the need for learning and support. This could include – where HEIs had larger allocations – GCRF offices or hubs with specific staff dedicated to supporting the delivery of GCRF projects and capacity development through targeted workshops and events.^{[footnote 65]} Overall, there is strong evidence that the QR/block grants have contributed to enhanced capabilities for HEI stakeholders in the UK. This often served to complement or strengthen the capacity gaps required to deliver GCRF project-based funding (see more in EQ2). A key success of this funding stream is its ability to broaden the participation of new actors, particularly those who have not worked within ODA or who did not see their work as relevant to a development issue (a key GCRF objective).^{[footnote 66]}

Although wider GCRF investments helped researchers with little or no development experience to set up equitable partnerships, it is less clear whether pump priming played a key role.

Evidence from the evaluation of the signature investments shows that the scale and diversity of GCRF was important in enabling UK institutions and POs to focus on challenge-oriented research and broaden participation in development research beyond those with prior experience.^{[footnote 67]} In particular, it is highlighted that many participants had little or no prior experience of research for development, and this is also true for some POs (e.g. UKSA). This is reinforced by a Universities UK (UUK) survey which found that ODA funding (i.e. GCRF and the Newton Fund) has driven changes at the UK HE sector level in terms of institutional practices and the positioning of development and global challenges. For example, all survey respondents agreed that ‘ODA funds have led to changes in institutional global/international strategies and/or institutional approaches’, with key changes highlighted including ‘more holistic approaches to challenge-led themes and priorities’ and ‘the establishment of cross-disciplinary research institutes and centres aligning with key institutional strengths and themes designed to address pressing global challenges’.^{[footnote 68]} However, the role of pump priming is less clear.

In terms of the grant funding streams provided through other GCRF POs beyond the Funding Councils, we see examples of early-stage investment (or pump priming) to support the setting up of equitable partnerships in some of the larger investments, notably the Hubs. As set out in the RQ++ synthesis report, the Hubs ‘devoted time and resources to developing strong team relationships and to establishing processes to support equitable partnerships’, with an example given of one hub which developed 34 new funded partnerships.^{[footnote 69]} The importance of this ‘inception phase’ (or pump priming) was also noted in the case of IPP, where changes were made for the third round of the programme to include a discovery phase, which allowed time for partnership development and ideation based on learning from earlier rounds of the programme. This was considered to be critical to the success of projects and their sustainability post-award. The evidence here is less clear with regard to the extent to which pump priming funding is key in capacity development for those new to internationally partnered research. For IPP, the importance of gaining contextual knowledge is highlighted as being particularly significant because UKSA (and, correspondingly, most of the researchers in the UK they support) had not conducted research for development previously. For the Hubs, capacity development for researchers in the UK is highlighted – particularly for ECRs – but no direct link is made to pump priming funding as playing a key role in this process. Overall, the evidence for pump priming funding as a route to developing capacity for equitable international partnered research among new entrants is less clear beyond the QR component.

We also note that although we find some good examples of investment in the programme design and inception phase (as set out above), this is not seen across the whole of GCRF’s portfolio. At the start of GCRF, where money had to be disbursed very quickly, there was very limited time for partnership development, understanding the context, or the other aspects of equitable partnership development that such resources can enable. This has been highlighted as a challenge and a barrier to partnership development in GCRF, and the consequence was that ‘programmes and institutions were more likely to return to established partners or to those with more resources and experience’.^{[footnote 70]}

Overall, this provides moderate evidence to support the hypothesis that GCRF – particularly the QR allocations delivered by the Funding Councils (see the beginning of section 3.2.1) – provided pump priming funding, which proved to be a useful and relatively unique opportunity within the UK funding landscape to develop equitable international partnerships, and which contributed to capacity development for those who were new to research for development. However, this was not evenly distributed across the Fund. We were unable to find relevant evidence to support or disprove our alternative hypothesis 1 – that pre-application funding for networking from other funding bodies beyond GCRF enabled UK-based researchers with little or no development experience to set up equitable international partnerships.

Lesson for future investments: Pump priming funding to establish relationships and learn about research for development can be a useful way to develop capacity – particularly among those who are new to the area, including ECRs. QR funding is the main way through which this has been delivered effectively in GCRF. Future investments should consider offering flexible institutional funding to support capacity development, because it seems this is delivered less effectively through project-specific awards.

3.2.5. The role of GCRF in promoting interdisciplinarity and bringing new disciplines into the research for development sphere

Table 5. Overview of findings on interdisciplinarity and new disciplines

	Findings on interdisciplinarity and new disciplines
Hypotheses	Hypothesis 2: The observed trend of greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a UK university level is because of GCRF structures, foundational principles and requirements (specifically the funding requirement for interdisciplinarity to be an integral part of the research design in the proposals, and the scope and scale of GCRF). Alternative hypothesis 2: The observed trend of greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a university level has been caused by non-GCRF factors, such as a change in UK funding bodies’ policies or procedures.
Strength of evidence to support the hypotheses	Moderate to strong evidence for the working hypothesis. Inconclusive evidence for the alternative hypothesis.
Summary of findings	GCRF has a higher level of interdisciplinarity relative to the UKRI portfolio, with evidence suggesting this was enabled by the scale and diversity of the Fund. The scale and scope of GCRF, as well as QR funding, enabled interdisciplinary research, bringing new disciplines into research for development by providing funding for research they would not otherwise be able to do.
Lessons for future investment	It is possible, with large investments, to make system-level changes in the focus on global challenges, and to increase participation from a diverse range of disciplines. The large scale of an investment fund such as GCRF and the scope (including many diverse POs and a focus on interdisciplinarity), as well as its efforts to mobilise local communities, are important for future funds to consider.

GCRF has a higher level of interdisciplinarity relative to the UKRI portfolio, with evidence suggesting this was enabled by the scale and diversity of the Fund.

Data science analysis conducted in Stage 1a of the evaluation showed that GCRF has a higher level of interdisciplinarity relative to the UKRI portfolio.^{[footnote 71]} GCRF awards had a comparatively higher level of involvement of researchers from the biomedical and health sciences in awards classified as from other disciplines, primarily the physical or social sciences. There was also a significantly higher level of interdisciplinarity in awards located primarily in the arts and humanities, with researchers from several fields contributing.

There is also strong evidence of interdisciplinarity highlighted in the evaluation of the signature investments, with clear evidence across most that the scale and diversity of GCRF was important in enabling UK institutions and POs to focus on challenge-oriented research and broaden participation in development research beyond those with prior experience.^{[footnote 72]} This is further supported by the RQ++ analysis. Across the 85 awards analysed qualitatively, interdisciplinarity was a core feature for most. As many as 15 disciplines were reported in one project, but the most common was 3 (30 awards), followed by 4 (reported in 26 awards) and 5 (17 awards).^{[footnote 73]} This is reinforced by a UUK survey of 22 HEIs which found that ODA funding (i.e. GCRF and the Newton Fund) has driven changes at the UK HE sector level in terms of institutional practices and the positioning of development and global challenges, leading to ‘the establishment of cross-disciplinary research institutes and centres aligning with key institutional strengths and themes designed to address pressing global challenges’.^{[footnote 74]}

GCRF provided a scale of funding that is not usually seen for the collective disciplines of Social Sciences, Humanities and the Arts for People and the Economy (SHAPE). As highlighted in the RQ++ synthesis report (part of Stage 1b of the evaluation of GCRF), these disciplines benefited from GCRF funding as it enabled multidisciplinary teams to work together in ways they had not previously done. Box 1 provides an example of interdisciplinarity in GCRF awards.^{[footnote 75]}

Box 1. Example of interdisciplinary research in GCRF from RQ++ synthesis report

Spotlight on interdisciplinarity: Indigenous wells and biocultural heritage in Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia

This collaborative research project between archaeologists and pastoralist community organisations investigates the long-term history of Indigenous water management and well digging in northern Kenya and southern Ethiopia. The project aims to provide comparative archaeological evidence on the cultural histories of wells and water management, train researchers from pastoralist communities in community archaeology and cultural heritage management, build a network of community researchers and academics, and ensure cultural heritage registration and safeguarding policy compliance.

The research team combined archaeology, social sciences, geoarchaeological science and community-based approaches to align with GCRF priorities. The multidisciplinary team of archaeologists, geographic information systems specialists, historians, museum specialists, community members, anthropologists and artists worked together using a co-creation approach. This enabled Africa-based scholars to take a critical leadership role in the project, co-designing and executing it with community-determined values, procedures and priorities.

The project trained community members in the principles and practices of community archaeology and helped communities understand their cultural heritage, enabling them to negotiate the changing environment and development projects in the region. The project has awakened communities’ sense of rights to resources in communal lands and has enhanced engagement with county and national governments in development projects and policy formulation processes.

The project’s findings were shared widely through conferences, publications, exhibitions, and data repositories accessible to researchers worldwide. The research has collected both archaeological and ethnographic data, enhancing the National Museums of Kenya’s capacity in terms of records and site identification. The project has had a visible impact on the communities of northern Kenya, who are now more aware of the government development agendas and their rights to resources in communal lands.

The transformative value of interdisciplinary research was seen by several award holders in its potential to catalyse a change in the culture of UK academia and promote challenge-led research, moving the starting point to complex issues that straddle multiple disciplines. For example, the majority of GROW projects succeeded in having an interdisciplinary focus, although the projects vary greatly in terms of the way in which interdisciplinary collaborations were fostered. Box 2 and Box 3 provide examples of interdisciplinarity in the signature GROW programme.

Box 2. Example from GROW of interdisciplinarity in GCRF: plant biology and archaeology collaborate to address the challenge of water scarcity in India

Using the past to inform policy: collaboration between plant scientists and archaeologists in TIGR2ESSS

The GROW award ‘Transforming India’s Green Revolution by Research and Empowerment for Sustainable Food Supplies’ (TIGR2ESS), led by the University of Cambridge in collaboration with several institutions in India, offers a good example of interdisciplinary collaboration by bringing together plant scientists and archaeologists to devise solutions to water scarcity in the Northern India state of Punjab.

With groundwater levels fast declining, improving the efficiency of water use in Punjab is a fundamental issue. TIGR2ESS includes a flagship project, led by archaeologists in collaboration with plant scientists, investigating changes in crops and water use in the region covering modern-day Punjab over the last 4000 years. These conclusions fed into the project’s policy recommendations on how to increase crop diversification and alleviate stress on groundwater in Punjab.

In 2021 the project received the prestigious Cambridge University Vice Chancellor’s Collaboration Award. Of the project, the judges said: ‘The impact of this project is truly epic in scale and importance. The project has had a huge influence on people and communities in the developing world. This was demonstrated through the exemplary and very large scale of engagement that has been undertaken, working in close collaboration with partners.’

‘I am a plant scientist and had never in my life met an archaeologist. When the project launched, I knew we had many disciplines, but all parts seemed difficult to wrap my head around, so I thought I would just focus on my bit. This completely changed as we often met and closely interacted with sociologists, economists and geographers! TIGR2ESS brought home the true meaning of interdisciplinarity and social context to me. Next time I put together a grant application, I know that it will be more than just plant science’. (Dr Gitanjali Yadav, Co-Investigator, TIGR2ESS)

Award reference: BB/P027970/1

Box 3. Example from GROW of interdisciplinarity in GCRF: bringing engineering and social science together in novel ways

Interdisciplinarity and community engagement in the SUNRISE award

The GROW award ‘Strategic University Network to Revolutionise International Solar Energy’ (SUNRISE), led by Swansea University, was initially designed as a primarily engineering-led project, but later expanded in 2 related directions: a greater role for social science research and a greater focus on the engagement of local communities in India. The Tata Institute of Social Sciences played a leading role on both counts. SUNRISE’s strategy of public involvement and engagement centres around the use of participatory arts-based approaches.

SUNRISE was selected as a case study for a study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report Addressing Societal Challenges Using Transdisciplinary Research. In the report, SUNRISE was highlighted for involving a broad range of academic and non-academic groups, including physicists and chemists as well as social scientists and user communities. The OECD report notes that ‘Whilst the programme is Engineering-led, the core team involved experts from Social Sciences with knowledge and experience of working with Indian communities and subsequently expanded to include Humanities specialists exploring the relationship between energy systems and gendered household practices’.

Award reference: EP/P032591/1

However, we found little evidence to test the alternative hypothesis that wider factors and policies may have been drivers for interdisciplinarity. What we can note is that the timing of GCRF coincides with the formation of UKRI, which aims, as part of its mandate, to increase collaboration and interdisciplinarity in the UK R&I system generally, although without any specific focus on research for development. In addition, interdisciplinary research is on the rise globally, with the potential to outperform researchers with less of an interdisciplinary focus in the long term.^{[footnote 76]}

The evidence presented above, that many GCRF participants were new entrants into the research for development landscape and came from a broader span of disciplines, also implies that wider changes were not driving this increasing interdisciplinarity beyond the scope of GCRF, and this is reinforced by bibliometric data.

Overall, this provides strong evidence of high levels of interdisciplinarity in GCRF, with moderate to strong evidence that the Fund’s characteristics (scale, scope and focus) were driving factors in increasing interdisciplinarity in research for development more broadly.

Lesson for future investments: It is possible, with large investments, to make system-level changes in the focus on global challenges and to increase participation from a diverse range of disciplines. The large scale of an investment fund such as GCRF, its scope (including many diverse DPs and a focus on interdisciplinarity) and its efforts to mobilise local communities are important for future funds to consider.

3.2.6. Development of practices to support equitable partnerships through and outside GCRF

This hypothesis looks at the embedding of practices to support equitable partnerships across the UK research system. There are links to hypothesis 1, but whereas hypothesis 1 focuses specifically on the role of pump priming funding in upskilling new entrants to research for development in capacities for equitable partnership, hypothesis 3 focuses on the development and mainstreaming of practices to support equitable partnerships across the landscape as a whole and through a different mechanism – peer learning and support from fund managers.

Table 6. Overview of findings on practices to support equitable partnerships

	Findings on practices to support equitable partnerships
Hypotheses	Hypothesis 3: GCRF funding requirements have caused UK-based researchers to develop and internalise new practices around equitable partnerships because they received guidance and learning from fund managers, alongside practical learning from cohort members. Alternative hypothesis 3: UK-based researchers have developed and internalised new practices around equitable partnerships because of a change in emphasis on equity in UK research funding bodies’ policies or procedures, not because of GCRF.
Strength of evidence to support the hypotheses	Strong evidence that GCRF played an important role in increasing knowledge and emphasis on equitable partnerships in the UK R&I system. Weak evidence to support the alternative hypothesis.
Summary of findings	Institutions receiving GCRF support drew on support across peer networks to develop practices around equitable partnerships, particularly in terms of the Funding Council investments. While there were policies and guidance in place for UK funding agencies that may have influenced practices regarding equitable partnerships, the development of these was influenced by GCRF.
Lessons for future investment	Top-level structures and prioritisation of equitable partnerships and peer learning are needed to develop and internalise new practices to support practical implementation and good practice in equitable partnerships. It is important that future funds build in both guidance and policies, as well as practices that enable peer support and learning networks to support best practice development and implementation and learning sharing across award holders and POs.

