From the outset of ACRC, we have recognised the essential contribution of diverse African researchers, including those based in the global North and South. We have also recognised the importance of working with knowledge-rich, city-specific research agencies and other local knowledge leaders.

We believe that it is only through foregrounding African expertise that we can secure our ambitions of better understanding and catalysing inclusive change across cities.

Our approach draws on decades of experience from across the consortium of co-producing research and action research with in-city academics, professionals and community researchers. So far, we have sought to develop and strengthen collaboration in order to deliver the ambitions of ACRC. In the long term, ACRC’s vision will be furthered by a strong group of African researchers, uptake specialists and implementers able to carry forward this approach.

As discussed in a previous blog, the decolonisation temperature check survey and follow-up interviews undertaken in mid-2023 raised a number of insights and recommendations. With some we were able quickly to adjust plans, but with more structural changes, we waited until ACRC transitioned from the initial foundation phase, to the implementation phase earlier this year.

This post attempts to summarise the key shifts we’ve made so far.

1. Localising decision-making and budgets to city managers
Probably the most significant change we’re making during the implementation phase is to give city managers (based within local reform organisations) primary responsibility for determining and developing the portfolio of action research projects within their city. They will also be responsible for the overall allocation of the city budget to undertake this work. While still working closely with SMT and other staff, city managers will ultimately be in control of developing and delivering the ACRC reform agenda within their location.

ACRC’s decentralised governance structure for the implementation phase

2. Promoting African leaders and expertise

City managers will be supported locally by in-city researchers, focusing on community knowledge, politics and urban development. They’ll also have uptake support, as well as administrative capacity to draw upon.  Again, the intention is to both catalyse urban reform processes within the city, and to provide cross-city learning and insights across these areas, which may be relevant for other African cities.

We’re also really proud of the contribution made by our cohort of postdocs during the foundation phase. We were able to appoint seven African research fellows and one with mixed heritage, all on merit. Half of their time was allocated to pursuing their own research interests, with the other half supporting domain work.

3. Co-developing conceptual framework and theory of change

A major criticism of the foundation phase was that too great an emphasis was given to the use of common research concepts, particularly around political settlements and city systems, with too little flexibility for local teams. The implementation phase will see greater freedom for local research teams to devise approaches that will address the problems being targeted.

We’re also planning a workshop in September with in-city research leads, to review and revise both ACRC’s conceptual framework and theory of change. This will be the starting point for co-developing the research approach throughout the implementation phase.

With respect to political settlements, we’ve already identified areas for improvement when it comes to the categorisation of political settlement types within the conceptual framework developed by ESID (Effective States and Inclusive Development research centre). Evidence from our foundation phase research did support the typology’s high-level predictions about the preconditions required for sustained elite commitment to inclusive urban development. However, at a more granular level, there were both similarities and differences in city experiences that it did not explain.

4. Focused work on community knowledge

Each city will have a lead focused on community knowledge, with this area of work coordinated at the consortium level by a dedicated research director (and SMT member). Developing the contribution of community knowledge – and building capabilities of community researchers and academic researchers who want to work more effectively and equitably with communities – will continue to be important.

This will add value to our work and ensure its relevance for poverty reduction and equitable development. It will also offer lessons to others seeking to enhance the contribution of residents to development.

Reflection around the work on acknowledging and integrating community knowledge has already featured in several ACRC-organised spaces. Discussions were organised at both consortium-wide workshops – at a panel discussion in Nairobi, Kenya (2022) and as a roundtable discussion in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (2023).

ACRC-affiliated researchers are also organising a panel at the UK Development Studies Association conference (26-28 June 2024), titled: “Community knowledge in academic research: in pursuit of epistemic justice”. This will cover collaborative research and knowledge co-production, seeking epistemic justice and exploring emancipatory research practices that meaningfully engage low-income and marginalised communities.

We will also continue to look for opportunities to produce communications outputs on the subject of community knowledge and co-production, particularly via the blog and podcast.

5. Additional support for wider ACRC city teams and researchers

To enhance our contribution to urban reform in the seven cities not moving forward to the implementation phase, we are providing transition grants of £40,000 to each city team, enabling them to maximise the impact of work undertaken so far.

And for Africa-based researchers who want to publish their work in high-profile academic journals, we have also set up ACRC’s Visiting Writer and Publications Support scheme. This provides payment, mentorship and, where needed, time and space in Manchester (or elsewhere) for people to develop and write their papers.

6. Ongoing monitoring of localisation and decolonisation

We fully recognise that localising and decolonising ACRC is an ongoing process. While we are excited by the changes we’re making for the implementation phase, this is something we will continue to monitor, reflect on and change where needed.

We’re keen to share our experiences, as we recognise that we are contributing to long-established traditions to nurture equitable research collaborations. And we also want to learn from others who share similar goals.

Header photo credit: Hannah van Rooyen. Group discussion at the ACRC consortium-wide meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in May 2023.

The African Cities blog is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which means you are welcome to repost this content as long as you provide full credit and a link to this original post.

Ever since our initial bid for ACRC, we’ve been discussing how we can better localise decision-making and decolonise knowledge processes. While led from The University of Manchester and funded by FCDO, we’ve sought to prioritise African expertise within the consortium partnership, to increase African leadership within the senior management team (SMT) and to undertake research and uptake activities primarily through local city teams.

During our foundation phase, consortium members identified the potential to further refine our structures, communications and research methodologies. Since then, much has happened behind the scenes – and this post attempts to (briefly) summarise the issues people have raised.

Taking the temperature of ACRC colleagues 

In March 2023, we surveyed everyone involved in ACRC’s foundation phase research and uptake around perceptions of coloniality, knowledge and power, compared to the development industry as a whole. We wanted to better understand the perspectives and actual experiences of people across all 12 cities and eight domains, to inform our future plans and communications.

Comprising a series of 28 questions, the survey was split into four sections: “colonial attitudes”, “knowledge and power”, “who benefits?” and “looking forward”. It was completed by 56 respondents: 39 of Black African ethnicity (35 resident in Africa) and 13 of non-African ethnicity (all resident outside Africa).

Overall, ACRC generally performed better than the development industry as a whole, though on certain issues, a significant minority judged ACRC unfavourably. ACRC’s weakest area was perceived to be imbalances of power over strategic decision-making. Additionally, African respondents tended to have less favourable views of both the development industry and ACRC compared to non-Africans.

However, ACRC could take some heart from the responses on “dignity and respect”, “partnership” and “authority being justified by skills and knowledge”, where most respondents across all ethnicities judged it favourably. This in particular was encouraging and useful with respect to decentralisation plans for ACRC’s implementation phase.

The survey results and implications were discussed at our consortium-wide meeting in Dar es Salaam in May 2023. A more detailed version of the results is available here.

Follow-up interviews

To bolster the survey findings, Edwin Kibui Rwigi (who was a Nairobi-based consultant at the time) conducted a follow-up qualitative study, which sought to explore the reasons people had for their views. Between May and October 2023, he interviewed 18 participants, with questions exploring perceptions of colonial attitudes, power and rewards in the ACRC project.

Overall, the results suggested that ACRC’s temperature check survey and qualitative interview exercise were well-received, and interviewees appreciated the meaningful discussions they sparked. However, there was a consensus that more progress was needed in decolonising practices.

Respondents were concerned about the role of FCDO and potential promotion of British interests in funding research on African cities. Concerns regarding inclusive representation within ACRC’s SMT were also raised. The use of analytical frameworks was viewed as both valuable for cross-comparison but also limiting due to inflexibility in certain contexts.

Overall, there were calls for a more critical and reflexive engagement with knowledge production in the project. Results also indicated concerns around power and interests in the process of identifying potential action research projects for the implementation phase. Compensation was also a contentious matter, with some feeling that the workload and remuneration were disproportionate.

Despite these challenges, respondents remained hopeful that ACRC would address these issues in implementation phase of the project.

Recommendations

The report made a number of recommendations, which SMT has responded to. In short, these are:

1. Define a clear decolonisation agenda

SMT response: We have an agenda that involves diverse actions to support local ownership, decision-making and multiple contributions, but we appreciate that we may not have articulated it clearly enough. ACRC’s decolonisation agenda engages with issues related to colonisation and also considers the manifestation of unequal power relations and their consequences in other dimensions including those related to gender, age and class.

This is a difficult balance. We do not want to diminish the impacts of colonisation, but we do not want other dimensions of adverse power relations to be overlooked. We recognise the importance of a continuing conversation underpinning efforts to structure and support equity. We are keen to revisit the ACRC approach to decolonising research processes once the city-based research and implementation teams are in place for the implementation phase.

2. Engage a diversity and inclusion consultant

SMT response: While we see the merits in this suggestion, the experience of individual members to date is mixed and SMT collectively believes that we would need someone who understands and aligns with our approach to decolonisation. This will be discussed with city managers at the start of the implementation phase.

3. Enhance transparency in city/project selection

SMT response: We take transparency in the selection of cities very seriously. We presented the framework for the selection of cities and projects to the second consortium-wide meeting in May 2023 and received feedback on the experience of the first set of cities with their submissions. We then modified the submission forms to make the process clearer and to facilitate completion. We also made clear both the decision-making criteria and the decision-making process – and will continue to do our best to communicate this with ACRC members.

4. Establish clarity on decentralisation

SMT response: We have committed to a more decentralised process for the implementation phase. This includes both the revision of key frameworks (including the conceptual framework and the theory of change), and the selection and realisation of action research projects in the cities in which we will continue work in the next phase.

5. Improve on-boarding and internal communication

SMT response: We accept that there were gaps in effective communication and knowledge sharing. Starting work during the pandemic reduced the opportunity for initial face-to-face meetings and the staggered phasing of the cities in the foundation phase (due to the UK government’s decision to cut aid) increased these challenges. While we tried to compensate with Zoom meetings alongside written materials and updates, we recognise this wasn’t always sufficient.

6. Adopt city-specific approaches

SMT response: We tried to navigate an approach to research which balances the original ToR from DFID (now FCDO) and the relevance of those ToR to addressing urban programming challenges, with the need for local contextual sensitivity and required flexibility. We recognise the limitations of top-down comparative research frameworks and enabled the domains and city systems teams to take a more flexible approach to political economy and systems analysis.

We remain committed to collaborative endeavours within a meaningful comparative analysis that develops opportunities for cross-city learning and knowledge development. The implementation phase will allow for city teams to pursue more focused interventions that they think will be most effective at catalysing reform.

In addition to these recommendations, we’ve also made a number of other changes to the structure and approach of the ACRC team for the implementation phase. We’ll cover this in the next blog in this series.

Header photo credit: Hannah van Rooyen. Group discussion at the ACRC consortium-wide meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in May 2023.

The African Cities blog is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which means you are welcome to repost this content as long as you provide full credit and a link to this original post.