Although there were policies and guidance in place for UK funding agencies that may have influenced practices regarding equitable partnerships, the development of these was influenced by GCRF.

Most UK funding agencies have varied guidance on equitable partnerships, presenting a ‘menu’ of guidance from a variety of sources. Most commonly, the UKCDR Equitable Partnerships Resource Hub is linked.^{[footnote 77]} This Hub was formed after GCRF began, and appears to be motivated by the primacy of equitable partnerships in GCRF and other similar UK funds (e.g. the Newton Fund).^{[footnote 78]} Other resources commonly linked include a combination of sources that pre-date GCRF (notably from the global health and development spaces) and sources that emerged post-GCRF and appear (like the UKCDR Hub) to be influenced by GCRF. Some guidance was developed in collaboration with GCRF awardees (e.g. UKCDR Guidance for Safeguarding in International Development Research).^{[footnote 79]} Notably, UKRI also links to several international resources on equitable partnerships (e.g. the TRUST code,^{[footnote 80]} developed by a consortium using EU Horizon 2020 funding).

Some funders have additional guidance on equitable partnerships (e.g. the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)^{[footnote 81]} and the AMS), and some recent funding opportunities from these institutions (some from Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF) funding) show considerable emphasis on equitable partnerships (e.g. from the Royal Academy of Engineering,^{[footnote 82]} the Royal Society and the British Academy).

Some of this guidance might have arisen in the absence of GCRF. However, based on the available evidence, it seems likely that GCRF at least accelerated – and, in many cases, was a driving force in – the development and adoption of these policies and guidance, particularly for several POs, notably UKRI. An informant from UKRI reinforced the role of GCRF in the development of guidance on equitable partnerships, noting that their policy change on disbursement to researchers in the LMIC was ‘because of GCRF’ and that GCRF played a key role as a driver in the development of guidance related to equitable partnerships at the UKRI level.^{[footnote 83]}

Prioritisation of equitable partnerships was set by the Fund and POs but it was support from peer networks that was the decisive factor in establishing good practices around equitable partnerships.

As set out in the Four Nations report, GCRF institutional officers (IOs) and PIs ‘utilised existing support networks to coordinate with colleagues in other institutions’. It is also noted that institutions provided targeted support in particular to ensure that potential GCRF applicants understood key aspects of GCRF requirements such as ‘the principles of equitable partnerships (i.e. ODA excellence or effective spending on development aid or official development assistance) and ODA compliance’. One example of targeted support highlighted^{[footnote 84]} is the Ethical Research with Low/Middle-Income Countries Toolkit ^{[footnote 85]}developed by the University of Edinburgh, designed to help researchers think about ethical issues that can exist throughout the life cycle of a global project. This was shared with wider institutions through peer networks. This institutional-level sharing of learning was reinforced by an interviewee who stated that ‘leading institutions, meaning those who developed the infrastructure – structures – to manage the GCRF awards first … often shared what they had learnt with other HEIs in the UK’.^{[footnote 86]}

Peer networks were facilitated through targeted investments. The Scottish Funding Council invested in creating cohorts and convening meetings between Scottish HEIs to encourage sharing of intelligence and to inform planning (e.g. with a view to avoiding research being overly concentrated and/or placing undue burden on particular LMICs), indicating progress towards ODA excellence. QR funding was also used to reinvigorate networks (e.g. cohorts) in the north-east of England. The formation of the north-east cross-university hub for global challenges research was not solely due to the block grants, but this funding stream complemented project-based funding and thus contributed to building this community:

‘It’s a really exciting result of QR – we were already a small group doing well, doing good research. QR enabled us to build on that – and massively expanded [the] staffing base in that area.’ (GCRF PI).^{[footnote 87]}

We also see evidence of peer learning within the signature investments, with strong evidence of learning-by-doing across all 6 of these programmes.^{[footnote 88]} For example, in GROW, teams designed their own bespoke award governance and management approaches to ensure equitable partnerships, and programme-wide networking and knowledge sharing were initiated by award teams. Broadly, POs were seen as flexible and responsive to such changes, accommodating new approaches suggested by award holders and incorporating these into their practice to enable improvements. However, there is no evidence of this learning being shared further between different POs; such sharing could have been used to update policies and guidance further.^{[footnote 89]}

Overall, we can conclude that there is strong evidence that GCRF – via incentivising peer learning and influence on documentation and guidance – played an important role in increasing knowledge and emphasis on equitable partnerships in the UK R&I system. GCRF showed that it was insufficient just to have the Fund-level strategic priority on partnerships: the top-level structures created the emphasis and momentum and the award holders put them into practice. We found, however, that the extent of peer learning among award holders varies and is absent at the level of POs.

Lesson for future investments: Top-level structures and prioritisation of equitable partnerships and peer learning are needed to develop and internalise new practices to support practical implementation and good practice in equitable partnerships. It is important that future funds build in both guidance and policies, as well as practices that enable peer support and learning networks to support best practice development and implementation and learning sharing across award holders and POs.

Question 13

3.3.  New skills and methodologies

Accepted Answer

3.3.1. Purpose for selecting the benefit for analysis

In the context of the evaluation of GCRF, we define ‘new skills and methodologies’ as new skills and knowledge acquired by research institutions and/or individual researchers to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty and improve SI/EDI.^{[footnote 90]} These new skills and methods are important because the more HEIs implement processes and procedures to tackle these systemic issues, the more impact they will have through their research and the greater will be their capacity to undertake equitable partnered research with stakeholders in other countries, particularly in LMICs. Moreover, at an aggregate level of all HEIs across the UK, if HEIs improve their skills and knowledge on gender equality, global poverty and SI/EDI, then the UK’s R&I capacity to develop equitable partnerships could be boosted. Finally, if UK-based researchers and HEIs are more knowledgeable about gender equality, global poverty and SI/EDI, insights from decades of development research suggest that they will be better able to engage sensitively and in an informed way with LMIC communities and contexts. Unfortunately, we found insufficient evidence to be able to test the other elements of the hypothesis beyond gender equality, namely those relating to global poverty and social inclusion/equality, diversity and inclusion.

3.3.2. Evidence for the benefit

Overall, there is moderate evidence of an increase in UK capacity related to new skills and methodologies with regard to EDI, based on the evidence from prior stages of the evaluation of GCRF. For example, there is some (limited) evidence of increased capacity at programme level in terms of knowledge and skills on gender equality from the gender equality, social inclusion and poverty (GESIP) assessment in Stage 1a of the GCRF evaluation, mainly related to mechanisms being put in place at both programme and award levels.^{[footnote 91]} Although 6 reports from the GCRF evaluation discuss new skills and methodologies to increase UK capacity – including the Hubs process evaluation, which showed that 90% of survey respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that their project had contributed to new or significantly improved practices, methods and tools^{[footnote 92]} – only one referred specifically to EDI.

3.3.3. Evidence for GCRF pathways to the benefit

To test the pathways for the acquisition of new skills and methodologies from participation in GCRF, we developed one hypothesis (with a corresponding alternative hypothesis) looking at the role of GCRF institutional funding in enabling UK HEIs to implement structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty and improve SI/EDI.

Table 7. Overview of findings on new skills and methodologies

	Findings on new skills and methodologies
Hypotheses	Hypothesis 4: UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty and improve social inclusion/equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI). They have done this because receiving GCRF institutional funding in three-year blocks provided them with opportunities to learn-by-doing and improve practices over several years. Alternative hypothesis 4: UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty and improve social inclusion/equality, diversity, and inclusion (SI/EDI) because of UK-wide standards beyond GCRF.
Strength of evidence to support the hypotheses	Moderate evidence to support the gender equality element of the hypothesis. Insufficient evidence available to be able to test the other elements of the hypothesis, namely on global poverty and improving social inclusion/equality, diversity and inclusion. Strong evidence to support the alternative hypothesis.
Summary of findings	GCRF played an important role in helping UK HEIs implement structures and systems to improve gender equality, although more should be done on other aspects of EDI. GCRF’s institutional funding in three-year cycles has helped HEIs to learn about and introduce new practices and methodologies to advance gender equality and, to a lesser extent, EDI. Changes in UK-wide standards also contributed to these policy changes.
Lessons for future investment	Large investments which have clear priorities can drive a change in documented policies and practices, by setting out top-level structures that support the development and introduction of new practices and methodologies.

GCRF played an important role in helping UK HEIs to implement structures and systems to improve gender equality, although more should be done on other aspects of EDI.

Evidence in the Four Nations report within the GCRF evaluation stated that GCRF priorities, including EDI, have been incorporated into HEI strategies and governance systems for assessing applications and monitoring processes and outcomes.^{[footnote 93]} An informant from UKRI stated that ‘for ODA programmes, gender equality policy did not exist before GCRF started’. Following GCRF, UKRI developed and incorporated gender policy into DSIT funding calls, leading to the inclusion of a gender equality statement for awards, which is reported on annually via Researchfish.^{[footnote 94]} Another interviewee stated: ‘GCRF has been used as a benchmark, an example and a starting point … Much of the background and learnings stem from the work that has been done on the GCRF (e.g. implementation of the gender equality compliance procedure and its outputs)’.^{[footnote 95]} Implementing the gender equality compliance procedure throughout GCRF and the Newton Fund has resulted in an increase in the share of female PIs.^{[footnote 96]}

However, for SI/EDI and reducing poverty, the evidence of GCRF’s impact is less clear. Other aspects of EDI beyond gender equality are less advanced in terms of data collection, policies, and being focused only on the UK context and not on working with partners in the LMIC.^{[footnote 97]}

There is also strong evidence of UK-wide standards beyond GCRF driving implementation of structures and systems in HEIs to improve EDI.

EDI has become more significant in the strategies of UK HEIs over the last decade, with HEIs increasingly developing and putting in place their own EDI action plans – to such an extent that this has become the norm.^{[footnote 98]} Although there are multiple reasons driving this change, not just within the research system but in society more broadly, we can identify some of the reasons driving change in HEI practices more specifically. First, UKRI and all publicly funded research bodies are obligated to adhere to the public sector equality duty, which came into force in April 2011, and the International Development (Gender Equality) Act of 2014,^{[footnote 99]} and this extends to the institutions they fund. UKRI also requires its grant holders to be members of the Athena Swan Charter,^{[footnote 100]} a key UK initiative that has been very helpful in advancing gender equality in HE and research at an institutional level.^{[footnote 101]} Second, a shift in societal attitudes in the last few years to examine research culture has shone a light on EDI practices and how research culture fosters equal opportunities and creates a right environment for all. It is now recognised that diversity is important for excellent research systems.^{[footnote 102]}

Overall, the evidence shows that structures and practices to improve EDI in UK HEIs have been implemented because of both GCRF and UK-wide standards more broadly. This combination of factors has built new knowledge and capacities to work with EDI, which is a pathway to impact in research for development and is highlighted as a key focus for effectiveness in the 2023 Aid Strategy.^{[footnote 103]}

Lesson for future investments: Large investments which have clear priorities can drive a change in documented policies and practices by setting out top-level structures that support the development and introduction of new practices and methodologies.

Box X. Example of addressing gender equality and equitable LMIC-North partnerships in GCRF from RQ++ synthesis report

Spotlight on research legitimacy: locally embedded research for peace education in post-conflict settings

A research project conducted in Rwanda focused on the effectiveness of locally embedded humanities and social science research in supporting learners and teachers in post-conflict settings. It examined the role of peace education in promoting inclusive teaching pedagogy that bridges the gap between informal family-based discussions and formal/non-formal educational settings. The project emphasised the importance of incorporating Rwandan voices and locally embedded research in informing interventions, supporting education as a source of information, and promoting sustainable peace.

The project contributed to an empowering outcome by promoting gender equity within the research team, ensuring equitable LMIC–North partnership, and amplifying Rwandan voices as leaders in the project. The team collaborated with the Aegis Trust, adhering to the UKRI criteria of equal intellectual engagement and equitably distributed financial resources. The project demonstrated a commitment to gender equity and local leadership by including Rwandan researchers in key roles, facilitating their participation in workshops and supporting their publication efforts.

The research findings, led by Rwandan voices, resulted in a series of draft discussion papers, The Landscape of Peace Education in Rwanda, which explored challenges associated with peace education and emphasised the importance of gender-sensitive pedagogy. The project’s empowering outcome was its significant contribution to education as an essential source of information for conflict prevention interventions, with Rwandan researchers taking the lead. Overall, the project underscores the crucial role of locally embedded research, equitable partnerships and the amplification of Rwandan voices in facilitating long-term positive impacts in post-conflict settings.

Question 14

3.4.  New contextual knowledge and experience

Accepted Answer

3.4.1. Purpose for selecting the benefit for analysis

In the context of GCRF, we define new contextual knowledge and experience as increased understanding by UK researchers of the LMIC context. This new knowledge about the issues and challenges common to countries in the LMIC (LMICs) is seen at both individual and organisational (HEI) levels. Having contextual knowledge and experience enables UK researchers and HEIs to engage sensitively and in an informed way with LMIC communities and contexts, and is therefore a key aspect of successfully delivered research for development.

3.4.2. Evidence for the benefit

Overall, there is moderate evidence of an increase in UK capacity related to new contextual knowledge and experience, based on the evidence from prior stages of the evaluation of GCRF. For example, one study on the fairness of GCRF concluded that GCRF contributed to building UK researchers’ knowledge about the LMIC context by bringing them into the research for development space.^{[footnote 104]} The Hubs process evaluation also showed that the programme had co-created solutions, which will enhance the ability of respective institutions in the Global North and LMIC to conduct research for development in the future.^{[footnote 105]} In addition, the GROW process evaluation found that although contextual knowledge was developed, this would have been increased if cross-award learning and networking had been done in a structured way.^{[footnote 106]}

3.4.3. Evidence for GCRF’s pathways to the benefit

To test the pathways for the acquisition of new contextual knowledge and experience from participation in GCRF, we developed one hypothesis (with corresponding alternative hypothesis) looking at the impact of the design of GCRF awards (scope, scale and time frame) on the level of contextual knowledge and experience about the LMIC at the systemic level of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem.^{[footnote 107]} The hypothesis supposes that the scope, scale and time frame of GCRF awards were important in sustaining stakeholder networks so that systemic capacities in terms of knowledge and experience of the LMIC could be developed. In contrast, the alternative hypothesis proposes that other funding mechanisms enabled this growth in knowledge and experience. Understanding the structural aspects of GCRF, if any, that supported this type of capacity development will be an important learning for future investments.

Table 8. Overview of findings on new contextual knowledge and experience

	Findings on new skills and methodologies
Hypotheses	Hypothesis 4: UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty and improve social inclusion/equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI). They have done this because receiving GCRF institutional funding in three-year blocks provided them with opportunities to learn-by-doing and improve practices over several years. Alternative hypothesis 4: UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty and improve social inclusion/equality, diversity, and inclusion (SI/EDI) because of UK-wide standards beyond GCRF.
Strength of evidence to support the hypotheses	Moderate evidence to support the gender equality element of the hypothesis. Insufficient evidence available to be able to test the other elements of the hypothesis, namely on global poverty and improving social inclusion/equality, diversity and inclusion. Strong evidence to support the alternative hypothesis.
Summary of findings	GCRF played an important role in helping UK HEIs implement structures and systems to improve gender equality, although more should be done on other aspects of EDI. GCRF’s institutional funding in three-year cycles has helped HEIs to learn about and introduce new practices and methodologies to advance gender equality and, to a lesser extent, EDI. Changes in UK-wide standards also contributed to these policy changes.
Lessons for future investment	Large investments which have clear priorities can drive a change in documented policies and practices, by setting out top-level structures that support the development and introduction of new practices and methodologies.

The scope, scale and time frame of GCRF likely enabled the broadening out of existing contextual understanding to a whole system level, beyond the pockets of contextual knowledge and experience that existed previously.

As described under the evidence for hypothesis 1, GCRF ‘brought many new UK researchers and institutions into contact with development issues and with institutions and researchers in the LMIC’,^{[footnote 108]} which has contributed to ‘creating new kinds of development expertise and stakeholder relationships in the UK and the LMIC’.^{[footnote 109]} The lack of prior contextual knowledge in UK researchers and HEIs prior to GCRF was also highlighted in the Stage 1b synthesis report, with many GCRF participants having little or no prior experience of research for development, including some POs (e.g. UKSA). For example, the GROW evaluation highlighted a lack of understanding of the LMIC R&I context with specific reference to the postdoctoral role, which is integral to UK academic research but is not a key feature of many LMIC research systems.^{[footnote 110]}

UK ODA funding (comprising both GCRF and the Newton Fund) has led to a ‘greater awareness of developing country challenges through co-creation’.^{[footnote 111]} A UUK survey found that ODA funding (i.e. GCRF and the Newton Fund) had driven changes at the UK HE sector level in terms of institutional practices and the positioning of development and global challenges, with changes – such as more holistic approaches to challenge-led themes and priorities, institutional commitments to the SDGs and the establishment of cross-disciplinary research institutes and centres – designed to address pressing global challenges.

The scope, scale and time frame of GCRF have contributed to boosting system-level capacities of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem to gain LMIC knowledge and experience. Large and long investments with a multidisciplinary approach, such as the Hubs, were highlighted as key to building and sustaining stakeholder networks. The Hubs have been described as ‘a key differentiator of the programme and fundamental for enabling research with development impact’,^{[footnote 112]} being seen as critical in the development of resilient networks that were able to survive the impact of ODA funding cuts.^{[footnote 113]} This is reinforced by an interviewee who indicated that ‘at the start of the GCRF, HEIs didn’t know about working with LMIC’, but the scale of some larger awards enabled them to have their own project teams.^{[footnote 114]}

Elements of programme design in GCRF, such as monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, also facilitated acquisition of contextual knowledge and experience. For example, IPP projects were required to conduct baseline evaluations which were felt to ‘enable teams to further explore the wider context and relevance of the awards, bringing in additional knowledge and up-to-date information where relevant, and engaging with stakeholders to determine how the technical solutions will be used in context’.^{[footnote 115]}

It is also important to note that the Newton Fund was active at the time of GCRF, thus contributing to system-level capacity development. Newton Fund collaborations helped award holders ‘develop a better understanding of the academic landscapes in the partner countries, which would be of value for wider academic collaboration and engagement’.^{[footnote 116]} This is further reinforced by survey data, with UK-based respondents reporting (on average) strong agreement that working in collaboration through the Newton Fund had ‘helped the team to develop new skills, including intercultural skills’.^{[footnote 117]} We must therefore acknowledge that new contextual knowledge of the LMIC was not solely the result of GCRF.

However, there is also evidence to support the alternative hypothesis. In particular, we found that many GCRF awards built on existing relationships, implying that contextual understanding and relationships were in place as a result of prior investments. These pre-existing relationships were considered as contributing to success in GCRF awards, particularly in short-term awards. It was highlighted that the ‘relatively short duration of most awards meant that the researchers who had already worked together could move more quickly into the heart of their research question’.^{[footnote 118]} The RQ++ analysis found that of the awards reviewed, a ‘significant proportion’ built on existing partnerships and relationships (which may include stakeholder networks) and that awards building on existing partnerships were more likely to perform well and obtain further funding and were better able to integrate new partners into the research team.^{[footnote 119]} This further emphasises the importance of long-term, sustained funding to establishing contextual understanding and building a stakeholder network, but suggests that this was not universally available across the GCRF portfolio. Where that was not the case, most successful awards needed to build on prior relationships from other funds.

Overall, there is moderate evidence to suggest that GCRF played an important role in building systemic capacity in understanding R&I systems in the LMIC context. Based on the available evidence, the scale of the Fund likely significantly broadened the range of researchers and institutions familiar with the LMIC R&I context. However, this was not necessarily universal across the Fund. In the case of smaller awards, there is some evidence of GCRF awards building on prior capacity development and investment through previous programmes, with those prior resources enabling development of that contextual understanding in a way that would not have been feasible through short-term awards in GCRF alone. However, larger-scale awards (such as the Hubs and IPP) did provide routes and processes for that contextual understanding to be developed. Overall, the scale and breadth of GCRF likely enabled the broadening out of this contextual understanding to a whole system level, beyond the pockets of contextual knowledge and experience that existed previously.

Lesson for future investments: Contextual knowledge and experience are needed for effective partnership development and for establishing stakeholder collaborations and networks to promote use, and are thus associated with positive award outcomes. Developing this knowledge requires sustained investment over time and is not likely to happen with shorter awards in isolation. Future investments may be able to capitalise on the system-level capacity developed by GCRF and fund some shorter-term awards. However, sustaining that system-level capacity and contextual knowledge will require some longer-term large-scale investments.

Question 15

3.5.  New relationships/partners

Accepted Answer

3.5.1. Purpose for selecting the benefit for analysis

In the context of GCRF, new relationships are those formed between academic partners because of GCRF funding, as well as new partnerships, relationships or collaborations (sometimes called networks) between policymakers, NGOs and other stakeholders (in communities and relevant actors in the UK and in the LMIC). The emphasis is on the novelty of relationships or partnerships resulting from GCRF funding, which distinguishes this benefit from the benefit for the UK of capacity for doing equitable partnerships with researchers/institutions in other countries. Expanding the number of international partnerships between UK researchers and partners in LMICs has the potential to lead to greater impact from research.

3.5.2. Evidence for the benefit

Overall, there is strong evidence of an increase in UK capacity related to new relationships/partners, based on the evidence from prior stages of the evaluation of GCRF. The fairness study of the GCRF evaluation found that GCRF awards report extensive engagement with stakeholders other than formal partners, alluding to the development of new relationships and stakeholder networks.^{[footnote 120]} Similarly, the Challenge Leaders process evaluation found evidence of new strengthened relationships with researchers, policymakers and stakeholders.^{[footnote 121]} However, a study on relevance found that although stakeholder engagement was ‘good’ or ‘exemplary’, it was lacking with regard to community-level engagement, with an expectation – that grant holders engage with local communities to support pathways to impact – that was not always conducted.^{[footnote 122]}

3.5.3. Evidence for GCRF’s pathways to the benefit

To test the pathways for the development of new relationships from participation in the GCRF, we developed one hypothesis (with a corresponding alternative hypothesis) looking at whether the requirement for impact encouraged the establishment of new relationships. The emphasis is on the novelty of relationships or partnerships resulting from GCRF funding, which distinguishes this benefit from the benefit for the UK of capacity for doing equitable partnerships with researchers/institutions in other countries (covered under hypothesis 1).

Table 9. Overview of findings on new relationships/partners

	Findings on new relationships/partners
Hypotheses	Hypothesis 6: The UK academic research community formed new partnerships at institutional and inter-institutional levels and/or with other stakeholders, such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC, because of GCRF’s strategic requirement for grant awardees to plan for impact. Alternative hypothesis 6: The UK academic research community (at institutional and inter-institutional levels) and other stakeholders, such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC, formed new relationships/partnerships because of a change in UK research funders’ policies or procedures.
Strength of evidence to support the hypotheses	Weak evidence to support the working hypothesis. Strong to moderate evidence to support the alternative hypothesis.
Summary of findings	Building partnerships between the UK and the LMIC is a strategic priority for UK research funders; as a UK research programme, GCRF has been a catalyst for new relationships and partnerships. Although there was evidence that GCRF has led to new relationships/partners, we found little on the requirement to plan for impact as the driver for this.
Lessons for future investment	Time and reliable resources to support new partnership development contribute positively to new equitable partnership development and project success. Future investments should find ways to build this in and avoid the commonly occurring challenge – seen both within and beyond GCRF – of funding cuts, which undermine the reputation of the UK’s R&I system internationally as a reliable partner.

Building partnerships between the UK and the LMIC is a strategic priority for UK research funders; as a UK research programme, GCRF has been a catalyst for new relationships and partnerships.

In line with this focus on impact, we see UKRI and the UK government articulate a desire to drive relationships and partnership development in research with the LMIC within strategic plans and frameworks (e.g. the UKRI area of investment and support for global health, the UKRI International Strategic Framework published in March 2022, and the UK government strategy for international development published in May 2022). UKRI’s strategic plan 2022–27 articulates: ‘Priority 2.1: Strengthen clusters and partnerships – locally, nationally and globally’. Some of these commitments (e.g. the Medical Research Council (MRC)–FCDO concordat agreement to support UK-led biomedical and public health research in LMICs) pre-date GCRF and resulted in significant and enduring research partnerships with Southern partners, such as the formation of the MRC units in the Gambia and Uganda.

Similarly, the Royal Society strategic plan 2012–17 includes ‘fostering international and global cooperation’, looking to strengthen links with academies, funders and governments in Europe, the United States (US) and beyond and to support countries that are building their own scientific strength, particularly in Africa.

Some of these partnership priorities pre-date the start of the GCRF, which is evidence for our alternative hypothesis that the UK academic research community (at institutional and inter-institutional levels) formed new relationships/partnerships with stakeholders, such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC, because of a change in UK research funders’ policies or procedures.

However, although the importance of driving relationships and partnerships with the LMIC features in strategies and frameworks, these priorities are operationalised through programmes such as GCRF, the Newton Fund and the Ayrton Fund.^{[footnote 123]} Therefore, the priority of partnerships building is incorporated into the design and delivery of large-scale funding programmes, including GCRF.

Although we found no direct evidence that the strategic requirement for GCRF grant awardees to plan for impact is what led to new relationships and partnerships forming, we know that signature investments had a consistent focus on, as well as resourcing for, impact, which was not always consistently present in non-signature programmes, and that outputs from these were more likely to be used by policymakers than those from non-signature investments. Fund-wide survey evidence found that the signature programmes were more likely to produce a range of R&I outputs and to reach a wider range of different stakeholders than non-signature programmes were.^{[footnote 124]}

Collaborations and stakeholder and community engagement are key to achieving impact from research, and stakeholder mapping and engagement is essential in developing a pathway to impact and designing research activities. It is therefore likely that the requirement to plan for impact enabled awardees to identify key stakeholders and partners at an early stage of the projects, leading to the establishment of new relationships throughout its course.

The importance of GCRF funding for establishing and maintaining relationships was evidenced by potential negative outcomes of programmes that experienced ODA budget reductions throughout the Fund’s duration, such as IPP and the FLAIR programme (Box 4). In both cases, funding cuts posed a threat to the translation of research, with projects unable to move from discovery to implementation, creating a reputational risk for the UK as a research partner engaged in sustainable development. The latter posed the risk of creating opportunities for other countries, such as Russia or China, to move into these spaces, fund programmes and develop relations that the UK has damaged.^{[footnote 125]} In addition, where projects were cut short, a lack of resources to invest in positioning for use and handover affected partnerships. Moreover, there were examples in the evidence of how the sudden ODA budget reductions had a particularly negative effect on cohorts of LMIC researchers, as evidenced in FLAIR.

Box 4. Examples of IPP and FLAIR, showing the impact of funding cuts to the sustainability of research partnerships in GCRF

IPP is a five-year, £152 million space-enabled and ODA-compliant programme. Started in 2016, it is run by UKSA and is funded through GCRF as one of the fund’s 6 signature investments. IPP aimed to use the UK space sector’s strengths to deliver sustainable economic or societal benefits to developing economies. The primary aim of IPP was to deliver a space-enabled ODA-compliant programme that provides measurable and sustainable economic or societal benefits to its beneficiaries. That its ODA funding was cut in 2021 provides us with a counterfactual case to examine hypothesis 6, because this funding cut illustrates the effects of stopping GCRF funding on the third cohort of new partnerships between UK researchers and other stakeholders such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC: ‘The ODA cuts had the largest impact on Call 3 IPP projects. These projects had completed their discovery phase but were unable to move into their implementation phase. Interviewees also highlighted the reputational damage for the UK because of the ODA cuts. It is unclear whether the Call 3 projects will be able to secure additional funding elsewhere. UKSA are considering whether support can be given to some of the Call 3 projects with small follow-up phases. It is likely that these projects will no longer have an ODA focus but instead will focus on technical development, with a focus on supporting the UK economy and national space strategy.’

The FLAIR programme is one of the 6 signature investments in GCRF, which provided postdoctoral fellowships for African ECRs at sub-Saharan African institutions. FLAIR is distinct from other GCRF programmes in awarding funding directly to African fellows and their host institutions, and so was among very few GCRF investments that were led by LMICs. Funding cuts were felt by interviewees to have had a significant negative impact on longer-term outcomes and impacts by threatening the translation of research outputs, as well as impacting on the UK’s reputation as a reliable partner. The duration of FLAIR fellowships was reduced from 5 years to 2 years, and there was a complete cut to the funding of a third cohort after fellows had been selected.

Lesson for future investments: Time and reliable resources to support new partnership development contribute positively to new equitable partnership development and project success. Future investments should find ways to build this in and avoid the commonly occurring challenge – seen both within and beyond GCRF – of funding cuts, which undermine the reputation of the UK’s R&I system internationally as a reliable partner.

Question 16

Learnings and discussion

Accepted Answer

GCRF was designed to build on UK ‘strengths, boosting research excellence, international partnerships (especially in developing countries) and research with impact, supported by transparent and rigorous decision-making processes for funding and spending’.^{[footnote 126]} In doing so, it would ‘strengthen capacity for research, innovation and knowledge exchange in the UK and developing countries through partnerships with excellent UK research and researchers’.^{[footnote 127]}

Although the main purpose of ODA funding is to support economic development of developing countries, and therefore most benefits of the funding will be seen in LMICs, there are indirect benefits to the UK which can also be showcased. Our evidence, presented in section 3, highlights the benefits of a large global fund such as GCRF to boost the capacity not only of the LMIC but also of the UK’s R&I system. In this section we provide an overview of the identified learnings to the UK’s R&I system of GCRF.

Question 17

4.1.  Reflections

Accepted Answer

To achieve its aim, GCRF needed to be able to mobilise the research community to forge new relationships that creatively combine the highest standards of research and innovation while contributing to international development. This required bringing together motivations to progress the science with expertise about local development systems. As described in section 1, GCRF has operated in a volatile global context, where progress towards meeting SDGs has been constrained by various global dynamics, leading to a search for new approaches via research and innovation. In this section we reflect on whether and how GCRF has been able to engage institutions, mobilise scientific efforts and connect these to development goals, and build equitable relationships rooted in an understanding of (local) development challenges, as foundations for long-term systemic, transformative change.

The key capacities for ODA research stimulated by GCRF combine R&I with good development practices, which provides a strong set of benefits for the UK’s global positioning in the near future.

Overall, GCRF has contributed to building capacity related to ODA research in the UK, including developing local contextual knowledge, engaging with local communities and stakeholders, and developing and maintaining equitable partnerships. Although progress has been made in these and other areas, further work is needed to ensure this capacity is maintained and further developed to ensure that the UK is considered a ‘partner of choice’ for ODA research.

Acquisition of local contextual knowledge through engagement with local communities and stakeholders

Our study found that GCRF has facilitated the acquisition of local contextual knowledge and has contributed to boosting UK R&D capacities at the systemic level by providing the time and resources required for awardees to gain LMIC knowledge and experience by building and sustaining partnerships and stakeholder networks. The scale of the Fund broadened the range of researchers and institutions familiar with the LMIC R&I context, some of which had no prior development experience, particularly in larger investments (e.g. Hubs). As highlighted in the process evaluation for the Hubs, ‘working with inclusive, broad networks allowed the programme to develop shared understanding of development challenges and to influence change at a local, national and international level’. For smaller awards, prior networks and capacity development were needed to deliver the research, as building the stakeholder networks requires time and resources.

Engagement with local communities is the cornerstone of good development practice and is one of the principles on which GCRF is founded.^{[footnote 128]} It is also highlighted in the 2023 White Paper on International Development, where it is stated that ‘the UK has the most positive impact when it is focused on transformative, long-term systemic change’ and that ‘we should return to a long-term, predictable focus for policy and funding, built on locally-led development’.^{[footnote 129]}

Engagement with local partners and stakeholder networks enables researchers to contextualise their research, identifying the needs of local communities as well as (i) providing an understanding of the challenges and opportunities for implementation of the research findings, and (ii) increasing the likelihood of uptake and transformative impact through working with those in the research setting who are most likely to benefit from the research itself. Therefore, research that is designed and delivered with local communities in North–South collaborations leads to increased local capacities and strengthened institutions.^{[footnote 130]}

Contributing to advancing equitable partnerships

Equitable partnerships aim to establish mutually beneficial collaborations between the UK and LMIC partners through a mutual exchange of capacities; they are therefore important for good development practice. The 2023 White Paper for International Development highlights mutual respect as key to the UK’s development of partnerships, moving ‘beyond an outdated “donor-recipient” model’,^{[footnote 131]} a principle that is also captured in the GCRF strategy: ‘GCRF will ensure that researchers within developing countries are able to access funding to support partnerships on an equitable basis that is consistent with the UK commitment to untied aid’. Through its design, particularly through QR allocation and pump priming funding, GCRF enabled the development of more equitable international partnerships, as well as (in some instances) providing the mechanisms for learning lessons around setting up equitable partnerships to be shared, through the creation of cohorts and other structures to support peer learning. Although GCRF has made a valuable contribution to UK R&I being more equitable in its partnerships, there is still further to go to be more consistent and deepen practice in this area.

Strengthened UK capacities to combine both excellent science and excellent development practice will be pivotal to enable the UK to deliver on its international development ambitions. The 2022 International Development Strategy (IDS)^{[footnote 132]} sets out a new approach to development focused on partnerships tailored to the needs of the partnering countries, which is further elaborated on in the 2023 White Paper on International Development, which describes the important role of partnerships, science and technology in the UK’s approach to international development.^{[footnote 133]} Good development practices, such as those seen in some GCRF investments, support the UK’s delivery of the IDS.

Building and maintaining relationships for the conduct of R&I is an important factor to achieving impact of research, and having time and resources allocated to this in programme design was key to the success of GCRF.

As discussed earlier in this section, working with local stakeholders is a key aspect of good development practices. The GCRF strategy states: ‘Capacity building and networking of researchers in the UK and the LMIC will make it possible to initiate research that is more relevant to practice and policy, and to bring innovations with an impact on development swiftly into the market.’^{[footnote 134]} It also sets the expectation that Southern partners will be engaged in research design and planning for implementation and uptake.

To achieve this ambition, for some awards GCRF provided the time and resources to work closely with the community and stakeholders and for strong networks to be built involving a variety of stakeholders. A good example is through the Hubs. As highlighted in the process evaluation, the Hubs invested time and resources in developing and widening the network of stakeholders beyond the research community to include communities, local organisations, national and international policymakers, which enabled networks to demonstrate resilience in the face of Covid-19 and the ODA budget reductions, providing capacity to outlive funding cycles.

However, the time and resources were not provided consistently throughout the Fund. Although pump priming provided resources to support the development of partnerships, smaller investments did not provide the necessary time to build and develop these networks, meaning researchers had to build on existing capacity and networks where possible. Although GROW’s success was in large part due to its size, scale and flexibility, the process evaluation of the programme found that the length of funding did not accommodate an inception phase that was long enough to encourage new partnerships to be built.^{[footnote 135]} Good practices need to be consistently applied to achieve impact from ODA research, as was shown through the funding cuts, which posed a risk to the credibility of the UK as a research partner. Future investments need to build on good practices to continue to have the UK as a global leader in development research.

The UK’s dual funding system enables some capacities to be institutionalised through the allocation of QR funding facilitating non-competitive collaboration among researchers.

QR funding is a key feature of UK research funding. GCRF highlights the importance of this funding in supporting collaboration and building capacity. High-value, long-duration funding, such as QR funding, provides flexibility to the institutions that are awarded funding to utilise the resource as they consider best, be this through providing funds to high-risk projects that may struggle to secure funding through standard peer-review grant processes, hiring dedicated research staff, or building partnerships and networks.

In particular, and in the context of GCRF, QR allocations delivered by the Funding Councils enabled researchers to develop equitable partnerships. Peer competition is a key feature of the research ecosystem, with collaborations treading a thin line between what is shared with partners and what is seen as a competitive advantage. QR allocation enabled researchers to talk more freely about their work by removing competition for funding.

GCRF’s institutional funding in three-year cycles has helped HEIs to learn about and introduce new practices and methodologies, which extended beyond the research itself, to advance gender equality and, to a lesser extent, EDI, providing researchers with opportunities to learn-by-doing and improve practices over several years. It also supported research in areas where funding of the scale of GCRF awards is rare, such as the arts and humanities, bringing new areas into its scope and hence promoting interdisciplinarity.

Lastly, through its funding mechanism, GCRF shifted engagement with research for development from the individual researcher to the institutional (HEI) level. For example, many HEIs hired a GCRF manager, who oversaw the portfolio. Evidence from interviews suggest this played a role in lifting the profile of global challenges at the strategic level in HEIs. It also provided a point of coordination and enabled peer learning between institutions.

Top-level structures are needed to create emphasis and momentum around a given priority, but these need to be supported by mechanisms that facilitate community building and peer learning.

Peer networks were found to be instrumental in developing and sharing best practice. For example, peer networks enabled sharing of tools such as the Ethical Research with Low/Middle-Income Countries Toolkit^{[footnote 136]} developed by the University of Edinburgh, designed to help researchers think about ethical issues that can exist throughout the life cycle of a global project.

Peer networks were enabled by top-level priorities outlined in GCRF guidance and incorporated into the design of some GCRF investments, as highlighted through the creation of equitable partnerships and EDI practices around gender. As discussed in section 3.3, setting gender equality as a priority area in GCRF led to momentum around EDI within the GCRF and the wider UK funder landscape, which was followed by peer learning and good practice. However, although we found that practices around gender equality were being developed and implemented, little has been done on other aspects of EDI. Top-level priorities create momentum and focus, and then the peer learning is key for how it is implemented. Future funds could learn from progress made in gender equality through GCRF to develop new practices for EDI beyond gender.

There is some evidence that peer learning was stronger where institutions receiving QR funding linked people up or in programmes where cohorts were established.^{[footnote 137]} For example, the Hubs, FLAIR, GROW and IPP invested some effort into cohort building, which supports drawing learning across the portfolio and drives collective progress towards learning. In particular, GROW participants designed their own bespoke award governance and management approaches to ensure that programme-wide networking and knowledge sharing were initiated by award teams.

However, there is also evidence that learning was not consistent across the Fund; rather, there were pockets of learning where there were cohorts or peer networks and specific funding that facilitated it. In addition, we found that although institutional learning was achieved, this did not translate to learning across POs.

There are, however, gaps in UK capacity building through GCRF seen in this study.

The scale and scope of GCRF were key to strengthening the UK’s capacity in development research, through large investments with clear priorities that can drive a change in practice as well as through documented policies and practices. GCRF provided the time, resources and flexibility for the design, conduct and implementation of research in areas of local need.

However, we identified 3 gaps across the capacity building assessed in this study. First, although peer learning was identified as an important aspect of GCRF for sharing best practice, there was no evidence of this learning being shared between POs, which is a missed opportunity for improving practices related to research for development among UK research funders. Second, we identified a gap related to the establishment of new partnerships and stakeholder networks for smaller award holders, who were more likely to build on existing partnerships and networks to deliver their work due to time and resource constraints. Because the establishment of new partnerships is a strategic priority for GCRF and the UK, and successful delivery and implementation of research is dependent on engagement with local stakeholders, it is essential that time and resources are provided consistently across the Fund and future funds to enable this development. Third, we found that earlier awards fell short of meeting best practice (e.g. in the area of gender equality) compared with later projects, due to needing to deploy the first round of funding quite rapidly and due to UK HEIs and UKRI learning-by-doing and improving their practice on e.g. gender equality during the lifetime of GCRF. Such learning-by-doing was facilitated by the receipt of GCRF institutional funding in three-year blocks (see Annex A for more detail). To maximise the benefits from research funding, timelines should allow sufficient time to ensure projects are awarded and set up in a way that supports best practice consistently throughout and across a programme.

The contribution of GCRF is in the context of other initiatives, including other ODA funds, such as the Newton Fund, playing an important role in building capacity in LMICs and the UK. It is important that these and future ODA funds are aligned and work closely together to ensure that the objectives and aims of the UK’s strategy for international development are achieved and that any gaps are addressed in subsequent programmes.

Question 18

4.2.  Lessons learned for future investments

Accepted Answer

As has been evidenced, the scale, scope and time frame of GCRF enabled the programme to increase UK R&I systems capacity both directly, by developing the guidance and policies that would guide delivery of the programme and providing the resources and time to allow implementation for some awards, and indirectly, through the development of best practices that were in turn used to develop further policies and guidance. However, these benefits were not seen consistently across programmes and awards, and there was a missed opportunity for wider systems-level influence by facilitating sharing of learning across POs. Following on from the findings and reflections, we have developed the following recommendations:

DSIT should reflect on the successes and capacity strengthening achieved from GCRF and ensure that ISPF and other futures funds learn from and build on this progress. Investment should include targeted resources to build and maintain UK capacity. Specific examples detailing how this should be implemented are provided below.
POs should ensure dedicated resources are provided to support researchers in developing contextual knowledge and experience which are needed for effective partnership development and positive award outcomes. This could include, for example, seed funding to support relationship development as an initial stage in funding awards, networking awards to support relationship development, and longer-term large-scale investments that are sufficient to enable system level capacity and relationship development. Short term awards without a capacity development or networking focus are unlikely to be effective in building or maintaining capacity and should not form a significant part of the portfolio.
DSIT should look at PO plans to ensure they have made adequate provision for capacity and relationship development in their planned programming and consider these criteria in their ongoing monitoring of PO and programme level performance.
DSIT should consider offering flexible institutional funding to support capacity development in future funds, with QR providing a useful mechanism to deliver this investment. This should include a requirement for institutional strategic planning, and should emphasise investment in capacity, seed funding and relationships development.
POs should consider including flexible funding opportunities in their investment portfolios that allow high-risk projects and partnership development to be supported. At the PO level this is most feasible through large scale investments (e.g. similar to the hubs in GCRF).
DSIT should develop clear requirements for strategic priorities, such as interdisciplinarity, EDI, local stakeholder engagement, and impact for investments including ISPF, and create top-level structures for their oversight (e.g., policies, reporting requirements) to provide impetus for POs and award holders to implement them. This should build on the learning from progress made in gender equality through GCRF, for example, but on EDI specifically should extend to cover aspects beyond gender.
DSIT should provide a forum and resources for peer support and learning across POs in ISPF. POs should actively engage in sharing experiences and lessons learned through those fora.
POs should build in to their programme design opportunities for peer support and learning between award holders and institutions. This may be particularly valuable for institutional level investments (e.g. centres, hubs). It would also likely be valuable for fellowship programmes, where cohorts can be given the opportunity to interact and learn from each other.

Question 19

Abbreviations

Accepted Answer

AMS	Academy of Medical Sciences
BEIS	Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
CERN	European Council for Nuclear Research (Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire)
DE	Department of Education
DSIT	Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
ECR	Early Career Researcher
EQ	Evaluation Question
EU	European Union
FCDO	Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
EDI	Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
FLAIR	Future Leaders – African Independent Research
GCRF	Global Challenges Research Fund
GESIP	Gender Equality, Social Inclusion and Poverty
GROW	Growing Research Capacity
HE	Higher Education
HEI	Higher Education Institution
IDA	International Development Association
IDRC	International Development Research Centre
IDS	International Development Strategy
IO	Institutional Officer
IPP	International Partnerships Programme
IRR	Integrated Review Refresh
ISCF	Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund
ISPF	International Science Partnerships Fund
KII	Key Informant Interview
KPI	Key Performance Indicator
LMIC	Low and Middle-Income Country
MRC	Medical Research Council
NGO	Non-Governmental Organisation
NIHR	National Institute for Health and Care Research
Norad	Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation
ODA	Official Development Assistance
OECD	Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PI	Principal Investigator
PO	Partner Organisation
PT	Process Tracing
QR	Quality-Related
R&D	Research and Development
R&I	Research and Innovation
RQ++	Research Quality plus Positioning for Use plus Results
SDG	Sustainable Development Goal
SHAPE	Social Sciences, Humanities and the Arts for People and the Economy
SI	Social Inclusion
Sida	Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
SUNRISE	Strategic University Network to Revolutionise International Solar Energy
TIGR2ESS	Transforming India’s Green Revolution by Research and Empowerment for Sustainable Food Supplies
ToC	Theory of Change
UK	United Kingdom
UKCDR	The UK Collaborative on Development Research
UKRI	UK Research and Innovation
UKSA	UK Space Agency
UN	United Nations
US	United States (of America)
UUK	Universities UK
VfM	Value for Money

Question 20

References

Accepted Answer

Advance HE (n.d.) ‘Athena Swan Charter’.

Atkinson, B., Izzi, V., Wawire, S., Sullivan, C. and Mataya, D. (2023) GCRF Process Evaluation Report, Stage 1b Hubs Process Evaluation. Brighton: Itad.

Beach, D. and Pederson, R.B. (2013) Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Befani, B., and Mayne, J. (2014) ‘Process Tracing and Contribution Analysis: A Combined Approach to Generative Causal Inference for Impact Evaluation.’ IDS Bulletin 45(6): 17–36. Last accessed 5 December 2023.

BEIS (2017a) UK Strategy for the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF). Last accessed 10 January 2024.

BEIS (2017b) ‘Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF): How the Fund Works’. Last accessed 5 December 2023.

BEIS (2022a) Stage 1a: Synthesis Report of evidence on integration of relevance, fairness, gender, poverty and social inclusion in funded activities. Evaluation of the Global Challenges Research Fund. Last accessed 5 December 2023.

BEIS (2022b) Stage 1b Synthesis Report: Evaluation of the Global Challenges Research Fund: Synthesis of the evidence on programme processes and progress towards impact in GCRF’s 6 flagship investments.

BEIS (2022c) ‘UK secondary benefits study: The Newton Fund’. Last accessed 9 January 2024.

Brocklesby, M. A., Walker, D., Elsey, D., Shaleva, E. and Fernandez, V. (2021) Final Report Global Challenges Research Fund Evaluation: Module: Gender Equality, Social Inclusion and Poverty Audit. Brighton: Itad.

Cabinet Office (2023) ‘Integrated Review Refresh 2023: Responding to a more contested and volatile world’.

Carden, F., Vogel, I., Hepworth, C. and Stevenson, C. (2023) Evaluation of the Global Challenges Research Fund: Midpoint Synthesis Report: Assessing quality, impact positioning and early outcomes against GCRF’s Theory of Change: Synthesis of the evidence from the assessment of Research Quality plus Positioning for Use plus Results (RQ++) of GCRF awards. Brighton: Itad.

European Commission (2022) Chapter 3: R&I for Sustainability.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Stančiauskas, V., Brokevičiūtė, S., Kazlauskaitė, D., Dėlkutė, R., Šimkutė, N., Šiaulytytė, G. and Beqa, V. (2023) Second European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership Programme (EDCTP2) second interim evaluation: study in support of the ex-post evaluation of the European Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020..

European Union (2023) Evaluation Study on the Implementation of Cross-Cutting Issues in Horizon 2020: Study in support of the ex-post evaluation of the European Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020](https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/741433). Last accessed 9 January 2024.

FCDO (2022) ‘The UK government’s strategy for international development’.

FCDO (2023a) ‘International development in a contested world: ending extreme poverty and tackling climate change. A White Paper on International Development’. A White Paper on International Development. Last accessed 9 January 2024.

FCDO (2023b) ‘The UK government’s strategy for international development’. Last accessed 17 January 2024.

Flint, A., Howard, G., Baidya, M., Wondim, T., Poudel, M., Nijhawan, A., Mulugeta, Y. and Sharma, S. (2022) ‘Equity in Global North–South research partnerships: interrogating UK funding models’. Global Social Challenges Journal 1: 76–93. Last accessed 5 December 2023.

Francombe, J., Evans, H., Ramaswamy, A. and Guthrie, S. (2023) GCRF Process Evaluation Report, Stage 1b: Future Leaders – African Independent Research (FLAIR) Process Evaluation. Brighton: Itad.

Geldard, R. and Ellerbeck, S. (2023) ‘How much progress is being made on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals?’ Last accessed 14 December 2023.

Hepworth, C. and Decruz-Young, N. (2023) GCRF Process Evaluation Report, Stage 1b. Challenge Leaders Initiative Process Evaluation. Brighton: Itad.

Hepworth, C., Freed, D. and Decruz-Young, N. (2023) GCRF Process Evaluation Report, Stage 1b. Four Nations GCRF QR/Block Grant Funding Process Evaluation. Brighton: Itad..

HM Treasury (2015) UK aid: tackling global challenges in the national interest.

ICAI (2019) ‘Report: The use of UK aid to enhance mutual prosperity. An information note - 23 Oct 2019’. Last accessed 5 December 2023.

INDEPTH Network (2014) ‘The Role of R&D and Innovation for Development in LMICs – the case of INDEPTH and similar organisations based in the LMIC’.

INTRAC (2017) ‘Process tracing’. Last accessed 5 December 2023.

Izzi, V., Murray, B. and Sullivan, C. (2021) Final Report Global Challenges Research Fund Evaluation Module: Research Fairness. Brighton: Itad.

Izzi, V., Sullivan, C. and Wawire, S. (2023) GCRF Process Evaluation Report, Stage 1b GROW Process Evaluation. Brighton: Itad.

Kok, M.O., Gyapong, J.O., Wolffers, I., Ofori-Adjei, D. and Ruitenberg, E.J. (2017) ‘Towards fair and effective North–South collaboration: realising a programme for demand-driven and locally led research’. Health Research Policy and Systems 15:96.

Ministry of Justice (2012) ‘Public sector equality duty’. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-equality-duty

Montano, E. and Silva, D. (2022) ‘UK Space Agency International Partnerships Programme: Endline Evaluation Case Study’. June. UK Space Agency.

NIHR (2021) ‘Equitable Partnerships Guide’.

Norad (2022) Long-term approaches in a changing world. Annual Report 2021/2022 from the Department for Evaluation.

Punton, M. and Lohani, J. R. (2022) Final Report Global Challenges Research Fund Evaluation Module: Relevance and Coherence. Brighton: Itad.

Punton, M. and Welle, K. (2015) Straws-in-the-wind, Hoops and Smoking Guns: What can Process Tracing Offer to Impact Evaluation? CDI Practice Paper 10, Brighton: IDS. Last accessed 5 December 2023.

Reid, C., Calia, C., Guerra, C. & Grant, L. (2019). Ethical Action in Global Research: A Toolkit. The University of Edinburgh.

Ricks, J.I. and Liu, A.H. (2018) ‘Process-Tracing Research Designs: A Practical Guide’. PS: Political Science & Politics 51(4): 842–46. doi:10.1017/S1049096518000975

Royal Academy of Engineering (2023) Frontiers – Seed funding Application Guidance Notes

Stevenson, C., Virdee, M., Ramaswamy, A. and Guthrie, S. (2023) GCRF Process Evaluation Report, Stage 1b: International Partnership Programme (IPP) Process Evaluation. Brighton: Itad.

Sun, Y., Livan, G., Ma, A. and Latora, V. (2021) ‘Interdisciplinary researchers attain better long-term funding performance’. Communications Physics 4:263.

Technopolis Group (2020) Evaluation of the Benefits that the UK has derived from CERN: Main Report. Last accessed 9 January 2024.

Tetra Tech International Development, in partnership with Niras-LTS and Integrity (2021) ‘Overview of the Performance of the Prosperity Fund Portfolio in 2020/21: Fund-Level Evaluation Cycle 3’. Last accessed 9 January 2024.

TRUST Code (2024) ‘The Code’.

UKCDR (n.d.) Equitable Partnerships Resources Hub. Last accessed 5 December 2023.

UKCDR (2020) ‘Guidance on Safeguarding in International Development Research’. Available at: https://ukcdr.org.uk/publication/ukcdr-guidance-on-safeguarding-in-international-development-research/

UKCDR (2023) Lessons Learned from ODA Research Funds: A synthesis report of GCRF and Newton Fund evaluations. Last accessed 9 January 2024. Available at: https://www.ukcdr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ODA-lessons-learned-report.pdf

UK government (n.d.) ‘Guidance: Ayrton Fund’.

UK government (2014) International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014

United Nations (2023) The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023: Special Edition. Last accessed 10 January 2024.

Universities UK International (2020) ‘ODA funding and its impact on the UK higher education sector’. Last accessed 5 December 2023. Available at: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2020/Impact-of-ODA-funding.pdf

University of Edinburgh (2020) ‘Ethical research with Low/Middle-Income Countries Toolkit’. Last accessed 5 December 2023.

Vogel, I., Guthrie, S. and Hepworth, C. (2022) Evaluation of the Global Challenges Research Fund: Stage 1b Synthesis report: Synthesis of the evidence on programme processes and progress towards impact in GCRF’s 6 flagship investments. Brighton: Itad.

Question 21

Annex A. Working and alternative hypotheses

Accepted Answer

In the table below, the columns from left to right are:

the test number
the result of the test - pass, fail, or inconclusive;
the contribution claim (i.e. the working or alternative hypothesis that we tested);
the type of test (Hoop/Straw-in-the-wind/Smoking gun);
the evidence that we expect to observe if the contribution claim is true;
our findings/evidence summarised;
the overall strength of evidence that we found; and
how confident we were in assessing the evidence.

Test number	Result	Contribution claim	Type of test	Evidence we expect to observe if true	Findings/comment on evidence	Overall strength of evidence in support of contribution claim	Confidence score
1	Pass	UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of the pre-application funding provided by partner organisations through GCRF funds.	Hoop	Pump priming/ pre-application funding happens within GCRF.	169 hits in 41 documents from Fund-wide survey mention ‘pump priming’ - many of which (approximately one-quarter) mention pump priming in relation to helping to build networks and partnerships. Four Nations report, footnote 24, p.10: ‘“Pump priming” refers to activities that can be used to underpin GCRF and Newton bids to other funders, including relationship building. Funding body GCRF allocations may be used to enable pump priming that will lay the ground for future ODA activity to promote economic development and welfare of developing countries. For more detail see: Funding Bodies GCRF Strategies Proposal, December 2017.’ As set out in the RQ++ synthesis report, the Hubs ‘devoted time and resources to developing strong team relationships and to establishing processes to support equitable partnerships’, with an example given of one Hub which developed 34 new funded partnerships. The importance of this ‘inception phase’ was also noted in the case of IPP, where changes were made for the third round of the programme to include a discovery phase, which allowed time for partnership development and ideation based on learning from earlier rounds of the programme. This was considered critical to the success of projects and their sustainability post-award.	Strong evidence from authoritative sources - triangulated evidence from prior evaluation reports	Overall, moderate confidence in this statement, with the caveat that this is most strongly demonstrated for the Funding Council (QR) investments rather than the GCRF portfolio as a whole, although we do see some weaker evidence for the signature investments (notably the Hubs, IPP).
2	Pass	UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of the pre-application funding provided by partner organisations through GCRF funds.	Hoop	Pump priming/ pre-application funding is used for networking and partnership development activities.	‘Evidence that funding through GCRF QR/block grants has led to the development of relationships between UK-based HEIs and those in LMICs, as well as co-teaching and collaborative research activities.’ (Four Nations report, p.28) 169 hits in 41 documents from Fund-wide survey mention ‘pump priming’ - many of which (approximately one-quarter) mention pump priming in relation to helping to build networks and partnerships. As set out in the RQ++ synthesis report, the Hubs ‘devoted time and resources to developing strong team relationships and to establishing processes to support equitable partnerships’, with an example given of one Hub which developed 34 new funded partnerships. Four Nations report, footnote 24, p.10: ‘“Pump priming” refers to activities that can be used to underpin GCRF and Newton bids to other funders, including relationship building. Funding body GCRF allocations may be used to enable pump priming that will lay the ground for future ODA activity to promote economic development and welfare of developing countries. For more detail see: Funding Bodies GCRF Strategies Proposal, December 2017.’	Strong evidence from authoritative sources - triangulated evidence from prior evaluation reports
3	Inconclusive	UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of the pre-application funding provided by partner organisations through GCRF funds.	Straw-in-the-wind	Pump priming or pre-award investment is seen as an important feature by POs.	The importance of this ‘inception phase’ was also noted in the case of IPP, where changes were made for the third round of the programme to include a discovery phase, which allowed time for partnership development and ideation based on learning from earlier rounds of the programme. This was considered critical to the success of projects and their sustainability post-award.	Only have evidence for IPP, and not until later in the Fund
4	Pass	UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of the pre-application funding provided by partner organisations through GCRF funds.	Straw-in-the-wind	GCRF funding was novel or unique in providing support for pump priming or collaboration building types of activities.	From Four Nations report: the uniqueness of this funding source to support pump priming in the research for development context is also highlighted, and is seen as ‘a distinct feature of GCRF QR/block grants’, with informants noting that it is not easy to get funding for such activities through other routes. It is also noted that there is ‘strong evidence suggesting that projects would not have taken place had it not been for the small allocations to build relationships or pilot data collection’ and that the flexible funding supports the deepening of existing partnerships by ‘enabling researchers to pivot in response to partner needs.’	Moderate evidence - only for the QR funding
5	Fail	UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of the pre-application funding provided by partner organisations through GCRF funds.	Straw-in-the-wind	Pump priming is available across much of the GCRF investment.	Stage 1b synthesis report: at the start of GCRF, where money had to be disbursed very quickly, there was very limited time for partnership development, understanding the context, or the other aspects of equitable partnership development that such resources can enable. This has been highlighted as a challenge and a barrier to partnership development in GCRF, and the consequence was that ‘programmes and institutions were more likely to return to established partners or to those with more resources and experience’.	Strong evidence that this was not the case
6	Pass	UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of the pre-application funding provided by partner organisations through GCRF funds.	Smoking gun	Interviews state that GCRF-funded projects set up equitable international partnerships because of pump priming funding of GCRF.	‘The flexibility to fund e.g. pump priming activities was also seen as a distinct feature of GCRF QR/block grants; informants said it was not easy to get funding for such activities. There was strong evidence suggesting that projects would not have taken place had it not been for the small allocations to build relationships or pilot data collection.’ (Four Nations report, p.35); Evidence from the Four Nations report: GCRF IO interview, p.33 of Four Nations report; ‘While the building of relationships was made easier by pump priming grants, this became more of a challenge when travel was restricted.’ (Four Nations report, p.32)	Moderate evidence but for Four Nations report only
7	Pass	UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of the pre-application funding provided by partner organisations through GCRF funds.	Straw-in-the-wind	Some GCRF investments added these pre-award partnership development stages to their funding schemes based on experience. Pre-award partnership development is seen as positive in supporting equitable partnerships.	From 1b synthesis report: The importance of this inception stage was highlighted for IPP, where learning from earlier rounds led UKSA to add in start-up time and resources to the third funding round as a ‘discovery phase’. This enabled award holders to build up effective understanding of the project context, which programme learning indicated is critical to the success of projects and the ultimate sustainability of the technical solution. [1] The Hubs would also have benefited from a longer inception phase, with the 3 months allocated for set-up post-award proving insufficient to accommodate the unique challenges and processes involved in setting up large-scale challenge-led ODA R&I projects, e.g. partner mobilisation, due diligence and financial disbursement. [2] For the Four Nations programme, time outside of a specific award for relationship building was highlighted as an added value that this more flexible type of funding can provide. [3] Nevertheless, given the innovative nature of these GCRF programmes, all 6 programmes demonstrated responsiveness through learning-by-doing, rapidly improving their processes through implementation, strengthening the potential for excellent ODA R&I. All evaluations highlight the learning-by-doing that took place within the first year of the programmes and the rapid development of structures and processes to deliver on the ambition of the calls. This was often led by awards themselves rather than POs, in response to the challenges to be solved by award managers in setting up complex projects. For example, in GROW, in the absence of more specific guidance, teams designed their own bespoke award governance and management approaches to ensure equitable partnerships, and programme-wide networking and knowledge sharing were initiated by award teams. [1] [BK(SR&I1] POs were widely seen to be responsive and flexible in accommodating new approaches proposed by award holders and refining guidance, and so processes evolved and improved. [2] As noted in Stage 1a, there was no evidence of learning on programme management being shared among POs, which arguably could have accelerated improvements.	Strong evidence from 1b synthesis report
8	Inconclusive	The observed trend of greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a UK university level is because of GCRF structures, foundational principles and requirements (specifically the funding requirement for interdisciplinarity to be an integral part of the research design in the proposals, and the scope and scale of GCRF).	Hoop	GCRF calls for proposals state the requirement for interdisciplinarity.	Broadly this is a requirement, but it is unclear from the evaluation evidence whether this was actively mentioned in specific calls.	No evidence found	Strong evidence of high levels of interdisciplinarity in GCRF, with moderate to strong evidence that the Fund’s characteristics (scale, scope, focus) were driving factors in increasing interdisciplinarity in research for development more broadly.
9	Pass	The observed trend of greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a UK university level is because of GCRF structures, foundational principles and requirements (specifically the funding requirement for interdisciplinarity to be an integral part of the research design in the proposals, and the scope and scale of GCRF).	Hoop	GCRF research is highly interdisciplinary.	Scientometric analysis conducted in Stage 1a of the evaluation uncovered evidence that GCRF has a higher level of interdisciplinarity relative to the UKRI portfolio as a whole as a comparison point. There is also strong evidence of interdisciplinarity highlighted in the evaluation of the signature investments. This is further supported by the RQ++ analysis. Across the 85 awards analysed qualitatively, interdisciplinarity was a core feature for most.	Strong evidence from multiple sources
10	Pass	The observed trend of greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a UK university level is because of GCRF structures, foundational principles and requirements (specifically the funding requirement for interdisciplinarity to be an integral part of the research design in the proposals, and the scope and scale of GCRF).	Smoking gun	Scope/scale of GCRF, or other characteristics, are identified as enablers of interdisciplinarity.	There is also strong evidence of interdisciplinarity highlighted in the evaluation of the signature investments, with clear evidence across the majority of them that the scale and diversity of GCRF were important in enabling UK institutions and POs to focus on challenge-oriented research and broaden participation in development research beyond those with prior experience. In particular, it is highlighted that many participants had little or no prior experience of research for development, and this is also true for some POs (e.g. UKSA). This is reinforced by a UUK survey which found that ODA funding (i.e. GCRF and the Newton Fund) has driven changes at the UK HE sector level in terms of institutional practices and the positioning of development and global challenges. For example, all survey respondents agreed that ‘ODA funds have led to changes in institutional global/international strategies and/or institutional approaches’, with key changes highlighted including ‘more holistic approaches to challenge-led themes and priorities’ with ‘institutional commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals’ and ‘the establishment of cross-disciplinary research institutes and centres aligning with key institutional strengths and themes designed to address pressing global challenges’.	Strong evidence from multiple sources
11	Inconclusive	The observed trend of greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a UK university level is because of GCRF structures, foundational principles and requirements (specifically the funding requirement for interdisciplinarity to be an integral part of the research design in the proposals, and the scope and scale of GCRF).	Smoking gun	UK HEIs state how their projects with partners in the LMIC that received funding from other sources beyond GCRF were less interdisciplinary than GCRF-funded projects.	No evidence identified from previous evaluation work.	No evidence found
12	Pass	GCRF funding requirements have caused UK-based researchers to develop and internalise new practices around equitable partnerships because they received guidance and learning from GCRF cohort members.	Hoop	GCRF documents state that UK-based researchers have developed and introduced certain new practices around equitable partnerships.	We find strong evidence of an increase in UK capacity for partnered research, based on the evidence from prior stages of the GCRF evaluation. For example, there was evidence from the signature investments of global R&I partnerships emerging, with 4 of the investments – GROW, Hubs, Challenge Leaders and Four Nations – highlighting examples of better, more equitable connections than in researchers’ previous experiences of collaboration. This is reinforced by evidence from the Fund-wide survey, which reported positive impacts on R&I partnerships across geographies and disciplines. Equitable partnerships feature in 15 of the prior GCRF evaluation reports.	Strong - triangulated evidence from several evaluations	Strong evidence that GCRF – via peer learning and via influence on documentation and guidance – played an important role in increasing knowledge and emphasis on equitable partnerships in the UK R&I system.
13	Pass	GCRF funding requirements have caused UK-based researchers to develop and internalise new practices around equitable partnerships because they received guidance and learning from GCRF cohort members.	Smoking gun	Interview accounts mention that participants of GCRF-funded projects received some guidance and learning from GCRF cohort members. Interview accounts mention peer-to-peer learning as an important factor in learning about new practices for equitable partnerships.	‘In all 4 nations, GCRF institutional officers (IOs) and principal investigators (PIs) utilised existing support networks to coordinate with colleagues in other institutions. The 3 devolved nations’ funding bodies (Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) were able, to varying degrees, to offer specific support to their cohort.’ (Four Nations report, p.viii); ‘HEIs delivered targeted capacity support to ensure that potential applicants held an accurate understanding of the aims of GCRF funding, such as the principles of equitable partnerships (i.e. ODA excellence) and ODA compliance. One example of targeted support is the “Ethical research with Low/Middle-Income Countries Toolkit” [Reid, C., Calia, C., Guerra, C. & Grant, L. (2019). Ethical Action in Global Research: A Toolkit. The University of Edinburgh. Available at: www.ethical-action.ed.ac.uk/global-research] [] created by the University of Edinburgh. Recognising the unique challenges inherent in forging partnerships within this sector, this toolkit was designed to help researchers think about ethical issues that can exist throughout the life cycle of a global project.’ (Four Nations report, p.17); Interviewee (INT01): ‘leading institutions, meaning those who developed the infrastructure – structures - to manage the GCRF awards first … often shared what they had learnt with other HEIs in the UK’. ‘The enablers that helped HEIs overcome these barriers included the support networks developed within and across HEIs, previous experience or the opportunity to develop this experience through the capacity strengthening support available through the grant funding, and the quality of partnerships established. The flexibility the funding provides was also cited as a key enabler for overcoming barriers in the context.’ (Four Nations report, p.31)	Strong - triangulated evidence from several evaluations, but note this occurs at an institutional (HEI) level and is not seen between POs
14	Pass	UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty, and improve social inclusion/ equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI). They have done this because receiving GCRF institutional funding in three-year blocks provided them with opportunities to learn-by-doing and improve practices over several years.	Hoop	Policy or procedure documents of UK HEIs state that receiving GCRF funds in a three-year cycle was important to help them learn about, and improve their practices on, addressing gender equality/ poverty/social inclusion/equality, diversity and inclusion.	‘Across institutions, there is strong evidence that UK universities have utilised this stream of funding as an effective mechanism to collaborate and share learning. While there is concrete evidence to support an understanding of capacity strengthening across HEIs in the UK, there is less evidence for how this is happening within LMICs.’ (Four Nations report, p.viii); ‘Evidence shows that HEIs have woven GCRF priorities into their strategies alongside a system of governance for assessing applications and monitoring processes and outcomes to ensure both strict ODA eligibility and attention to GCRF priorities.’ (Four Nations report, p.18)	Strong for gender equality (from authoritative sources - triangulated evidence from prior evaluation reports); moderate for the rest of EDI; weak/no evidence for addressing poverty	Overall strong confidence for the evidence from previous evaluation reports; moderate confidence for the interview evidence.
15	Pass	UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty, and improve social inclusion/ equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI). They have done this because receiving GCRF institutional funding in three-year blocks provided them with opportunities to learn-by-doing and improve practices over several years.	Straw-in-the-wind	Interview accounts stress importance of GCRF cyclical funding to learning about - and implementing - specific measures to address gender equality, addressing poverty, and social inclusion/ equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI).	Yes for ODA – not there before GCRF started. When gender equality legislation first started, it applied only to the money that went through FCDO. UKRI developed a gender policy – formed the basis for the more recent DSIT one. This gender policy means that award holders have to write a gender equality statement, in which they need to write about the likely impacts of their award on gender equality. Report on it annually via Researchfish. New at an institutional level. At the level of award holders, many were already familiar with gender equality statements from experience with previous awards/funding. The gender equality plans were rolled out in 2017 or 2018. UKRI started developing their gender policy when they started working with Itad on the Stage 1 evaluation of GCRF (not the foundation stage). They had a lot of discussions with Itad on whether or not to include gender in the ToC; Interviewee pushed back against including it in the ToC because argued that they can’t evaluate something if they don’t have it [gender] as an objective for programmes … policy developed after. Rolled out at UKRI level – simpler than DSIT rolling it out across partner organisations, which is more complicated. Rest of EDI less advanced. UK focused. e.g. when doing surveys, the classifications (for ethnic groups) don’t work in other countries. So on the broader EDI side, the institutions are far less ready than for gender. Any measures to reduce poverty – not at institutional level (R&D-wide) but at programme level (INT01). Another informant in UKRI thinks that the greater strategic and policy emphasis on EDI happened in around 2019, when UKRI started to implement gender equality with regard to ODA funds via GCRF (which started in 2016); more general conversations had already taken place.. GCRF has been used as an example. nterviewee’s team is international (about 100 people) – own strategy in international team. EDI part of that strategy – much of the background and learnings stem from the work that has been done on the GCRF (e.g. implementation of the gender equality compliance procedure and the outputs of that – they evaluated that procedure in 2022). GCRF used as a benchmark or example, like a starting point. We saw increase in % of female PIs from implementing the gender equality compliance procedure throughout the GCRF and the Newton Fund. Data shows that these compliance products that UKRI introduced work. They also raised awareness within their own team. The team had to collect and review gender equality statements from applicants. Implementation of equality impact statements they did for GCRF, and now looking to do it more widely across the board. So the GCRF has helped to improve their processes for the next fund that they have; future funds will learn from these (e.g. ISPF now). Evidence-based – shows what works and what can be taken forward. (INT02, 1 December 2023)	Moderate evidence as 2 interviews, both with people who work in UKRI.
16	Fail	UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty, and improve social inclusion/ equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI). They have done this because receiving GCRF institutional funding in three-year blocks provided them with opportunities to learn-by-doing and improve practices over several years.	Smoking gun	Documentary evidence that specific measures to address gender equality/ poverty/social inclusion/equality, diversity and inclusion have been incorporated into UK HEIs’ relevant policies and/or procedures as a direct result of receiving GCRF funding.	No relevant evidence found.	Failed
17	Inconclusive	GCRF awards have boosted capacities at the systemic level of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem to gain LMIC knowledge and experience because the scope, scale and time frame of GCRF awards meant that awardees were able to sustain community networks, which is often resource-intensive.	Smoking gun	GCRF documents mention the scope/scale/time frame of awards or other aspects of GCRF design being a reason why awardees could develop capacity and sustain networks with partners in the LMIC.	‘The size, scale and scope of the Hubs was cited as a key differentiator of the programme and fundamental for enabling research with development impact. (EQ 6)’ (Stage 1b Hubs process evaluation report, p.82); ‘Evidence from KIIs strongly indicates that the value of the Hubs was seen in the broad and diverse networks they created due to their scale and scope. Consistently informants noted that while they felt individual strands of research could have been funded in some way elsewhere, the difference was in the advantage brought by the size, scale and scope of GCRF. Outside of GCRF, informants felt that funded research would have been “projectised”, less impactful, and without the added benefit of strengthening the capacities of young researchers.’ (Stage 1b Hubs process evaluation report, p.83); ‘The added value of the Hubs’ networks was cited as a key factor in the ability of the Hubs to withstand the impacts of Covid-19 and the ODA cuts. The survival of many partnerships during the cuts is a confirmation of the value of the network. (EQ 6)’ (Ibid., p.84); ‘Post-award, all IPP projects conduct baseline evaluations which enable teams to further explore the wider context and relevance of the awards, bringing in additional knowledge and up-to-date information where relevant, and engaging with stakeholders to determine how the technical solutions will be used in context. Wider stakeholder consultation was prominent within IPP, with 79.1% of award holders stating that external organisations and stakeholders were consulted – including international and national non-governmental organisations (NGOs), national and sub-national governments, public sector organisations, local community representatives and multilateral organisations – supporting relevance.’ (IPP process evaluation report, p.25); One interviewee states that: ‘GCRF was very important, and instrumental. It was a pioneer in putting ODA funding via research system. Some smaller pots of money have happened previously … but such a big fund that was research money was new and triggered those structures being developed in HEIs’.	Moderate evidence for this - only for parts of the investment; authoritative sources, but some evidence slightly tangential	Moderate confidence score – we can suggest that GCRF played an important role in building systemic capacity in understanding R&I systems in the LMIC context. Based on the available evidence, the scale of the Fund likely significantly broadened the range of researchers and institutions familiar with the LMIC R&I context. However, this was not necessarily universal across the Fund.
18	Pass	GCRF awards have boosted capacities at the systemic level of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem to gain LMIC knowledge and experience because the scope, scale and time frame of GCRF awards meant that awardees were able to sustain community networks, which is often resource-intensive.	Straw-in-the-wind	Interview accounts from GCRF awardees note greater (compared to pre-GCRF) capacities across the spectrum of UK R&D ecosystem in knowledge and awareness about LMIC context.	‘These questions are important as GCRF investment has brought many new UK researchers and institutions into contact with development issues and with institutions and researchers in the LMIC.’ (Stage 1a synthesis report, p.30); ‘There are gains to be made in terms of creating new kinds of development expertise and stakeholder relationships in the UK and the LMIC to achieve “ODA research excellence” to accompany R&I excellence, an ambition that was clearly stated in the GCRF vision and strategy. The experience of the Interdisciplinary Hubs, GROW and IPP and other signature investments offers some insights into how these priorities can be balanced.’ (Stage 1a synthesis report, p.74); GCRF ‘brought many new UK researchers and institutions into contact with development issues and with institutions and researchers in the LMIC’ and this has contributed to ‘creating new kinds of development expertise and stakeholder relationships in the UK and the LMIC.’ This lack of prior contextual knowledge prior to GCRF was also highlighted in the Stage 1b synthesis report – with an example from the GROW evaluation highlighting a lack of understanding of the LMIC R&I context, with specific reference to the postdoctoral role – which is integral to UK academic research but not a key feature of many LMIC research systems. This is reinforced by evidence from a UUK study which indicates that ODA funding (comprising both the Newton Fund and GCRF) had led to a ‘greater awareness of developing country challenges through co-creation and equitable partnerships’, noting that several institutions had ‘made significant progress towards building more equitable partnerships with ODA countries’ as a result.	Strong evidence triangulated from authoritative sources
19	Inconclusive	GCRF awards have boosted capacities at the systemic level of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem to gain LMIC knowledge and experience because the scope, scale and time frame of GCRF awards meant that awardees were able to sustain community networks which is often resource-intensive.	Straw-in-the-wind	Unsuccessful GCRF applicants report not being able to create new networks with stakeholders in the LMIC. Evidence that there were challenges in maintaining networks after the reduction in ODA spend.	Beyond the Hubs example highlighted above, there is also evidence that there were challenges in maintaining networks after the reduction in ODA spend, suggesting that GCRF may be playing a key role in the development and maintenance of those networks. It is highlighted that ‘where projects were cut short, a lack of resources to invest in positioning for use and handover affected partnerships’ which ‘had an impact on the sustainability of the partnerships established’. No data available on unsuccessful applicants to GCRF awards for GDPR reasons.	Weak to moderate evidence from authoritative source	Low confidence score because weak to moderate evidence from authoritative source.
20	Pass	The UK academic research community formed new partnerships at institutional and inter-institutional levels and/or with other stakeholders, such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC, because of GCRF’s strategic requirement for grant awardees to plan for impact.	Hoop	Documented evidence of new partnerships formed after GCRF funding disbursed between UK academic researchers and researchers in LMIC and/or with other stakeholders.	Evidence from published stories about partnerships formed thanks to GCRF.	Strong evidence	Confident because triangulated evidence from authoritative sources.
21	Pass	The UK academic research community formed new partnerships at institutional and inter-institutional levels and/or with other stakeholders, such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC, because of GCRF’s strategic requirement for grant awardees to plan for impact.	Straw-in-the-wind	Interview accounts specifically attribute GCRF funding to the ability of UK academic researchers to form new partnerships within their own institution/with other institutions and/or with other stakeholders in the LMIC; interview accounts attribute GCRF funding to new partnerships and the GCRF requirements to plan for research impact.	UKRI has an equitable partnership policy. When they first started out, they looked at equitable partnerships as a priority – oversimplified it a bit, the focus was on the money. Policy change on disbursement to LMIC people because of GCRF. But what they didn’t appreciate, and what was a bigger challenge to overcome, was the reliance that researchers overseas have on UK researchers to put together successful applications for funding. ‘And that I think what I am trying to say is that even if you split the money equally, the power dynamic isn’t necessarily equal between the UK and overseas researchers’. (INT01, 30 November 2023)	Moderate evidence because only one interview
22	Pass	The UK academic research community formed new partnerships at institutional and inter-institutional levels and/or with other stakeholders such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC because of GCRF’s strategic requirement for grant awardees to plan for impact.	Smoking gun	Policy and/or strategic documents and stakeholders cite specific examples of still active, new partnerships with stakeholders in the LMIC stemming from GCRF funding; counterfactual evidence showing the impact of GCRF funding cuts on the sustainability of new partnerships formed between UK researchers and LMIC stakeholders.	‘The Covid-19 pandemic, and the consequent restrictions on travel, posed a barrier, particularly to nascent partnerships. More established partnerships were able to pivot fairly easily to remote working methods to continue their collaboration. In some instances the restriction on travel led to more equitable partnerships, since LMIC researchers took on tasks originally planned for UK researchers to complete. Researchers found it harder to establish ways of working and to build relationships with new partners remotely, a barrier which was not fully overcome.’ (GCRF Stage 1b Synthesis Report, p.71); ‘The cuts resulting from the reduction in ODA spend in 2021 had some negative impacts on partnerships, in terms of both trust and sustainability. Across signature investments, respondents reported that the spending cuts had caused reputational damage and a loss of trust in the reliability of the UK as a research partner. In addition, where projects were cut short, a lack of resources to invest in positioning for use and handover affected partnerships. Both of these aspects had an impact on the sustainability of the partnerships established.’ (GCRF Stage 1b Synthesis Report_PostBEIS_030323, p.71); ‘At the midline evaluation, most projects had not secured the funding needed to ensure that projects would be sustainable.’ (IPP evaluation report, p.41); ‘The ODA cuts had the largest impact on Call 3 IPP projects. These projects had completed their discovery phase but were unable to move into their implementation phase … Interviewees also highlighted the reputational damage for the UK as a result of the ODA cuts … It is unclear whether the Call 3 projects will be able to secure additional funding elsewhere. UKSA are considering whether support can be given to some of the Call 3 projects with small follow-up phases. It is likely that these projects will no longer have an ODA focus but instead will focus on technical development, with a focus on supporting the UK economy and national space strategy.’ (IPP evaluation report, p.51); ‘The cuts to funding of FLAIR award renewals pose a threat to the translation of research outputs into longer-term outcomes and impacts. … However, interviews with award holders highlighted widespread concern over cuts to the funding for the renewal of FLAIR awards, thereby reducing the length of FLAIR fellowships to 2 years rather than 5, and over the complete cut to the funding of third cohort after fellows has been selected. They felt this would, in the absence of alternative sources of funding, severely damage the likelihood of these longer-term outputs being achieved.’ (FLAIR process evaluation report, p.48); ‘Many interviewees spoke in no uncertain terms about the impact of the funding cuts to the UK’s reputation as a reliable partner engaged in sustainable development. One said the cut was a “disgrace and a disaster” in this respect. Another said the cuts have a “negative impact on a generation of African scientists” whose time and energies have been wasted applying to a programme that never came to fruition. This was particularly the case in the third cohort, who were told they had been awarded fellowships which were then removed. The latter expanded on this to say that the funding cuts created an opportunity for other countries, for example Russia or China, to move into these spaces, fund programmes and develop relations that the UK has damaged.’ (FLAIR process evaluation report, p.52).	Strong evidence, including counterfactual evidence showing the impacts of ODA funding cuts on partnerships
23	Inconclusive	Alternative: UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of pre-application funding for networking from other funding bodies beyond GCRF.	Hoop	New equitable international partnerships between UK researchers and LMIC stakeholders exist outside or beyond GCRF and include pre-application support	We did not identify any relevant examples.	No evidence found	Low confidence.
24	Inconclusive	Alternative: UK-based researchers with little or no development experience set up equitable international partnerships because of pre-application funding for networking from other funding bodies beyond GCRF.	Smoking gun	New equitable international partnerships between UK researchers and LMIC stakeholders exist outside or beyond GCRF that are more enduring or successful in terms of research impact compared to those partnerships funded by GCRF.	We did not identify any relevant examples.	No evidence found
25	Inconclusive	Alternative: The observed trend of greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a university level has been caused by non-GCRF factors, such as a change in UK funding bodies’ policies or procedures.	Hoop	There is a wider trend towards increased interdisciplinarity across UK research, particularly in international partnered research (e.g. the Newton Fund).	A UUK survey found that ODA funding (i.e. GCRF and the Newton Fund) has driven changes at the UK HE sector level in terms of institutional practices and the positioning of development and global challenges. For example, all survey respondents agreed that ‘ODA funds have led to changes in institutional global/international strategies and/or institutional approaches’, with key changes highlighted including ‘more holistic approaches to challenge-led themes and priorities’ with ‘institutional commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals’ and ‘the establishment of cross-disciplinary research institutes and centres aligning with key institutional strengths and themes designed to address pressing global challenges’. Suggests the Newton Fund may play a role alongside GCRF.	Weak to moderate evidence. Only one source
26	Pass	Alternative: The observed trend of greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a university level has been caused by non-GCRF factors, such as a change in UK funding bodies’ policies or procedures.	Straw-in-the-wind	There are wider UK funding body policy and practices intended to generate more interdisciplinary research.	Timing of GCRF does coincide with the formation of UKRI which has, as part of its mandate, the intention to increase collaboration and interdisciplinarity in the UK R&I system generally, but not with any specific focus on research for development.	This evidence is authoritative, coming from UK funding agency websites. But link to research for development is weak/unclear.
27	Fail	Alternative: The observed trend of greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a university level has been caused by non-GCRF factors, such as a change in UK funding bodies’ policies or procedures.	Smoking gun	Stakeholder attribute increases in interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development to non-GCRF factors (e.g. wider UK funding bodies policies and procedures, Newton Fund).	Interviews conducted specifically for the UK capacity module strongly support the hypothesis that GCRF is a driver of interdisciplinarity.	Moderate evidence - limited sources
28	Inconclusive	Alternative: UK-based researchers have developed and internalised new practices around equitable partnerships because of a change in emphasis on equity in UK research funding bodies’ policies or procedures, not because of GCRF.	Hoop	Wider policies on equity exist within UK funding organisations that are not linked to GCRF.	UK funding agencies have varied guidance on equitable partnerships. Most funding agencies present a ‘menu’ of guidance from a variety of sources. Most commonly, the UKCDR Equitable Partnerships Resource Hub is linked. This Hub was formed after GCRF began, and appears to be motivated by the primacy of equitable partnerships in GCRF and other similar UK funds (e.g. the Newton Fund). Other resources that are commonly linked include a combination of sources that pre-date GCRF (notably from the global health and development spaces) and sources that emerged post-GCRF and appear (like the UKCDR Hub) to be influenced by GCRF. Some guidance was developed in collaboration with GCRF awardees (e.g. UKCDR Guidance for Safeguarding in International Development Research). Notably, the UKRI also links to several international resources on equitable partnerships (e.g. the TRUST code, developed by a consortium using EU Horizon 2020 funding). Some funders have additional guidance on equitable partnerships (e.g. NIHR, Academy of Medical Sciences) and some recent funding opportunities from these institutions (some from ISCF funding) show considerable emphasis on equitable partnerships (e.g., from the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society and the British Academy: https://raeng.org.uk/media/r3hp0g1b/seed-funding-tranche-18-guidance-notes.pdf). As such, there is a mix between guidance on equitable partnerships influenced by GCRF and guidance which appears to be independent of GCRF. As such, it appears that guidance on equitable partnerships may have arisen within UK funding institutions without GCRF, influenced by international and academic guidelines, but GCRF seems to have accelerated this focus and brought it more into the forefront, particularly among UK funding institutions.	This evidence is authoritative, coming from UK funding agency websites. Across sources (varied UK funding agency websites) there is convergence among what is presented with regard to equitable partnerships (similar sources linked). However, significant evidence that GCRF played an important role in the development of much of this guidance	Moderate confidence that this hypothesis is incorrect.
29	Fail	Alternative: UK-based researchers have developed and internalised new practices around equitable partnerships because of a change in emphasis on equity in UK research funding bodies’ policies or procedures, not because of GCRF.	Smoking gun	Interviewees state that changes in policies and procedures have influenced practice, and that these policies and procedures changed for reasons beyond GCRF.	An informant from UKRI reinforced the role of GCRF in the development of guidance on equitable partnerships, noting that their policy change on disbursement to researchers in the LMIC was ‘because of GCRF’ and that GCRF played a key role as a driver in the development of guidance related to equitable partnerships at the UKRI level.	Weak - only one interview
30	Pass	Alternative: UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty and improve social inclusion/ equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI) because of UK-wide standards beyond GCRF.	Hoop	There are UK-wide standards on these issues beyond GCRF.	INT02 summary, not quote: EDI becoming more significant in strategies, more and more EDI action plans – become more the norm. Athena-Swan very helpful initiative at institutional level. UKRI as funder requires this. Why this emphasis on EDI more prominent? What’s caused this? 2 kinds of reasons – (1) we are obligated (we = UKRI + all publicly funded bodies) to adhere to public sector equality duty, International Development Gender Equality Act; the right thing to do; (2) big push last few years to look into research culture – ‘hot topic’ – underpinning this is EDI. How our research culture fosters equal opportunities and create a right environment for everyone? A shift in attitudes. Recognised and proven that diversity is important for excellent research system. WHEN this change in more emphasis on EDI happened? 2019 UKRI started to implement gender equality (earlier conversations). GCRF has been used as an example. Informant’s team is in the international department – own strategy in international team. EDI part of that strategy – background and learnings stem from GCRF GE compliance procedure and outputs of that (they evaluated that in 2022). GCRF as benchmark, starting point. Saw increase in % of female PIs throughout GCRF and Newton Fund. Data shows these compliance products work. Raised awareness within their team. Through GE action plans (?) that awardees had to submit. Future funds will learn from these (e.g. ISPF). Process improvement. Evidence-based. [INT02, 1 December 2023]	Strong to moderate evidence to support our alternative hypothesis 4 because of UK-wide standards, with the caveat that GCRF contributed to these policy changes in various ways.	Moderate confidence because interview evidence
31	Pass	Alternative: UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty and improve social inclusion/ equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI) because of UK-wide standards beyond GCRF.	Straw-in-the-wind	There are examples of learning resulting from other routes beyond GCRF, e.g. Newton Fund or international networks (e.g. Global Research Council).	GCRF used as a benchmark or example, like a starting point. We saw increase in % of female PIs from implementing the gender equality compliance procedure throughout the GCRF and the Newton Fund. Data shows that these compliance products that UKRI introduced work. They also raised awareness within their own team. The team had to collect and review gender equality statements from applicants. Implementation of equality impact statements they did for GCRF, and now looking to do it more widely across the board (INT02, 1 December 2023)	Moderate strength because just one interview
32	Fail	Alternative: UK HE institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty and improve social inclusion/ equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI) because of UK-wide standards beyond GCRF.	Smoking gun		No relevant evidence found.	No relevant evidence found	No evidence found.
33	Pass	Alternative: Capacities at the systemic level of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem (of which partner organisations are a part) have been boosted in terms of levels of LMIC knowledge and experience because of changes in the scope, scale or time frame of other UK research funders’ awards.	Straw-in-the-wind	Other funds (e.g. Newton Fund) played a role in system-level capacity development.	The Newton Fund played a role in system-level capacity development, with Newton Fund collaborations helping award holders ‘develop a better understanding of the academic landscapes in the partner countries, which would be of value for wider academic collaboration and engagement’. This is further reinforced by survey data, with UK-based respondents on average reporting strong agreement that working in partnership through the Newton Fund had ‘helped the team to develop new skills, including intercultural skills’.	One authoritative source	Strong evidence that other investments may have played a role in capacity development, but does not disprove the main hypothesis.
34	Pass	Alternative: Capacities at the systemic level of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem (of which partner organisations are a part) have been boosted in terms of levels of LMIC knowledge and experience because of changes in the scope, scale or time frame of other UK research funders’ awards.	Hoop	Other relevant funds exist that could have impacted on system-level capacity.	Yes – existence of Newton Fund and other investments from, for example, NIHR and Wellcome.	Authoritative
35	Pass	Alternative: Capacities at the systemic level of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem (of which partner organisations are a part) have been boosted in terms of levels of LMIC knowledge and experience because of changes in the scope, scale or time frame of other UK research funders’ awards.	Straw-in-the-wind	GCRF awards built on existing relationships, implying that that contextual understanding and relationships were in place as a result of prior investments.	Many GCRF awards are built on existing relationships, implying that that contextual understanding and relationships were in place as a result of prior investments. These pre-existing relationships are considered as a contributor to success in GCRF awards – particularly highlighting that the ‘relatively short duration of most awards meant that the researchers who had already worked together could move more quickly into the heart of their research question’. This further emphasises the importance of long-term, sustained funding to establishing contextual understanding and building partnerships, but suggests that this was not universally available across the GCRF portfolio, and where that was not the case the most successful awards needed to build on prior relationships from other funds. The RQ++ analysis found that of the awards reviewed, a ‘significant proportion’ built on existing partnerships and relationships and that those awards building on existing partnerships were more likely to perform well and obtain further funding and were better able to integrate new partners into the research team.	Authoritative, but only applies to some aspects of GCRF (smaller awards in particular)
36	Fail	Alternative: The UK academic research community (at institutional and inter-institutional levels) and other stakeholders, such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC, formed new relationships/partnerships because of a change in UK research funders’ policies or procedures.	Hoop	We see a similar level of increase in new partnerships outside of GCRF as well as within GCRF.	No relevant evidence found.
37	Pass	Alternative: The UK academic research community (at institutional and inter-institutional levels) and other stakeholders, such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC, formed new relationships/partnerships because of a change in UK research funders’ policies or procedures.	Straw-in-the-wind	There are relevant UK funder policies and procedures to drive relationships and partnership development.	The UKRI and the UK government articulate a desire to drive relationships and partnership development in research in the LMIC within strategic plans and and frameworks (e.g. the UKRI area of investment and support for global health, the UKRI International Strategic Framework (published March 2022) and the UK government strategy for international development (published May 2022)). The UKRI strategic plan 2022–27 articulates: ‘Priority 2.1: Strengthen clusters and partnerships – locally, nationally and globally’. Some of these commitments (e.g. the MRC–FCDO concordat agreement to support UK-led biomedical and public health research in LMICs) pre-date GCRF and resulted in significant and enduring research partnerships with Southern partners (e.g. the formation of the MRC units in the Gambia and Uganda). Individual research councils do not appear to have policies related to relationships and partnerships with the LMIC beyond those articulated by UKRI. Similarly, the Royal Society strategic plan 2012–17 includes ‘fostering international and global cooperation’. ‘Society will be looking to strengthen our links with academies, funders and governments in Europe, the US and beyond as well as supporting other countries who are building their own scientific strength, particularly in Africa.’ Although the UK research community indicates the importance of driving relationships and partnerships with the LMIC in strategies and frameworks, this has not been incorporated in relevant UK funder policies. Instead, these priorities are set out in strategies and priorities documents and operationalised through funding partnership programmes via GCRF and similar funds (e.g. Newton Fund, Fund for International Collaboration).	Strong evidence because several authoritative sources mention partnership building with LMIC as a strategic priority, pre-dating GCRF	Overall moderate confidence in this statement.
38	Pass	Alternative: The UK academic research community (at institutional and inter-institutional levels) and other stakeholders, such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC, formed new relationships/partnerships because of a change in UK research funders’ policies or procedures.	Smoking gun	Interviewees attribute new partnerships to other reasons (i.e. wider UK policies and procedures).	Quite a lot of UKRI guidance on partnerships. Efforts in funding calls to develop partnerships (stakeholder engagement, networking) before full proposal stage. Ayrton Fund – will do this. Newton Fund – networking events to bring together LMIC stakeholders and UK researchers. This also called pump priming, pre-application, networking funding. Interviewee not sure when these efforts first started. (INT02, 1 December 2023). There are other funding streams targeted to the LMIC. e.g. the ODA-funded ‘Ayrton Fund’ – clean energy capacity strengthening, work with LMICs. To develop and implement clean techs. Ethos of co-creation and co-development of knowledge. Government-led funding, UK government has committed up to £1 billion between April 2021 and March 2026. Ayrton Fund is jointly managed by FCDO, Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ) and DSIT. Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ayrton-fund (INT02, 1 December 2023); UKRI has an equitable partnership policy. When they first started out, they looked at equitable partnerships as a priority – oversimplified it a bit, focus was on the money. Policy change on disbursement to LMIC people because of GCRF. But what they didn’t appreciate, and what was a bigger challenge to overcome, was the reliance that researchers overseas have on UK researchers to put together successful applications for funding. And that I think what I am trying to say is that even if you split the money equally, the power dynamic isn’t necessarily equal between the UK and overseas researchers. (INT01, 30 November 2023)	Moderate evidence because only 2 interviews (one notes that although UKRI did have an equitable partnership policy, the change that occurred in it about disbursement to LMIC partners was BECAUSE of GCRF, i.e. support for working hypothesis).

Question 22

Annex B. Theory of Change for GCRF

Accepted Answer

Description Source: ‘GCRF Theory of Change update, September 2022’

Question 23

Annex C. Interview protocol

Accepted Answer

Interview Guide: UK Capacity Study

November 2023

Background for the interviewee

Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed for the evaluation of the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), specifically for the module within this evaluation called the ‘UK ODA Research and Innovation Capacity and Benefits study’ that is being undertaken by RAND Europe. This study is part of Stage 2 of the overall GCRF evaluation (undertaken in 3 stages over 5 years, from 2020 to 2025) and aims to provide an assessment of the benefit of GCRF to UK research and innovation systems.

The aim of this interview is to gain a high-level understanding of the extent to which GCRF has contributed to the national interest, and the UK’s ability to deliver cutting-edge research and innovation for development. Insights gained from the interview will help inform the final evaluation of the GCRF.

The ‘UK ODA Research and Innovation Capacity and Benefits study’ will provide an assessment of the benefit of GCRF to UK research and innovation systems, as well as confidence in attribution of these results to GCRF. This module addresses the following aspects of the Theory of Change:

Shorter-term outcomes:
- UK research and innovation organisations’ reputation enhanced as highly capable, equitable partners of choice for low and middle-income countries (LMICs) to deliver challenge-oriented work;
- Changes in research and innovation capabilities for challenge-focused, interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral work.
Longer-term outcomes:
- Innovation and research capabilities improved and maintained in (LMICs and) the UK.

We expect that the interview will last between 30 and 45 minutes. Your participation in this interview is voluntary and you can change your mind at any time. The information that you provide will be treated in confidence by the evaluation team.

We would like to use your inputs and request your permission for the following:

To use the feedback you provide, together with any additional information you choose to disclose (“Information”) for the evaluation study;
We will provide an anonymised version of this and any analysis we carry out as part of the evaluation study with Itad and DSIT, for internal purposes only. However, given the nature of the interview sampling, complete anonymity may not be possible;
The client, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), expects to publish aggregate, unattributed results of the evaluation, which includes analysis of information from these interviews;
We would like to audio record the discussion for analysis purposes, which will be used to help us accurately collect findings for the research. The recordings will be securely stored and retained by us and destroyed by the end of the GCRF evaluation (so by 31 December 2025).

Do you consent to be interviewed on this basis? Yes/no (please delete as required)

Interview questions

As part of our evaluation of the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), we would like to ask for your thoughts on the following questions. We do not expect you to answer all these questions; they are intended as a guide only.

Does UKRI have policies that drive relationships and partnership development with LMIC stakeholders among the UK academic research community? - If so, have these policies changed in the last decade? - Has GCRF been a driver for partnerships with LMIC stakeholders? If so, please describe how.
Do you think that UK-based researchers have developed and internalised new practices around equitable partnerships because of a change in emphasis on equity in UK research funding bodies’ policies or procedures OR because of GCRF?
The UK academic research community formed new partnerships at institutional and inter-institutional levels and/or with other stakeholders, such as NGOs, local government, and/or beneficiaries in the LMIC, because of GCRF’s strategic requirement for grant awardees to plan for impact. - How far was this required? - Was this the driver or were there other trends or drivers towards partnerships with wider stakeholders?
To what extent are there networking awards with LMIC stakeholders beyond GCRF?
Do you think that there is now greater interdisciplinarity in international partnered research for development at a university level? - If so, do you think this has been caused by GCRF or by other factors, such as a change in UK funding bodies’ policies or procedures?
Do you agree or not that UK Higher Education institutions have implemented structures and systems to improve gender equality, reduce global poverty, and improve social inclusion/equality, diversity and inclusion (SI/EDI)? - If you agree, do you think they have done this because of receiving GCRF institutional funding in three-year blocks, which provided them with opportunities to learn-by-doing and improve practices over several years? - Or do you think these changes have occurred because of UK-wide standards beyond GCRF? If so, what role did GCRF play in their development, if any? - Are there other drivers of change in this regard beyond GCRF (please specify)?
Do you agree or not that GCRF awards have boosted capacities at the systemic level1 of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem (of which partner organisations are a part) to gain LMIC knowledge and experience because the scope, scale and time frame of GCRF awards meant that awardees were able to sustain stakeholder networks, which is often resource-intensive? - Do you think that we see greater capacities among the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem because of changes in the scope, scale or time frame of other UK research funders’ awards (i.e. not because of GCRF)?
Are there any documents (either online or internal) that you think would be relevant for our evaluation and that you could share with us as well?

	Findings on new contextual knowledge and experience
Hypotheses	Hypothesis 5: The scope, scale and time frame of GCRF awards meant that awardees could gain contextual knowledge/experience about the LMIC, which led to boosted capacities at the systemic level of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem. Alternative hypothesis 5: Capacities at the systemic level of the UK’s wider R&D ecosystem (of which partner organisations are a part) have been boosted in terms of levels of LMIC knowledge and experience because of changes in the scope, scale or time frame of other UK research funders’ awards.
Strength of evidence to support the hypotheses	Moderate evidence to support the working hypothesis. Strong evidence to support the alternative hypothesis.
Summary of findings	The scale of the Fund likely significantly broadened the range of researchers and institutions familiar with the LMIC R&I context, particularly in larger investments (e.g. Hubs). However, this was not necessarily universal across the Fund, and for smaller awards there is some evidence of GCRF awards building on prior capacity development and investment through previous programmes. Overall, it is likely that the scale and breadth of GCRF was an enabler for the broadening out of this contextual understanding to a whole system level, beyond the pockets of contextual knowledge and experience in collaboration with LMICs that existed previously.
Lessons for future investment	Contextual knowledge and experience are needed for effective partnership development and are associated with positive award outcomes. Developing this knowledge requires sustained investment over time and is not likely to happen with shorter awards in isolation. Future investments may be able to capitalise on the system-level capacity developed by GCRF and fund some shorter-term awards. However, sustaining that system-level capacity and contextual knowledge will require some longer-term large-scale investments.

Cookies on GOV.UK

Executive summary

Approach to the study

Key findings

Capacities for equitable international partnered research

New skills and methodologies

New contextual knowledge and experience

New relationships/partners

Conclusions and recommendations based on these findings

Introduction

Policy context for the study

1.2. Global Challenges Research Fund overview

1.3. Aims of the evaluation

UK ODA capacity and benefits study

2. Methodology

2.1. Approach to hypothesis development and process tracing

2.1.1. Step 1. Scoping phase

2.1.2. Step 2. Review of existing data

2.1.3. Step 3. Development of hypotheses on GCRF’s contribution

2.1.4. Step 4. Analysis of data through process tracing tests

2.1.5. Step 5. Additional data collection

2.2. Strengths and limitations of the study

2.2.1. Strengths

2.2.2. Limitations

Methodological limitations

Limitations of the evidence

3. Findings: benefits to the UK from GCRF

3.1. Mapping the possible benefits to the UK from GCRF

3.1.1. Research and innovation systems capacity for development

Capacities for equitable international partnered research

New skills and methodologies

New contextual knowledge and experience

New relationships/partners

Economic and commercial benefits

Science diplomacy

3.1.2. Hypothesis development

3.2. Capacities for equitable international partnered research

3.2.1. Purpose for selecting the benefit for analysis

3.2.2. Evidence for the benefit

3.2.3. Evidence for GCRF’s pathways to the benefit

3.2.4. The role of GCRF pump priming funding in supporting equitable partnership development

3.2.5. The role of GCRF in promoting interdisciplinarity and bringing new disciplines into the research for development sphere

3.2.6. Development of practices to support equitable partnerships through and outside GCRF

3.3. New skills and methodologies

3.3.1. Purpose for selecting the benefit for analysis

3.3.2. Evidence for the benefit

3.3.3. Evidence for GCRF pathways to the benefit

3.4. New contextual knowledge and experience

3.4.1. Purpose for selecting the benefit for analysis

3.4.2. Evidence for the benefit

3.4.3. Evidence for GCRF’s pathways to the benefit

3.5. New relationships/partners

3.5.1. Purpose for selecting the benefit for analysis

3.5.2. Evidence for the benefit

3.5.3. Evidence for GCRF’s pathways to the benefit

Learnings and discussion

4.1. Reflections

Acquisition of local contextual knowledge through engagement with local communities and stakeholders

Contributing to advancing equitable partnerships

4.2. Lessons learned for future investments

Abbreviations

References

Annex A. Working and alternative hypotheses

Annex B. Theory of Change for GCRF

Annex C. Interview protocol

Background for the interviewee

Consent

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK