**Exploring the Effectiveness of International Knowledge Cooperation** An Analysis of Selected Development Knowledge Actors

**Stephan Klingebiel · Flora L. Hartmann · Elisa Madani · Jonas Paintner · Rebekka A. Rohe · Lisa Trebs · Teodor Wolk**

#### Exploring the Effectiveness of International Knowledge Cooperation

"This book is a pioneering attempt to systematically and concretely analyse knowledge actors, focusing on a typology of their modalities of knowledge interaction. Highly recommended for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners."

—Izumi Ohno, *Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Japan* 

"Long gone are the days when modernist development recipes were imposed by foreign experts and organizations on countries and communities in the Global South. Traces of such an approach remain, however, and nowhere more than in the discourses of knowledge transfer and innovation dissemination. The authors in this timely and very accessible book, leaning on a wealth of experiences across the world, expose the diverse modalities of knowledge production and exchange which already occur and probably should occur in the realm of interactions we call 'development'. They emphasize the need for co-production of knowledge, while wisely refraining from replacing one form of modernism by new high-modernist state building projects and their models of knowledge for development."

> —Kristof Van Assche, *Professor Planning, Governance & Development, University of Alberta, Canada*

Stephan Klingebiel · Flora L. Hartmann · Elisa Madani · Jonas Paintner · Rebekka A. Rohe · Lisa Trebs · Teodor Wolk

# Exploring the Effectiveness of International Knowledge Cooperation

An Analysis of Selected Development Knowledge Actors

Stephan Klingebiel IDOS Bonn, Germany

Elisa Madani Frankfurt, Germany

Rebekka A. Rohe Berlin, Germany

Teodor Wolk Frankfurt, Germany Flora L. Hartmann Bonn, Germany

Jonas Paintner Berlin, Germany

Lisa Trebs Bonn, Germany

ISBN 978-3-031-55703-3 ISBN 978-3-031-55704-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55704-0

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2024. This book is an open access publication.

**Open Access** This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © Melisa Hasan

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG

The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Paper in this product is recyclable.

# Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our partner institutions and respective teams for their commitment and constructive contributions: Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), India; Rwanda Cooperation Initiative (RCI), Rwanda; UNDP Seoul Policy Centre, Republic of Korea; GIZ Digitalisation Transformation Centre, Rwanda; GIZ Water Security and Climate Adaptation in Rural India (WASCA), India; GIZ Indo-German Energy Forum (IGEF), India and Germany.

We would especially like to thank all members of our advisory group: Rajeev Ahal (GIZ), Sachin Chaturvedi (RIS), Anne Juepner (UNDP), Ulrich Mueller (GIZ), Christine Nkulikiyinka (RCI), Olaf Seidel (GIZ), Rosine Urujeni (RCI) and Tobias Winter (GIZ).

Furthermore, we would like to highlight valuable comments or comments from the following colleagues: Milindo Chakrabarti (RIS & Jindal University), Yasemin Derebasi (UNDP), Rwangeyo Désire (RCI), Heiner Janus (IDOS), Theresa Joachim (GIZ), Niels Keijzer (IDOS), Ahjung Lee (UNDP), Gichung Lee (UNDP), Bruce Intwali Murangira (RCI), Caroline Ostendorf (GIZ), Debashree Roy (GIZ), Saha Sabyasachi (RIS), Anna Schwachula (IDOS), Lisa Werkmeister (GIZ) and Chris Ziegler (UNDP).

We also benefited from many more colleagues in our partner institutions and beyond—for which we would like to say thank you!

# Summary

#### The Context

This book is about modalities of knowledge interaction within the field of development cooperation. **Knowledge interactions**—interactions between actors in which knowledge is shaped and communicated—are crucial to solving global challenges and lie at the centre of successful and sustainable international cooperation. The 2030 Agenda highlights the importance of including knowledge interaction as a central part of any collaborative project (United Nations, 2015). South–South cooperation agencies place knowledge at the core of their development projects (Chaturvedi et al., 2021), and the OECD's Development Assistance Committee is considering knowledge cooperation as a third pillar of development cooperation, placing it beside technical and financial cooperation modes (OECD, 2011).

Knowledge cooperation has received extensive attention in the development cooperation community, but **not much attention has been paid to the modalities that are used to facilitate and enable knowledge interactions**. Theoretical and practical debates about modalities of knowledge interaction have been ongoing, but a coherent definition and understanding of the concept is lacking. There is insufficient evidence on how such interactions are used in practice, what causal links exist between them, and the quality and effectiveness of knowledge dissemination and (co-)creation.

The present book addresses these issues by focusing on the following research question: *How do development partners realise modalities of knowledge interaction?* 

By using a case-study approach we investigate the modalities of knowledge interaction taking place in six empirical cases:


Our partners share similar mandates, including fostering South–South cooperation and the idea that they can offer advice to stakeholders in other countries based on narratives of their own "development successes". However, they were established at different times and in different contexts.

In contrast to many other studies, we did not look at Official Development Assistance and South–South cooperation separately, but worked across these categories.

#### Methodological Approach

Following a collaborative, empirical case-study design with the partners introduced above, we pursued the ambition not only to do research *about*, but in consultation *with* them. Thus, this analysis is based on an iterative engagement with those institutions. During a ten-week period (14 February 2022 to 22 April 2022), we conducted field-research in cooperation with Rwanda Cooperation Initiative (RIS) and the GIZ projects in Rwanda and India. In the case of the UNDP Seoul Policy Centre, however, a field visit was not possible for logistical and pandemic reasons. Instead, we collaborated online.

We used a qualitative mixed-methods approach for data collection and analysis. This included interviews, participatory observations, surveys, group discussions and workshops. In total, our analysis draws on interviews with 63 experts, 15 participatory observations, 39 surveys and nine group discussions and workshops.

#### Findings

This book provides theoretical contributions to, and empirical findings on, modalities of knowledge interaction.

#### *Theoretical Contributions*


breaking core aspects of effectiveness down into assessable indicators: *Ownership*, *Relationship Dynamics*, *Innovation & Co-creation*  and *Sustainability*.

#### *Empirical Findings*


different levels of different kinds of knowledge. Thus, it is beneficial to actively and explicitly address existing hierarchies in this regard.


#### References


# Contents




# About the Authors

**Prof. Dr. Stephan Klingebiel** is Head of the Research Programme "Inter- and Transnational Cooperation" at IDOS and Visiting Professor at Ewha Womans University (Graduate School of International Studies), Seoul. He was Director of the UNDP Global Policy Centre in Seoul and Founding Director of KfW Development Bank office in Rwanda.

**Flora L. Hartmann** works as a Senior Policy Officer at the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development on climate partnerships. Prior she graduated from the M.Sc. Geography of Environmental Risks and Human Security at the United Nations University (UNU-EHS) and the Postgraduate Research Programme at IDOS.

**Elisa Madani** studied International Management at the Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht in Berlin and the Ecole Supérieure du Commerce Extérieur in Paris. She was part of the Postgraduate Research Programme at IDOS (Germany) and works as a Financial Cooperation Trainee at KfW Development Bank.

**Jonas Paintner** studied Global Political Economy as well as International Development and was part of the Postgraduate Research Programme at IDOS. He works as Senior Policy Officer at the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development.

**Rebekka A. Rohe** studied International Relations (M.A.) in Berlin, Potsdam University, and Jerusalem. She was part of the Postgraduate Research Programme at IDOS (Germany) and works as project lead in the emergency response team of an international children's rights organisation.

**Lisa Trebs** studied Development Studies at the Institute of Development Studies, UK, and was part of the Postgraduate Research Programme at IDOS, Germany. She works as Project Manager with a focus on SGBV in the Great Lakes region at the NGO medica mondiale e.V.

**Teodor Wolk** has an academic background in human- and economic geography and was part of the Postgraduate Research Programme at IDOS, Germany. Currently, Teodor is working as a consultant for FDI and international trade at OCO Global and advises (regional) governments in subjects relating to investment attraction and FDI policy.

# Abbreviations



# List of Figures


# List of Tables


# Introduction

**Abstract** Knowledge interactions—interactions between actors in which knowledge is shaped and communicated—are crucial to solving global challenges and lie at the centre of successful and sustainable international cooperation. The 2030 Agenda highlights the importance of including knowledge interaction as a central part of any collaborative project. The book addresses these issues by focusing on the following research question: How do development partners realise modalities of knowledge interaction?

**Keywords** Knowledge · Knowledge cooperation · Knowledge interactions · Development cooperation · South–South cooperation · Effectiveness

Knowledge cooperation is crucial to addressing global challenges and to achieving international agendas (Akude & Keijzer, 2014; Ayala Martínez, 2017; Freistein et al., 2022; Radhakrishnan, 2007)*.* The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how relevant effective knowledge interactions are to enabling a quick response to emerging crises.

Knowledge cooperation has been used for decades as a modality in development cooperation. As such, it has often been framed as technical assistance and capacity development (Bandstein, 2007; ECLAC and OECD, 2018, p. 42). In contrast, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) considers its own knowledge cooperation as the third pillar of development cooperation "complementing finance and technical assistance" (OECD, 2011). We, however, understand knowledge cooperation as the sum of different modalities of knowledge interaction, which serve as a toolbox to co-create, share and communicate knowledge among actors. The lack of a concise definition and stringent understanding of knowledge cooperation scatters the evidence base on the effectiveness of different modalities in knowledge-related activities. At the same time, there is an increasing need and interest in proving the effectiveness of development cooperation.

Knowledge cooperation increasingly attracts attention due to the rise of South–South cooperation (SSC). Some observers regard knowledge cooperation as the core of SSC or describe it at least as, to a very large extent, a main feature of what SSC agencies do (Chaturvedi et al., 2021; Costa Leite et al., 2021). Through SSC, there has also been a greater emphasis on, and call for, horizontal and demand-driven partnerships. Despite a concomitant shift in rhetoric, it remains open to question whether modalities of knowledge interaction have changed over time to achieve more equal power dynamics in international cooperation. We observe that the toolbox of modalities mainly remains the same (Ayala Martínez, 2017). This is why partners in the Global South are often not convinced that knowledge cooperation in the context of Official Development Assistance (ODA) is the most effective approach and why there is much more to learn from actors in the Global South (Klingebiel, 2014).

Therefore, following a collaborative research design, we want to contribute to this debate by creating case-by-case evidence with our partners: Rwanda Cooperation Initiative (RCI), Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS, India), UNDP Seoul Policy Centre (USPC) as well as three projects of the German Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) in Rwanda and India. The partners share similar mandates, such as the fostering of SSC and the idea that they can offer advice to stakeholders in other countries based on narratives of their own "development successes".

Our partners were established at different times and in different contexts. While GIZ can be regarded as a traditional ODA development agency, USPC shares knowledge on facets of the Republic of Korea's socio-economic development since the 1960s. RIS pursues SSC in the context of India as an emerging power, while Rwanda Cooperation Initiative is a newly established SSC agency based in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The collaborative validation of our findings with our partners was and is important to us for several reasons. Firstly, the power to define and interpret related topics is at the core of the issue itself and related to the question of who sets standards and norms in international relations. Secondly, taking this into account is an integral part of our understanding of how effectiveness dimensions should be developed jointly. Thirdly, this can build the basis for future engagement in inclusive fora towards a shared understanding of good practices. For these relevant processes, our book provides insights into the nature of modalities and indications for quality dimensions. We do so by answering the following research question and sub-questions:

1. How do our partners realise modalities of knowledge interaction?


In answering these questions, our book's contribution is two-fold: it makes both a *conceptual* and an *empirical* contribution. Chapter 2 lays the conceptual foundation by summarising the relationship between knowledge and power structures, defining knowledge interactions, and explaining our understanding of modalities of knowledge interaction, including the typology of modalities we have developed. Chapter 3 sets out the focus of our empirical work by delineating debates around the impact, effectiveness and evaluation of development cooperation, and by presenting the analytical framework we developed as our sensitising concept. In addition, we outline our collaborative case-study approach and explain our case selection. In Chapter 4*,* we introduce the methodological approach we took to data collection and analysis, before presenting our empirical findings in Chapter 5, on a case-by-case basis for RCI, RIS, USPC and the GIZ organisations. In Chapter 6 we summarise our empirical findings across all cases, regarding the constitution of the modalities of knowledge interactions, the effectiveness of knowledge cooperation, and the functions of modalities of knowledge interaction. In our conclusion (Chapter 7) we summarise the overall learnings and provide an overarching perspective on knowledge interactions and power on the micro- and macro-levels, on the effectiveness framework and on knowledge cooperation as such—as a new pillar of international cooperation.

Throughout the research process, we ascribe an important role to critical (self-)reflection. We provide more details about this dimension of the study in Appendix 1.

#### References


*forum on aid effectiveness, Busan, Republic of Korea, 29 November–1 December 2011*. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/busan-partnership-for-eff ective-development-co-operation\_54de7baa-en. Accessed December 8, 2021.

Radhakrishnan, S. (2007). Rethinking knowledge for development: Transnational knowledge professionals and the "new" India. *Theory and Society, 36*, 141– 159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9024-2

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

CHAPTER 2

# Conceptual framework

**Abstract** The chapter introduces the main concepts of our research. Firstly, we expand on the concept of knowledge and argue why it is important to focus on the relationship between knowledge and power structures. Secondly, we explain how power structures manifest in knowledge interactions and how we operationalise this theoretical concept to conduct our empirical research. Thirdly, we introduce the concept of modalities of knowledge interaction and present our typology of modalities of knowledge interaction.

**Keywords** Knowledge · Knowledge cooperation · Concepts of knowledge · Cooperation modalities · Power structures · Typology of modalities

The following chapter introduces the main concepts of our research on cooperation modalities of knowledge interaction. Firstly, we expand on the concept of knowledge and argue why it is important to focus on the relationship between knowledge and power structures when looking at knowledge in development cooperation. Secondly, we explain how power structures manifest in knowledge interactions and how we operationalise this theoretical concept to conduct our empirical research in practice. Thirdly, we introduce the concept of modalities of knowledge interaction and present our typology of modalities of knowledge interaction.

#### 2.1 Knowledge and Power

We see the importance of knowledge in all aspects of daily life: children attend school, people absorb information on gardening or sport exercises from YouTube, and governments look to Silicon Valley when they want to foster a supportive environment for start-ups. Yet, it is impossible to concisely and conclusively define what the term *knowledge* actually encompasses (Evers et al., 2010).

We argue that looking at knowledge from a perspective of power relations, especially in the sphere of development cooperation, helps to better understand what knowledge is, how knowledge interactions between people take place and how they influence people's lives. As Chakrabarti and Chaturvedi (2021) note, the existence of "development disparities" can be explained by variations in different types of resource, such as economic resources—amongst which they count knowledge—and the power to negotiate access to them. Accordingly, development cooperation is crucially premised on access to resources and capability (Andrews et al., 2017; Chakrabarti & Chaturvedi, 2021; De Francesco, 2021). Therefore, it is important to understand knowledge as well as knowledge interactions in development cooperation, and the solutions and capability improvements they are meant to bring about in the context of the asymmetrical power relations shaping them.

First of all, *knowledge exhibits a pluralistic nature*, in which different conceptual understandings evolve over time, co-exist and influence each other (Dolowitz, 2021; Jensen, 2000). Even today, we find the Aristotelian categorisation of knowledge into "experience (*empeiria*)*,* craft (*technê*), and theory (*epistêmê*)" (as cited by Tenkasi & Hay, 2008, p. 52) and the underlying distinction into "a priori" and "a posteriori" knowledge—strongly shaped by Plato's writings on the topic—lying beneath many pseudo-universal definitions and claims about knowledge. When looking at different notions of knowledge globally, it becomes evident how diverse concepts of knowledge evolved at different times and places, and shaped societal development in very distinct ways.

From a historical point of view, different ideas of knowledge do not prevail over and influence humankind in an equal manner (Acharya, 2010). Due to shifting power relations and historical events, some schools of thought have taken a more dominant role than others (Van Assche et al., 2020, p. 25). Most notable is the Eurocentric discourse on knowledge, which has had consequences that reach far beyond Europe's philosophical landscape. Postcolonial scholars highlight that Eurocentric knowledge production has been hegemonic and influential on colonial aspirations (cf. Hostettler, 2014; Lavallée, 2022). The claim to possess universal knowledge and truth and therefore the right to rule the world and "educate" the Global South underpinned the imperialist ethos of the Global North for centuries (cf. Simpson, 2007) and ultimately led to a "suppression of knowledge" (de Sousa Santos et al., 2007, p. xix) that deviated from European conceptions.

In present times, recognition of a diversity of approaches to knowledge is increasing. This is particularly evidenced by the currently widespread conceptual distinction between "global" and "local" forms of knowledge. On the one hand, "global knowledge" describes a universal and generally applicable type of knowledge that is used to solve problems across many different contexts (Ching, 1998, p. 25). "Local knowledge", on the other hand, is regarded as beliefs and everyday practices of place-bound communities (Radhakrishnan, 2007). This kind of knowledge is based on personal experiences, resides within the population directly involved in the matter, and is often not expressed formally (Nygren, 1999). It is the authors' view that only by a combination of "global" and "local" knowledge can development issues be tackled successfully (Kuramoto & Sagasti, 2002).

However, this local–global distinction has also received criticism for reinforcing a (post)colonial dichotomy and unequal power relations. Although it acknowledges diversified views on knowledge and ascribes more importance to them, it yet again creates division and hierarchy by differentiating between knowledge that is only valid in a specific context, i.e. local knowledge attributed to contexts in the Global South, and knowledge that is general and universally true, i.e. global knowledge, which is de facto closely connected to discourses mainly originating from actors in the Global North (Semali & Kincheloe, 1999, p. XV). This is why we emphasise such conceptual drawbacks as well as acknowledging that "global" and "local" knowledge do not exist as such, but that knowledge dynamics are entangled globally.

A wider and more open conceptualisation of knowledge is necessary—one that encompasses the pluralism and diversity of knowledges underlying the practices of different social groups across the globe (de Sousa Santos et al., 2007).

In search of more adequate perspectives on knowledge, we identified three conceptualisations in the literature that proved especially helpful to approach our research subject:

	- *symbol-type* knowledge that can be transferred through passing, signal-like symbols (Collins, 1993, p. 97);
	- *embodied* knowledge that is "contained in the body", such as *embrained knowledge* that has to do with cognitive abilities and the physical set-up of the brain (Collins, 1993, p. 97); and
	- *encultured knowledge*—the dimension of socially embedded knowledge that is closely linked to the discourse on local and global knowledge that was previously introduced.

Taking all this into account, we perceive "the value of knowledge [as] 'entangled' in the specific context in which that knowledge is being simultaneously enacted and produced" (Eklinder-Frick, 2016, p. 235). These different knowledge conceptualisations guide us when taking into consideration the close link between power and knowledge (production), which several authors describe (cf. e.g. Brunner, 2016; Foucault, 1978). Thus, in our research process we take an in-depth look at the *intersubjective component of knowledge that manifests in interaction processes* (e.g. Keller, 2011; Wilkesmann & Wilkesmann, 2011) between individuals, groups, societies and organisations. What constitutes interaction processes and how they can be analysed is what we intend to explain in the following section.

#### 2.2 Knowledge Interactions

Within the context of development cooperation, knowledge interactions shape many forms of cooperation. Technical cooperation, technical assistance, capacity building and capacity development have been dominant terms for activities related to knowledge interactions in the context of ODA from the very beginning. Typically, there is a distinction between free-standing capacity-development activities (for example, addressing reform needs of a public institution in a developing country) and capacity development activities attached to financial cooperation engagements (e.g. road construction with a component to strengthen the road authority in a country) (Klingebiel, 2014).

For us, knowledge interactions describe interaction processes in which knowledge is shaped and communicated. This includes the act of sending, absorbing, processing (Ipe, 2003) but also (co-)creating knowledge. Besides a theoretical focus on individuals as actors (Jensen, 2005; Nooshinfard & Nemati-Anaraki, 2014; Verburg & Andriessen, 2011), it is important to take into account the role of and consequences for their wider setting. Through the engagement of members of organisations and other (societal) groups in knowledge interaction processes, these bigger units can be engaged in similar interactions.

Knowledge interactions can take different characteristics. In general terms, we make a distinction between knowledge interactions as a *transfer*  process and as an *exchange* (Martinéz & Müller, 2017). Here, we see both extreme forms as hypothetical pure types on the opposing ends on a theoretical scale (see Fig. 2.1).

**Fig. 2.1** Knowledge interaction model (*Source* Authors' own figure)

In the case of knowledge interactions as a transfer process, the interaction process itself is characterised by uni-directionality. This hypothetical pure type describes a hierarchical transfer process of knowledge from "knowledge sender(s)" to "knowledge receiver(s)", which can have significant implications for power structures. The knowledge sender actively determines the content of the transferred knowledge, while the knowledge receiver is more passive in the shaping of the interaction and internalises the knowledge of the "sender" (Martinéz & Müller, 2017).

In the context of international cooperation, knowledge transfer has been criticised for its uni-dimensional approach, especially in the context of traditional OECD development cooperation that often focused on knowledge transfer from "donor" countries to "recipient" countries (e.g. Keijzer, 2020, p. 5). In certain situations, however, knowledge transfer is an advantage. Let's take an exemplary country A that struggles with prioritising gender as a cross-cutting issue to promote equality. In order to tackle the issue, it can be of great help for country A to interact with country B, which faced similar challenges in promoting gender equality and now transfers its experiences and solutions to country A.

In the case of knowledge interactions as an exchange, the interaction process is bi- or multidirectional. Knowledge is exchanged mutually and internalised. An example is a forum of international cooperation experts, in which each representative shares their experiences regarding a certain topic. In the theoretical ideal of knowledge exchange, the approach is based on equality, with ownership and possibilities of participation distributed evenly among all actors involved (Martinéz & Müller, 2017), pp. 21–23).

As additional forms of knowledge interactions, literature commonly introduces *knowledge sharing*. Nevertheless, this concept lacks concision and is "constantly evolving" (Ayala Martínez, 2017, p. 19; Paulin & Suneson, 2012, pp. 82–83). It is used as synonym for knowledge transfer as much as for knowledge exchange (Paulin & Suneson, 2012, pp. 82– 83). To apply this to our previous example, the presentation of solutions regarding gender-equality by country B both fall under the category of knowledge sharing—and we lose the opportunity to systematically observe differences between both interactions. For the sake of clear and nuanced analysis, we therefore refrain from the inclusion of knowledge sharing as a separate manifestation of knowledge interaction. Instead, we exclusively concentrate on the exchange and the transfer models—fully aware that reality (almost) never corresponds to the absolute poles of this theoretical conceptualisation but lies somewhere in between.

At the same time, knowledge interactions can be conceptualised in a more fluid manner. Rather than framing knowledge as a separate entity that can be transferred or exchanged (almost like a solid good), this conceptualisation focuses on a *co-creative* process, in which knowledge is formed iteratively and collaboratively between a diverse configuration of actors and expertise (Norström et al., 2020, p. 183). Practically, this means that knowledge creation is not the sum of knowledge of a given actor *x* plus the knowledge of an actor *y*, but that both actors create new forms of knowledge through the interaction with each other. This process equals a *chain of knowledge creation* in which the eventual creation of knowledge also depends on the pre-existing knowledge base of the involved actors. The combination of prior knowledge and the newly created knowledge in turn serves as a "new knowledge base" for subsequent knowledge creation (Shimomura & Ping, 2018, pp. 31–34). Further, the effects of knowledge co-creation and chain reactions of such processes may also go beyond knowledge itself by having lasting effects on the development of inter-personal relations, social capital, economic activities and policy making (Norström et al., 2020).

In development cooperation, these chains of knowledge co-creation can take various forms. While Shimomura and Ping (2018) analyse chains of knowledge creation in "donor-recipient interfaces", they can

also occur in other cooperation modes—be it "donors" and "recipients" or actors beyond this dichotomy, e.g. in triangular development or multi-stakeholder partnerships (Ayala Martínez, 2017).

Contributing to overcoming "traditional" dichotomies in knowledge interactions, Southern actors often claim to play an exceptional role, as they carry context-specific knowledge most traditional donors are lacking. Thus, SSC providers often reflect a diversity of knowledge(s) that they have acquired both as "recipient" and "donor" of development cooperation and in roles in-between or beyond that (Shimomura & Ping, 2018). However, the horizontal encounter of stakeholders and their knowledge is an idealised image. Due to power imbalances in development cooperation, knowledge (co-)creation is dominantly shaped by traditional donors/DAC countries, who often transfer alleged "global" knowledge. Co-creation on more equal terms, however, can be institutionalised in *knowledge partnerships*. Such knowledge partnerships can be regarded as "associations and networks of individuals or organizations that share a purpose or goal and whose members contribute knowledge, experience, resources, and connections, and participate in two-way communications" (ADB, 2011, p. ix). The various forms knowledge interactions can take is what we call "modalities of knowledge interaction".

#### 2.3 Modalities of Knowledge Interaction

In this section we elaborate on the diverse use of the term modalities by different actors and literature around development cooperation. We clarify how we conceptualise modalities of knowledge interaction. Our concept of modalities and our typology of modalities, which we introduce in this chapter, have evolved and informed each other simultaneously.

#### *2.3.1 Definition and Conceptualisation of Modalities*

For us, modalities of knowledge interactions are the forms of cooperation between partners in which knowledge plays the central role, consisting of the meta-modality, modality function, format and activity. Our operationalisation of the term is informed by literature on the multitude of existing interpretations of modalities.

In literature, the term *modality* is used to refer to any possible tool of the toolbox used in development cooperation. Common examples of modalities in the literature are the different forms of financial cooperation, such as budget support, sector programme support, project support or technical assistance in general (Bandstein, 2007; ECLAC and OECD, 2018). Also, South–South and triangular cooperation (TrC) are referred to as modalities of development cooperation (de Renzio & Seifert, 2014; Prantz & Zhang, 2021; Ramos-Rollón, 2021). Along the same lines, individual scholars outline the interchangeable use of "modalities" with "approaches", "tools", "procedures" and "mechanisms" (Lim, 2019), or explain modalities as "how development assistance is agreed between provider and recipient, delivered, monitored and evaluated" (Abdel-Malek, 2015, p. 34)*.* International platforms such as the OECD understand modalities as "approaches to delivering development assistance or to channelling donor support to the activities to be funded" (Lim, 2019) or, more broadly, as "a way of delivering ODA", as described in a blog post of the World Bank (Tavakoli, 2013).

The compilation of the many different uses of the term brings issues to the forefront: *modalities have been used as a term that can describe any form of cooperation; the use of the term is commonly not supported by a conceptual background.* 

To capture the meaning of the diffuse term "modalities" and to operationalise it for our research, we have come up with a concept of modalities (Fig. 2.2) that breaks down the many nuances and the complexity of this term**.** The starting point of the development of our concept was a literature review. This conceptual base was then complemented by our empirical evidence and drafted in an iterative approach.

In our understanding, a modality of knowledge interaction is a multilayered combination of different aspects that make each modality unique. To reduce the complexity, we break down a modality into four different layers that in sum constitute a complete modality:


**Fig. 2.2** Components of modalities of knowledge interaction (*Source* Authors' own figure)

It refers to events or programmes, such as a lecture series, elearning platforms, multi stakeholder dialogues, that are directed at fulfilling modality functions.

(iv) **Modality activity**—This is the lowest level element of modality. Modality activity refers to knowledge interaction processes that combine to form a modality format. This may, for instance, include the activity of meeting and interacting with other actors, such as in workshops, trainings, webinars and discussions.

Since we are solely concerned with modalities of knowledge interaction, the meta-modality for the empirical case selection is set. In this book, we consider modalities that are rooted in the meta modality *knowledge cooperation*.

#### *2.3.2 A Typology of Modalities of Knowledge interaction*

Based on our conceptual definition of modalities presented above and our empirical findings (see Chapters 5 and 6) we developed a typology (Fig. 2.3). This typology combines the modality functions, formats and activities that we have identified in our analysis according to our concept of modalities. Beyond the initial modality concept itself, *context modalities* were also included as a new layer in the typology to highlight that modalities can happen in the scope of SSC, ODA or triangular or trilateral cooperation.




# **Modality Format**

# **Modality Actvites (partcipaton in)**


# **Fig. 2.3** Typology of modalities of knowledge interactions

#### References


Santos (Ed.), *Another knowledge is possible: Beyond Northern epistemologies*  (pp. xix–lxii). Verso. http://www.boaventuradesousasantos.pt/media/Introd uction(3).pdf


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

CHAPTER 3

# Empirical Approach

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

**Keywords** Sensitising concept · Analytical framework · Impact of development cooperation · Effectiveness of development cooperation · Evaluation of development cooperation

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

#### 3.1 Empirical Focus

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

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

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

The main discussion strand at the *macro level* concerns global principles. Two distinct narratives and concepts of development cooperation are emerging here: North–South cooperation (NSC) (or ODA) and South–South cooperation (SSC). NSC received a lot of attention at the first High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, held in Rome in 2002, followed by further meetings in Paris in 2005 and Accra in 2008, where new norms and guiding principles were introduced (Ashoff & Klingebiel, 2014; Bhattacharya & Khan, 2020, p. 15; Keijzer et al., 2020) (Table 3.1). In the Paris Declaration, Southern partners were viewed primarily as recipients, and it was not until the Accra High-Level Forum (HLF) that SSC was included in the discourse on aid effectiveness (Besharati et al., 2015, S. 24). At HLF-4 in Busan, the concept of "development effectiveness" came into focus, and a new platform, the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC), was subsequently established, bringing together traditional donors, recipient countries, "provider–recipient" countries,1 the private sector, civil

<sup>1</sup> Countries that are both providing and receiving development assistance.

society and legislators (Esteves & Klingebiel, 2021, p. 202). Building on the previous HLFs, the GPDEC formulated four principles of effective development cooperation: (i) ownership of development priorities by developing countries, (ii) focus on results, (iii) inclusive partnerships, and (iv) transparency and shared responsibility. However, this platform did not succeed in adequately engaging some of the major emerging development partners, such as China,2 India and Brazil, who still see the GPEDC as too OECD DAC-driven (raising concerns of political legitimacy) and a pretext to force them into an unjust "burden sharing" and the liberal Western aid regime (Bhattacharya & Khan, 2020, p. 18; Bracho, 2021, p. 379; Esteves & Klingebiel, 2021, p. 204).

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

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


*Source* Authors' own table

2 China participated for the first time in the GPEDC at the Effective Development Co-operation Summit in December 2022 in Geneva.

promote a new SSC narrative, such as the RIS-initiated "Delhi Process"3 and the Network of Southern Think Tanks (NeST) (Bracho, 2017, p. 18; RIS, 2013, p. 6).

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

Despite the different historical and political narratives of SSC and NSC, some argue that there are commonalities in terms of cooperation principles (Ali, 2018; Bracho, 2017; Klingebiel & Gonsior, 2020). There are some common elements in the outcome documents of the various relevant high-level fora. For example, both forms of cooperation affirm, at least in principle, the prioritisation of ownership and alignment with the

<sup>3</sup> Beginning with the Conference of Southern Providers in 2013.

priorities of the recipient country (Bhattacharya & Khan, 2020, S. 21). The recognised principles of the Nairobi Outcome Document—namely transparency, mutual accountability, and results orientation—are also very much in line with those of the Paris Declaration and the Busan Outcome Document (Bracho, 2017, p. 28). In addition, there is a rising demand on both the SSC and NSC sides to move towards results orientation and impact assessment, as outlined in the GPEDC principles, and recently in the BAPA+40 (Bhattacharya & Khan, 2020, S. 21). In view of these similarities, some are already arguing that "the practices of traditional donors and Southern providers are converging and beginning to resemble each other" (Fues, 2015, p. 37).

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

#### *3.1.2 An Analytical Framework as Sensitising Concept*

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

#### *3.1.2.1 Process of Designing the Analytical Framework*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Fig. 3.1** Work in progress of the clustering of dimensions, sub-dimensions and forms of expressions (*Source* Authors' own picture)

have different experiences in regard to choosing, realising and evaluating modalities.

#### *3.1.2.2 The Framework*

The establishment of the following framework answers the research subquestion "*How can we define dimensions for effectiveness in knowledge cooperation?*" With the framework, we respond to two functions:


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

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

#### 3.2 Collaborative Case Study Approach

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


**Table 3.2** The sensitising concept of this study

(continued)


#### **Table 3.2** (continued)

(continued)


#### **Table 3.2** (continued)

(continued)


#### **Table 3.2** (continued)

*Source* Authors' own table

process ensures that we not only do research *about* an organisation, but include aspects of interest to them and, to a certain extent, do research *with* them.

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

#### 3.3 Case Selection

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

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

**Fig. 3.2** Map displaying the locations of our partners (*Source* Authors' own figure)

#### References


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Methods for Data Collection and Analysis

**Abstract** In this chapter we elaborate on the methods we use to collect and analyse our data. We followed a multi-method data collection process in which we triangulated data obtained via different collection methods. The methods we use comprise document analysis, semi-structured interviews, participant observations, surveys, and workshops in which group discussions take place.

In this section we elaborate on the methods we use to collect and analyse our data. We followed a multi-method data collection process in which we triangulated data obtained via different collection methods. The methods we use comprise document analysis, semi-structured interviews, participant observations, surveys, and workshops in which group discussions take place. Given our time constraints and travel restrictions, we did not apply all methods in an equal manner to all four cases, but we tailored them to each specific case. An overview of the methods used in our respective cases is depicted in Table 4.1. The case-specific collection methods can be reviewed in Appendix 3; the following text focuses on the general data collection, interpretation and analysis methodology.

© The Author(s) 2024 S. Klingebiel et al., *Exploring the Effectiveness of International Knowledge Cooperation*, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55704-0\_4


**Table 4.1** Methods used in our empirical cases

#### 4.1 Data Collection Methods

We used *document analysis* as a starting point for getting an overview and for triangulating data from interviews and participant observations (Flick, 1991). Documents we analysed included reports, further background material shared with us, website material, newsletters and scientific publications regarding our case studies. Publications on modalities, knowledge interactions and impact assessments were also reviewed. Document analysis was the foundation for every case study we conducted and formed the basis of our additional data collection methods.

Further, we conducted *semi-structured interviews* with stakeholders relevant to our cases. The interviewees were internal and external to our partners. For the interviews, guidelines were developed in a twostep process. In the first step a general interview guide was developed, based on our sensitising concept. This guide can be found in Appendix 4. In a second step, we tailored the interview guidelines according to the particular interviewee, taking into account information we gained from previous interviews, and their individual background, expertise and position.

We conducted the semi-structured interviews in an episodic manner and encouraged narrative elements. By this approach, both questioning and narration are combined to inquire into the personal experiences and values, as well as expert knowledge in specific topics (Lamnek, 2010). By this, contradictions and multi-layered situations may become apparent and recognised (BenEzer & Zetter, 2015). The interviewees were selected through discussions with the focal points of our partners. We asked for staff and stakeholders relevant to our topics of interest who were willing to be interviewed.

In addition, we conducted *participant observations* because they allowed the inclusion of another angle on the activities our partners implement. This method of data collection potentially offers a holistic interpretation in regard to sensing what is not (or cannot easily be) put into words (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2010). The selection of the events we were to participate occurred jointly with our partners. In general, it was felt necessary to analyse both virtual and physical formats. In one case, recorded online events were used as a data source.

The observation process was conducted in a structured manner with the help of observation protocols, the guidelines for which can be found in Appendix 5. These guidelines were designed prior to our observations and resulted from a group discussion in which we agreed upon six relevant blocks for analysis, as shown in Table 4.2.

The considered questions in the protocol and the observation approach were developed and refined iteratively, in the sense that our approach was readjusted after additional input from observations. Every observation was done by at least two members of our team. This allowed for complementarity and increased the extensiveness of our observations, since different observers gain different understandings of what they see (Kawulich, 2005, p. 6). After every observatory participation, concluding impressions, thoughts and reflections were recorded as soon as possible. Special attention was given to assessments of the extent to which our presence as observers might have influenced a situation, whether actors might have changed—or refrained from—their usual behaviour.

In the case of RCI, questionnaires were shared with participants of past events conducted by the partner with the intention of assessing personal experiences of the modalities of knowledge interaction they participated in. This included perceptions of the interaction process itself, its implementation and its effects. The survey was designed based on our sensitising concept and both open-ended and closed questions were


**Table 4.2** Analytical framework for participatory observations

included. To decrease language barriers, we shared the survey in French and English. Both versions are attached in Appendix 6.

We had two objectives with this survey of RCI's past participants. Firstly, we were trying to expand and diversify our view regarding the modalities, their realisation and effects. By predominantly interviewing staff working for our partners and analysing their self-published documents, only their self-perception regarding modalities of knowledge interaction is captured. With surveys sent to external partners, we can go beyond this internal view and gain a differentiated perspective. Secondly, the survey is used to meet our ethical aspirations regarding a collaborative research approach. As elaborated in our chapter on reflections and limitations (see Chapter 2), working collaboratively means overcoming *mono-directional knowledge extraction* (Burman, 2018, p. 56). Our focal person at RCI highlighted the benefits their organisation could gain from us surveying former participants. Based on this, the surveys were designed to assist in the partner's strategic reflection on its modalities of knowledge interaction. To do so, we based our surveys on a mixed-methods approach, including quantitative as well as qualitative components (Ackerly & True, 2010).

And beyond our methods for collecting data, we also conducted validation workshops in order to share our insights with our partners. Within these workshops we conducted presentations and discussions regarding our findings, asked open questions and received valuable feedback.

#### 4.2 Data Analysis and Interpretation of Results

The following paragraphs introduce the analysis and interpretation process of our data. We follow the idea of "investigator triangulation" (Flick, 2004) to limit the bias of "free interpretation" (Mayring & Fenzl, 2014, p. 546). This "collaborative approach" (Given, 2006, p. 58) also strengthens the validity and reliability through intra- and inter-coder congruence in our analysis and interpretation process (Mayring & Fenzl, 2014, pp. 546–547).

#### *4.2.1 Qualitative Content Analysis: Survey, Interviews and Documents*

The data gathered through surveys, interviews and documents was analysed by using a qualitative content analysis approach following Mayring (2015, pp. 70–90). Whereas the data obtained by questionnaires and documents was already available in written form and could be directly used for categorisation, all interviews had to be transcribed as a first step. This was done following content-semantic regulations (Dresing & Pehl, 2018). We conducted a full transcription of the interviews obtained in Rwanda. In the case of the interviews conducted in India, however, only key phrases and words could be transcribed due to time and resource constraints. In a second step, all data material, including interview transcripts, survey answers and selected documents, was summarised and abstracted via the formation of categories through coding (Mayring, 2015, p. 70). The formation of categories included deductive and inductive dimensions. Whereas for the deductive categories we used our sensitising concept as a starting point, the inductive dimensions had to be generated by the interview content itself. For this, we also considered the latent meaning of statements, exceeding "manifested surface content" (Mayring, 2015, p. 32). We did this due to the fact that wording and definitions may be used inconsistently within and across one or more interview(s). Finally, our coded categories were re-reviewed, taking into consideration the starting material (Mayring, 2015, p. 70) as well as the data collected through the other methods.

#### *4.2.2 Validation of Observation Protocols from Participant Observations*

The evaluation of the observation protocols was done by analysing observers' protocol notes made during the observations with respect to our case studies. We used a comparative evaluation approach to provide qualitative assurance by comparing data from the protocols of different observers. We strove to capture a diversity of conditions and effects of different mechanisms (Przyborski & Wohlrab-Sahr, 2014, p. 127). Following Lüders (2004), this approach aims to systematically combine different data and results to arrive at a more "dense" description (Lüders, 2004, p. 400).

#### *4.2.3 Interpretation of Results and Communicative Validation*

We interpreted our results by relating the collected data to our research questions, underlying theories and sensitising concept. By ordering and structuring our data accordingly, we obtained interpretable results that are illustrated in the following section. It is important to highlight that the interpretation process did not, in practice, follow a linear approach. Instead, the process is more similar to a cascade-like iterative process in which our research process was repeatedly reconsidered and partially readjusted based on the results and the interpretations we made. This approach is in line with our ambitions to be exploratory and goes hand in hand with Reichertz's understanding of scientific work as always and necessarily part of the creation of its social and societal context, since researchers always live in the practice they study and co-produce (Reichertz, 2014, p. 70). Crucially, this approach is also in line with our ambition to be exploratory.

After completing the interpretation process, a communicative validation was conducted with our partners, following the approach by Mayring (2018, p. 21). With RCI we conducted two validation workshopsone offline and one online. With RIS, GIZ Rwanda (DigiCenter), GIZ India (WASCA and IGEF) and USPC we conducted one validation workshop each. Beyond the partner-specific communicative validations, we also conducted a final presentation and discussion of results with all our partners jointly. This event offered another opportunity for our partners to interact with and react to each other's contributions.

#### References


Przyborski, A., & Wohlrab-Sahr, M. (2014). *Qualitative Sozialforschung: ein Arbeitsbuch*. 4., erw. Aufl.. München: Oldenbourg Verl (Lehr- und Handbücher der Soziologie).

Reichertz, J. (2014). Empirische Sozialforschung und soziologische Theorie. In *Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung*. Springer Fachmedien.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

CHAPTER 5

# Empirical Findings

**Abstract** In this chapter we present all our empirical cases via the provision of general information, followed by their modality profiles in which we categorise the partner's modalities into modality function, format and activities. Further, we analyse their modalities along the lines of the sensitising concept and the four dimensions: *Ownership*, *Relationship Dynamics*, *Innovation & Co-creation* and *Sustainability*.

**Keywords** Rwanda Cooperation Initiative (RCI) · Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS) · UNDP Seoul Policy Centre (USPC) · Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) · Rwanda · India

In this chapter we present all our empirical cases via the provision of general information, followed by their modality profiles in which we categorise the partner's modalities into modality function, format and activities. Further, we analyse their modalities along the lines of the sensitising concept and the four dimensions: *Ownership*, *Relationship Dynamics*, *Innovation & Co-creation* and *Sustainability*. It is important to note that our empirical findings are largely based on data gathered in interviews, participatory observations, surveys and workshops. In order to guarantee anonymity, we chose not to make explicit references to single data sources.

#### 5.1 Rwanda Cooperation Initiative

In 2018, the Rwandan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation established Rwanda Cooperation Initiative (RCI) with the ambition to strategically engage in SSC and to share Rwanda's innovative development mechanisms with the other countries on the continent and beyond. RCI is a private company owned by the Rwandan government and is based in Kigali. Its official mandate statement is to "promote knowledge exchange and mutual growth", to "advocate for and share innovative development initiatives through South–South and triangular cooperation" (RCI, 2021). Rwanda's ambition is to transition from "least developed country (LDC) to an upper-middle income country (UMIC) by 2035, and a high-income country (HIC) by 2050" (Klingebiel, 2019, p. 2)*.* This is used as a starting point for upscaling its missions and providing insights into practical expertise to other countries.

Rwanda's socio-economic development journey after the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi sparked interest among other African countries who face development challenges comparable to Rwanda (Karuhanga, 2018; Klingebiel et al., 2016; RCI, 2021). Prior to the establishment of RCI, Rwanda's ministries had frequently received various requests for study visits from other African nations to benchmark what Rwanda calls "home-grown initiatives" (HGIs) and best practices. RCI now receives these study visit requests and coordinates them. HGIs have emerged in the post-genocide context, are rooted in societal traditions, and are community-based institutional and organisational mechanisms targeted at social challenges such as social protection, rural development or the handling of genocide related trials. Examples for such initiatives are *Girinka* (one cow per family), *Umurenge* (community savings and credit cooperatives) or *Imihingo* (performance-based contracts) (Rwanda Cooperation Initiative, 2022). Best practices are drawn from other countries and adapted to Rwanda's context, one example being the integrated financial management information system (IFMIS), which enables effective stewardship over public assets and funds (Rwanda Cooperation Initiative, 2022).

#### *5.1.1 RCI's Modality Profile*

RCI uses different modalities to disseminate knowledge. These are study visits, Rwandan experts who work in a foreign country for project implementation, and an online learning platform. RCI's deciphered modality profile, separated into modality function, modality format and modality activities, is depicted in Fig. 5.1.


**Fig. 5.1** Modality profile of Rwanda Cooperation Initiative (*Source* Authors' own figure)

example of someone obtained by this means is a Rwandan expert who works on the improvement of the tax system in Chad.

– **Study visits**: Following the objective to benchmark Rwanda as a role model, state bodies of partner countries request a study visit to Rwanda. All requests are channelled through RCI to **facilitate the study visit** (modality format) by creating a schedule that responds to the requests of the incoming study visit participants and taking care of the logistics. By this, the study trip (modality format) contributes to the *capacity development and policy advisory* (modality functions). The expertise of interest to the study visits lies within Rwanda's ministries. Following RCI's request, relevant ministries within the Rwandan government identify suitable personnel to engage with the study visit participants. A study visit typically includes different modality activities. Examples are field visits, open discussions, presentations, but also informal events, such as cocktail receptions. One integral part of study visits is to teach participants about Rwanda's history and the genocide. To make the Rwandan context easily accessible, RCI currently constructs a virtual exhibition hall about Rwanda's post-genocide development. Usually, study visits take place at short notice, with sometimes only a couple of days between a country's request and the proposed arrival date of the participants. While the study visit takes place, changes to the visit's programme are often made to respond to their evolving demands. Staff of RCI accompany the study visit participants throughout their stay to ensure a smooth procedure. As study visits are the most frequently requested modality, our empirical focus also lies here.

#### *5.1.2 Modality Analysis Based on the Sensitising Concept*

Along the lines of the sensitising concept, the following characteristics of the way study visits are conducted are important.

#### *5.1.2.1 Ownership*

The incoming study visit participants determine the subject they want to learn about, they express their wish to learn from Rwanda's development story and approach RCI themselves. It is hence a very demand-driven process. Also, during the course of the study visit in Rwanda, study visit participants frequently express the wish to look in more detail at a topic, and RCI responds to these requests by making changes to the schedule. RCI ensures that requested study visits take place although due to a high demand they sometimes cannot happen in the requested time frame. This focus on the needs of the study visit participants, and RCI's flexibility in adapting to their emerging demands, demonstrates its commitment to the programme and generates a strong sense of ownership in the participants.

Another aspect of ownership concerns RCI's position in the development cooperation landscape. RCI offers a further option to services in the realm of "traditional" ODA, and is establishing itself as an organisation that decides how they want to present the requested topics of the study visits and, hence, owns its position in the field of development cooperation.

#### *5.1.2.2 Relationship Dynamics*

From our data we have learned that study visit participants perceive their interactions with RCI to be on a basis of equality. The manner in which modality activities are conducted reveals the degree of horizontality: the accessibility to resources and decision-making processes and the dynamic between RCI and an incoming study visit participants. Interestingly, RCI has emphasised that Rwanda can still learn from other countries' experiences; during the participants' interactions with Rwandan institutions this attitude was made very clear. Although RCI and Rwandan ministries have a knowledge advantage on the topics participants study on the visits, our observations and interviews did not indicate notions of superiority on the Rwandan side. In terms of accessibility to resources and decision-making processes, we noticed that decisions concerning the modality formats, such as changes to the study visit schedule, were made *jointly*. The interaction between the study visit participants and RCI's staff was rather informal, WhatsApp being the preferred means of communication. From RCI we have learned that they themselves do not always feel on an equal level when interacting with traditional ODA donors.

#### *5.1.2.3 Innovation & Co-creation*

Study visit participants generally greatly appreciate the quality and learning experience of the study visits, as our survey shows (see Table 5.1).

The survey responses and our observations led us to suggest possible minor improvements that could enhance the already highly rated quality


**Table 5.1** Survey results Rwanda Cooperation Initiative

of the study visits. Since its establishment in 2018, and despite COVID-19 caused travel restrictions, RCI has received more than 200 study visits. As RCI has not yet set up an impact assessment of the study visits, it is impossible to say to which outputs the high number of study visits has led. However, the surveys show that at least some study visits led to a follow up (further collaborative activities).

#### *5.1.2.4 Sustainability*

Social relationships and the spoken word are the main drivers making RCI's services more popular. Concerning financial sustainability, RCI has established a cost-recovery mechanism. It is not intended that RCI makes a profit from the study visits. Only costs directly associated with the study visits, such as logistics, are covered by the participants' organisation. Another aspect of the sustainability dimension is the adaptability of RCI's services. As we have observed through the flexibility in drafting the study visit programmes at short notice, as well as adjustments made during the study visit, RCI tries to respond, as far as possible, to the participant's demands. Since RCI does not yet systematically keep track of its impacts, it is impossible to make a final statement regarding the study visits' longlasting effects. We can say, however, that based on our survey results, the study visits do sometimes lead participants to concrete actions.

#### *5.1.3 Further RCI Specific Aspects*

Rwanda, as a low-income country, has a special position in the landscape of knowledge actors in development cooperation. The global discourse on SSC is dominated by perceptions related to the BRICS states (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and emerging countries. Typical Southern bilateral partners are the Brazilian Cooperation Agency, the China International Development Agency, the Finance Industry Development Council in India and Agencia Mexicana de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (Jing & Naohiro, 2018).

In its own view, RCI has a comparative advantage over the wellestablished SSC actors. As Rwanda's socio-economic transformation has started and is ongoing with minimal economic resources available to it, compared to traditional countries in SSC, fellow low-income countries might relate to the Rwandan example, according to RCI and former participants of study visits (RCI, n.d.). This aspect was also confirmed by our survey, in which similarity in development challenges is stated as a reason why Rwanda is a suitable country to benchmark against. On the African continent, RCI as an institution is unique in its mandate and coordinating role in knowledge exchange.

To the best of our knowledge Rwanda is the only country in Sub-Saharan Africa that has a designated national institution with the function of engaging in SSC via the provision of services.

A confirmation of the relevance of RCI's work is the continuously high demand for study visits by African countries. The systematic and coordinated access to Rwanda's socio-economic transformation is well accepted and seems to cater to a need. In future, RCI strives to engage in forms of triangular cooperation, as written in Rwanda's *Plan for South–South Cooperation Strategy* (RCI, n.d.).

Generally, RCI follows a practical, hands-on understanding of knowledge. It is, in essence, the savoir-faire and the practical application of the HGIs and best practices that is being shared through their services. While RCI is well aware that context matters for the applicability of their approaches, RCI's staff consider the HGIs and best practices as an accumulation of knowledge which can be shared and contextualised. RCI's set goal to become a global gateway for knowledge exchange is partially fulfilled. RCI transfers experiences and knowledge generated in Rwanda, but through its current modalities this does not happen the other way around.

RCI, as a young organisation operating in the disruptive, challenging times of the pandemic, still undergoes changes and is at the crossroads of its organisational development. In early 2022 a new Chief Executive Officer was appointed who will bring new impulses to the organisation. For the long-term prospects of RCI's mandate, effort has to be made to ensure that the content of RCI's services stays relevant. Also, the recurrent question that came up in discussions was whether Rwanda's success factors lie beyond technical knowledge and innovative policies, in its ability to effectively implement laws, and whether the study visits do capture this aspect sufficiently.

#### *5.1.4 Conclusion and Recommendations*

Conclusions and recommendations are twofold and concern strategic aspects of RCI's operations and their position in the SSC landscape.


#### 5.2 Research and Information System for Developing Countries

Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS) is a New Delhi-based policy research institute under the Indian Ministry of External Affairs; RIS was founded in 1983. RIS describes itself as an envisioned "forum for fostering effective policy dialogue and capacitybuilding among developing countries on global and regional economic issues" (RIS, 2022). Generally, the think tank centres around four core research programmes ("Research Pillars") (RIS, 2022), namely: (1) Global Economic Governance and Cooperation, (2) Trade, Investment and Economic Cooperation, (3) Trade Facilitation, Connectivity and Regional Cooperation, and (4) New Technologies and Development Issues. To operationalise and adapt knowledge, RIS increasingly focuses on "spin-offs"—the act of creating a separate entity with employees of the "mother" organisation.

For our research, we specifically focused on the Global Development Center (GDC) as one of these spin-offs. The GDC is a practical knowledge platform that aims to take best practices/core competencies from India's development experience or new ideas from abroad in thematic niches such as health, agriculture, and financial inclusion, and pass them on to partner countries (especially East African ones). The establishment of the centre was funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which provided a grant under the UK-India Triangular Partnership. From a knowledge collaboration perspective, we see that one of GDC's main goals is to build impactful SSC narratives, implement time-tested flagship initiatives that have been successfully established in previous projects, and ultimately contribute to generating (more) public goods. For example, in the area of digital payment systems, during COVID-19, contactless payment was necessary and Unified Payment Interface (UPI), an Indian touch-free payment, developed very quickly and successfully and was then adopted in African countries.

#### *5.2.1 RIS's Modalities Profile*

RIS generally has its own understanding of the term modality. It follows the Indian Development Compact,1 the cornerstone of India's

1 The modalities followed by India in pursuing its South–South Cooperation mission, are referred to as the "Development Compact" in the relevant literature. The idea goes back to Thorvald Stoltenberg's original proposal in 1989 and was later further developed by Arjun Sengupta in 1993. Following, Sengupta's concept of a development compact can be explained as "based on the principles of 'mutuality of obligation' and 'reciprocity of conditionality'. Under the compact, developed countries and international organisations will provide assistance necessary for the successful implementation of development plans in poor countries, while in return developing countries will cooperate in the process through bold reform programmes. In the absence of appropriate capacity within a developing country, the developed countries will be obligated to provide whatever assistance is necessary for developing countries to achieve their targets. The development compact envisages a reciprocal obligation between developing countries and bilateral donors, international organisations and the UN system; hence it will be a country-specific arrangement, development cooperation, and defines its modalities as grants, concessional finance, trade and investment, technology and capacity building (Chakrabarti, 2016, p. 1). Linked to this, RIS conceptualises corresponding modalities. Following our research's iterative and adaptive approach, we discussed our perception of RIS's modality profile with respect to its initial understanding of modalities, and jointly developed the modality profile shown in Fig. 5.2.

RIS's knowledge cooperation is characterised by multiple mandates. On the one hand, it is a *think tank* with analysis and research functions, but on the other hand it acts also as a *do tank* by taking on implementing capacities/activities with its GDC spin-off. At the same time, it is also a training institute and functions beyond that as an implementing SSC agency. In this context, RIS offers a broad and diverse range of knowledge interaction modalities, starting with the modality functions as follows: capacity development, academic knowledge contribution, discourse shaping, policy advisory, topic branding, policy dialogue, identifying community leadership, networking and ecosystem support (see Fig. 5.2).

**Fig. 5.2** Modality profile of Research and Information System for Developing Countries (*Source* Authors' own figure)

instead of a traditional 'one-size-fits all' solution applied across the board to all problems of developing countries" (Chakrabarti, 2016, p. 1).

RIS structures its modality formats according to its own logic, stating that they cannot be separated from each other but have to be problembased and interconnected—mainly for two reasons:


In essence, this means that RIS has its core research pillars and the modality formats are in some way subsequent to the research pillars. In other words: the modality formats and activities follow the thematic focus of RIS. Thereby, each research pillar would typically be the centre of the following modality formats:


Indian Science Diplomacy, academic collaborations with universities, institutions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations (CSOs), and joint projects, events and publications.

#### *5.2.2 Modality Analysis Based on Our Sensitising Concept*

#### *5.2.2.1 Ownership*

Ownership manifests itself in the sense that RIS includes various stakeholders in its modality formats and activities, from Indian ministries, domestic policy actors and CSOs to think tanks, agencies and students as well as practitioners from various countries and many more. In doing so, it is strengthening especially SSC voices in the global cooperation arena. Due to its multiple mandate as a policy research institute primarily reporting to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and at the same time as agency and training institution strongly linked to this variety of actors abroad, the question arises as to how RIS navigates ownershiprelated issues when working between partner country requests and Indian government initiatives. In fact, RIS points here to the Indian Development Compact as the basis of the organisation's work, and *building on ownership* as a core principle of Indian development actors' engagement with partners, thus potentially synthesising aspirations towards ownership held by various stakeholders involved in its activities. Especially notable is RIS's own capacity to shape the international agendas and discourses it is part of, especially regarding SSC, and increasingly also the sphere of triangular cooperation.

#### *5.2.2.2 Relationship Dynamics*

RIS aims for *flat hierarchies* among its partner and open-ended collaboration. However, due to the complexity of such relationships, it is hard to capture the extent to which they also enable a knowledge backchannel from partner countries into India and to domestic actors to effectively take up best-practices or new ideas from abroad. Firstly, RIS, not only wants to take forward what is dubbed "Indian successes" with GDC, but also proven solutions from other countries, with domestic ministries being potential recipients here. Secondly, the case of RIS's special engagement in the state of Madhya Pradesh shows RIS's efforts to increase the sharing of knowledge gained from one state to another within India. In this regard, RIS can play a *mediator role*, taking up knowledge gained from international partners and distributing it domestically through its publications, policy work, trainings etc. In doing so, RIS also tries to bring together different Indian ministries and to break silo thinking, e.g. between the domains of biotech, space, energy and more.

Finally, with a view to face-to-face interactions not being possible, COVID-19 evidently became a challenge for organisational relationships. At the same time, RIS advises on potentials brought about by the pandemic's push for digitalisation in terms of relationship hierarchies in international knowledge cooperation. Without them having to be physically present anymore, the possibilities for knowledge actors in the Global South to gain easier access to science infrastructure in the Global North through the remote use of laboratories, data centres and computation capacity—are potentially opening up. Here, RIS aims to foster possibilities for actors in the Global South to profit from research infrastructure abroad while building up its own domestic capacities.

#### *5.2.2.3 Innovation & Co-creation*

Due to the wide array of different modalities in use and RIS's partially pragmatic and flexible application, the organisation shows *a significant capacity to adapt* to the needs and context requirements in enabling innovative co-creation of knowledge. This agility was especially put to the test during the peak phase of the pandemic—and was thereby further enhanced, beyond the usual capacity of a think and do tank. RIS was at times very directly involved in ad hoc knowledge processing and fast information flows in finding innovative solutions in times of crisis. And while innovating as an organisation itself, RIS at the same time aims to push the (co-)creative capacities of participants in its trainings and programmes. For example, in the IBSA fellowship programme, which promotes academic SSC exchange of young scholars between India, Brazil and South Africa, the idea is for participants to become part of RIS's co-creation cycles and to be supported in jointly writing reports to be distributed via the organisation's knowledge dissemination formats. And this is just one example of several. Finally, even though RIS staff stress the interlinked nature of topics in the area of "development", and the necessity for holistic approaches, the general question still remains whether, in the end, the range of innovation areas the organisation tries to address with its various modalities is too broad to be covered in sufficient depth in every case.

#### *5.2.2.4 Sustainability*

Generally, RIS's significant capacity to use prior resources and adapt modalities is potentially contributing significantly to it achieving sustainable effects. In every regard, RIS and its spin-off GDC, can draw on the institution's long-term relationships, networks and funding potential. When monitoring and evaluating its activities, RIS aims to focus on *qualitative methods of assessment* instead of quantitative indicators. To do so, staff are especially looking at publication activities and policy implementations. They highlight examples of ideas born or accelerated inside RIS and taken up by policy makers or political representatives who explicitly refer to RIS in regard to finding solutions to current issues.

In this regard, RIS works on alternative approaches to capturing *long-term impact*. Here, RIS is also active in discussions about major established forms and indicators of long-term assessments in the sphere of development and in how far they are a concept from the Global North which can and/or should not be adapted to the contexts RIS is working in and on. RIS appears to aim for impact assessment which takes into account SSC principals, a focus on processes (the "how') as well as on performance. All this can be seen as grounded in the principles of the Indian Development Compact—and at the same time many of these aspects are part of already established forms of impact assessment.

#### *5.2.3 Further aspects of RIS*

Five more aspects of RIS make an interesting case. First, RIS is different from other institutions in the development sphere due to its focus on *developing linkages between foreign and domestic policy*. Despite generally being oriented towards external affairs in its primal mandate, it deliberately reaches out, not only to international organisations that have an international footprint and specialise in international relations, but also to partners and target groups that operate at the state level to create synergies. This means fostering an inclusion of global thinking and transnational relations in the thinking and practice of partner organisations such as regional public organisations, universities and CSOs, as well as, conversely, enabling internationally practised ways of knowledge sharing within India among different states. And it is not only Indian states that benefit from this approach. Smaller African countries, for example, can perhaps learn more from the state of Madhya Pradesh than from the nation state of India.

Next, RIS itself *shapes the global discourses* it is part of. For example, RIS both organises the Delhi process2 and actively participates in it, providing expert contributions on issues such as impact assessment frameworks for SSC. Thus, conference attendees can see how theoretical discourse is manifested in practice by RIS.

Further, RIS increasingly becomes *a global gateway*, a focal point for various international discussions. We see this in the context of the G20, for example, to which RIS contributes through research-based policy advice.

Moreover, RIS intensifies its work towards *facilitating knowledgesharing processes*. This means that, in addition to the classical research orientation of a *think* tank, RIS more and more acts as a *do* tank in offering multi-stakeholder activities and trainings, and in engaging with civil society organisations. Part of RIS's increased engagement in this field of action was the creation of the Global Development Center.

And, finally, when looking at its knowledge understanding, RIS focuses on *actionable knowledge*. That is, knowledge that—beyond its theoretical value—is also implementable. Linking this to the results of our analysis of RIS's different modalities of knowledge interaction, it can be concluded that through its inputs, RIS itself predominantly organises knowledge creation, knowledge co-creation and, at the same time, facilitates knowledge exchange.

#### *5.2.4 Conclusions*

In conclusion, modalities at RIS are problem-based and interconnected, since RIS usually works on highly interdisciplinary issues. In its work, RIS explicitly tries to take into account what is known as the butterfly effect, namely that small changes in a complex system can have large effects elsewhere. This means that RIS aims to address development challenges in a multitude of ways and not to neglect seemingly less-relevant aspects of complex development processes. While this approach tries to make sure that underexplored aspects are also properly captured, the question arises whether RIS is taking too many different tasks (*think* tank and *do* tank functions) and parallel issues into consideration, and is too diversified, instead of specialising in selected functions and topics.

<sup>2</sup> The Delhi Process is a series of conferences that brings together different stakeholders to talk about the nature, challenges and way forward of SSC.

Finally, there is also the issue of long-term impact assessment. It was interesting to see that such an influential player, who initiates and covers many topics and reports to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, is still working on providing suitable ways to capture its long-term impact. RIS appears to aim for forms of impact assessment which take into account SSC principals, a focus on processes (the "how") as well as on performance. It remains interesting to see how RIS will use its influential role in SSC to shape this discussion or develop concrete tools for this matter.

#### 5.3 UNDP Seoul Policy Centre

The UNDP Seoul Policy Centre (USPC), based in Seoul, Republic of Korea (ROK), is one of a number of global policy centres of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Its role is to facilitate global knowledge exchange "on innovative and tested-and-proven policy solutions in strategic areas of expertise" (USPC, 2021b).

USPC draws on the development history of the Republic of Korea (ROK), characterised by rapid economic growth and a significant drop in poverty after the Korean War in 1953 (West, 2018). UNDP initiated assistance programmes in the ROK in 1966. In 2010, the country became the first former aid recipient to join the OECD's DAC, and thereafter the UNDP Country Office in the ROK closed. USPC was established in 2011 to share the ROK's development experience with other countries by using the country's expertise to provide innovative development solutions and support to partner countries (USPC, 2019, 2021b). The ROK's "from aid recipient to donor" story is of interest to development actors globally, and particularly actors in the Global South, many of whom show an interest in learning about Korea's success factors (Hong & Izmestiev, 2020; Keijzer, Klingebiel, & Oh, 2022; Kim & Kalu, 2021; Mawdsley, 2012; Prizzon & Calleja, 2019). Additionally, USPC has the mandate to act as a knowledge facilitator, enabling knowledge interactions and connecting stakeholders: both internally to connect institutions and organisations located in the ROK with actors in the UNDP system, and externally to partner with stakeholders from the ROK to work on international issues (USPC, 2021b).

USPC is part of UNDP's Global Policy Network (GPN) and exchanges with different parts of UNDP's structure as well as with the wider UN ecosystem, including the United Nations Office for South–South Cooperation (UNOSSC). The centre addresses several thematic areas; within the area of *Governance*, USPC focuses on Transparency & Accountability as well as Sexual & Gender-based Violence (SGBV). Sustainable Forestry is the focus of the *Resilience* area. The third area, *Development Cooperation*, has two focus themes: Capacity for Addressing the Challenges of Development Cooperation and Non-state Development Actors.

With USPC's vision to facilitate global knowledge exchange in strategic areas of expertise, each thematic area is anchored in the overall UNDP global programme. For instance, as the representative of UNDP in Korea, USPC works closely with GPN, including the teams for gender, governance, rule of law, security and human rights, and for SDG integration, to generate concrete programme results. USPC's substantive engagement in each of these areas is further addressed through USPC's main approach: so-called "SDG partnerships" are the vehicle of collaboration with partners in all thematic areas to foster policy dialogue, research and knowledge sharing on development issues for local adaptation and ownership for sustainability, tapping into countries' knowledge and shared experiences (USPC, 2019). SDG partnerships combine different modality functions, formats and activities.

USPC understands itself as a knowledge facilitator3 that aims to cocreate knowledge with UNDP country offices, partners in the respective partner country and stakeholders from the ROK in the SDG Partnerships (Fig. 5.3).

#### *5.3.1 USPC's Modality Profile*

Analysed through the lens of the modality typology we developed, USPC uses different modality formats and activities that follow different modality functions. USPC's modality profile is depicted in Fig. 5.4.

"SDG Partnerships" is an umbrella term for the collection of the modality formats *study visits, e-consultations* and *experts* combined with *seed funding* and USPC's work with partner countries to implement their own set of policy reform and capacity-building activities*.* As part of SDG Partnerships, USPC uses the different modality formats according to the requests of the respective partner in a UNDP country office

<sup>3</sup> We decided to describe USPC as *knowledge facilitator,* because this allows us to express that it enables and facilitates knowledge interactions between actors involved in the SDG Partnership. These knowledge interactions are mostly geared towards knowledge co-creation for the establishment of new ideas or policy innovations.

**Fig. 5.3** Knowledge co-creation in SDG partnerships (*Source* Authors' own figure)

**Fig. 5.4** Modality profile of UNDP Seoul Policy Centre (*Source* Authors' own figure)

for facilitating knowledge interactions with Korean stakeholders and subject-matter experts.

The partners who benefit are selected on a competitive basis through Calls for Expression of Interest.4 Partners can be government departments, administrative bodies and various kinds of organisations, such as

<sup>4</sup> Calls for expression of interest are soliciting short proposals from UNDP country offices that support their partners in host countries who wish to undertake knowledge exchange activities on chosen topics that fall under the thematic areas of USPC.

the Rwanda Cooperation Initiative (RCI). USPC supported RCI in the establishment of its virtual exhibition by connecting RCI with the Korean Global Knowledge Exchange and Development Centre.

There are two different ways in which USPC matches partner country requests with experts from the ROK. In the *Governance* area, based on the respective thematic focus, USPC brings in relevant experts from the government and civil society in the ROK and they provide collective support for beneficiaries from partner countries. In the *Development Cooperation* area, USPC reaches out to Korean stakeholders according to requests from partners.

**Seed funding is a part of the SDG Partnerships** that USPC channels through the respective UNDP country offices. The seed funding made available by USPC for its SDG partnerships is then mainly used for in-country activities in order to utilise and apply relevant elements from Korean experiences and best practices. Activities include workshops, trainings, (ad hoc) consultancy and more.

Major modality formats are as follows:


include different activities, such as workshops with the function of capacity development, as well as networking events across USPC's partners to learn from each other's approaches on a specific topic, or webinars.


#### *5.3.2 Modality Analysis Based on the Sensitising Concept*

As our data collection focused on the SDG Partnerships in the areas of Governance and Development Cooperation, we analyse the modality formats and activities based on those insights.

#### *5.3.2.1 Ownership*

USPC tries to align its SDG Partnerships towards the demands of its partners. It is the prospective partner institutions that, together with the UNDP office in their country, decide to request a collaboration with USPC. The basic principle of publishing calls for interests, therefore, contributes to ownership on the side of applicants, as they approach USPC with their own specific ideas and thematic focus of interest. Thus, also the implementation through USPC's modality formats and activities follows to a large extent *partners' requests* and builds on *partners' agendas*. This fosters joint determination and requires time and expertise from both sides for successful implementation.

#### *5.3.2.2 Relationship Dynamics*

Through its SDG Partnerships, USPC establishes relationships and enables knowledge interactions between actors from the ROK and partners abroad. There is not much evidence on what part of the knowledge jointly created in these constellations is flowing back to the Korean actors, and the extent to which it impacts their work. It depends on interest and demand on their side. Thus, the intensity of bi-directional exchange varies from partnership to partnership. And interactions can also take the form of activities through which knowledge is mainly transferred from Korean actors to a partner abroad. At the same time, there are examples of bidirectional exchange between the SDG Partnership and Indian actors regarding experiences in SDG localisation, to name just one. Within the realm of the wider UNDP structures, USPC contributes to UNDP internal knowledge exchange, i.e. with UNOSSC or the GPN network for better knowledge management.

#### *5.3.2.3 Innovation & Co-creation*

USPC adopts a *solutions-orientated approach*, with the emphasis on practical applicability of knowledge. It is focused on the area of policy development and improvement. Principally, USPC aims to combine knowledge from actors in the ROK and partner countries. Most importantly, USPC provides access to expertise from the ROK in its thematic working areas. In doing so, partners abroad can use Korean best-practices as benchmarks for domestic policy innovation. As for many policy applications by various actors in different environments, challenges in this regard can arise particularly from limits to partner organisations' capacities, institutional structures and political-economic context. As a consequence, USPC aims to keep its SDG Partnerships flexible enough to amend the work plan during the process.

#### *5.3.2.4 Sustainability*

USPC tries to increase sustainability of the SDG Partnerships' countrylevel interventions through flexibility and adaptability in several ways. First, USPC can extend funding beyond initial project periods and thereby enable *follow-up activities*, if requested by partners. Further, USPC proved its capacity to adapt its mode of working both shortterm and longer-term, as well as in response to external and internal effects. One indicator of this is that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, USPC was able to implement the modality format of econsultations, extensive online training modules in multiple languages, and virtual events as a key element of realising SDG Partnerships in an entirely virtual manner. For instance, USPC produced several series of PowerPoint presentations that had scripts so that UNDP Country Office partners could use those scripts to be translated into the local languages. In some cases, partners even dubbed it and/or made it into a completely new video series in their languages to run their workshops. Another major indicator for adaptability is USPC's willingness and actual practice of experimentation in and beyond its established modes of working. This goes as far as constructively questioning and potentially reorganising its conceptual institutional approach. However, despite this institutional capacity to adapt, quickly changing priorities to match those of its partners poses a real challenge for achieving long-term goals in USPC's partnerships and requires USPC to remain very flexible in response. Nevertheless, USPC's network and the possibility of it pulling in experiences from other UNDP actors supports its systemic approach to development challenges and ultimately gives it the potential to increase the sustainability of its work. Finally, USPC creates a platform for partners from different SDG Partnerships to connect with each other, as, for example, in the case of actors from Rwanda and Bangladesh. This creates multiplier and spillover effects and contributes to the sustainability of USPC's impact. In the case of Rwanda and Bangladesh, for example, this took the form of an exchange on virtual knowledge goods and their sustainable maintenance.

#### *5.3.3 Further USPC Specific Aspects*

One way in which knowledge is regarded at USPC is as ideas and inspirations that need systemic facilitation processes to lead to changes on the ground. Practically oriented and thematically specialised understanding of knowledge drives the work of USPC in trying to make solutions and ideas actionable. USPC considers *knowledge generation as a joint effort*  between partners along its relationship constellation, as we visualised above, and utilises this for policy advocacy, capacity building and local institutionalisation. Ultimately, the knowledge interactions USPC enables are meant to contribute to achieving the SDGs.

In supporting countries from the Global South, USPC is often regarded as being "closer" to these countries' challenges due to the history of the ROK, and it is considered that this could create relatability and better solution finding. It is beyond the scope of our research to evaluate the extent to which this is more than a narrative. What certainly contributes to USPC's attractiveness for actors from the Global South is its experience in working closely on issues relevant in many regions of the Global South.

In comparison to the other UNDP global policy centres**,** USPC's broad-ranging topics cover many different SDG areas. Its wide-ranging mandate for knowledge exchange for the achievement of the SDGs allows for flexibility in the topic selection and toolboxes used (modality formats and activities) for its partnerships. However, more evidence would be needed to assess whether the broad range of topics can lead to segmentation and challenging need for a variety of different subject experts, or whether this thematic flexibility can also be considered a strength of USPC.

Furthermore, USPC has already undergone several "reforming" processes and continues to do so, based on experiences in their work. In that regard, SDG Partnerships are under review and the concept will be transformed. Currently, relatively small budgets are used for the implementation of SDG Partnerships at USPC. Simultaneously, the work input by USPC staff remains relatively high. Administrative tasks, such as linking partners with actors from the ROK, or planning activities such as events remain the same no matter the funding. In this regard, USPC aims to increase effectiveness and sustainability of impacts through going beyond the current form of SDG Partnerships. In fact, USPC's impact potential also considerably depends on budget commitment and political support by its partners' governments at national and local level. The example of the SDG partnership on the topic of Sexual and Genderbased Violence (SGBV) with Indonesia, based on policy consultations, trainings, curated study visit programmes to ensure buy-in from government stakeholders with strategic composition of delegation, and technical studies shows how subsequent funding from the Jakarta city government enabled very direct impact in the form of the establishment of one-stop service centres for SGBV survivors. Crucially, USPC's approach to bringing on board government members with decision power, and to stressing the importance of financing the one-stop centre with 100% government funding during their study visit to Seoul, as well as continued support by USPC and UNDP Indonesia to stakeholders in Indonesia, were part of the success factors. This enabled long-lasting impact based on the knowledge-sharing exercise facilitated by USPC.

#### *5.3.4 Conclusions*

In summary, from a knowledge interaction perspective, USPC places great emphasis on co-creation of knowledge in its modality formats: knowledge within the SDG partnerships is created procedurally and collaboratively with a variety of actors, namely the UNDP country offices, partners in the respective partner country and stakeholders from the ROK. Thereby, USPC takes on the role of a *knowledge facilitator* with functions such as recognising knowledge holders, connecting the right partners with each other, or translating knowledge pieces and knowledge products into action at the local level.

Moreover, the USPC's catalytic and essentially flexible approach is a distinctive feature, leading to changes in its modalities. In a constantly evolving development context with new challenges, USPC's role and mission is to remain adaptive and move towards new issues, rather than just sticking to the tried and tested solutions. But addressing new thematic challenges also prompts USPC to rethink and redesign modalities and activities accordingly. Thus, alongside adjusting the SDG partnerships, USPC explores possible new modalities which might present a better "fit" for working on new topics with new partners. This approach of "constant reinvention" that USPC takes is the foundation of UNDP's Strategic Plan 2022–2025 and is well reflected in the following quote:

Next Generation UNDP builds on our existing assets – worldwide presence, thought leadership, and over 50 years of experience – to help countries and communities respond to a fast-changing development landscape. We are creating new solutions, building collaboration platforms, and sparking new partnerships and instruments for development. These innovations are disrupting the way our organization thinks, invests, manages, and delivers – so we can perform faster and better than ever to accelerate progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. (UNDP, 2022)

#### 5.4 Gesellschaft f ur ¨ Internationale Zusammenarbeit

Part of our analysis relates to three projects of our partner GIZ. One of them, the DigiCenter, is implemented in Rwanda. The other two, WASCA and IGEF, are implemented in India.

#### *5.4.1 Digital Transformation Center*

The Digital Transformation Center (DigiCenter) is a Rwandan-German initiative commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and executed in cooperation with the Rwandan Ministry of ICT and Innovation (MINICT). It opened its premises in Kigali in May 2019 within the scope of the bilateral GIZ project Digital Solutions for Sustainable Development. The Center comprises a central open area for events that can host over 100 people, a developer space with modular interior design to flexibly rearrange tables and screens according to users' needs, a co-working space, and lab areas equipped with virtual reality and electrical engineering technology.

As a project, the DigiCenter aims to train people from different parts of society and enable stakeholders in the digital ecosystem in Rwanda and beyond to better *leverage digital transformation opportunities* and generate sustainable solutions in areas such as Digital Skills, Smart Cities, Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence, Smart Cities, Gaming, Machine Translation, and Cyber-Security.

To do so, four outputs are targeted:


Since its establishment, the DigiCenter's work has been expanded within the scope of four additional global and regional GIZ projects, *Make-IT in Africa, Artificial Intelligence for All*—*FAIR Forward, Africa Cloud*, and in support of *Smart Africa*. Unlike other institutions or many GIZ projects, the DigiCenter enables and participates in knowledge cooperation beyond the context of Rwanda and beyond binary partner structures, mainly through the implementation and clustering of national, regional and global projects.

#### *5.4.2 DigiCenter's Modality Profile*

Analysed through the lens of our modality concept, the DigiCenter uses a variety of different modality formats and activities to realise its modality functions. In Fig. 5.5 we depict the modality profile of the DigiCenter as we differentiate it. The main modality functions are *Operational Support to Partners*, *Capacity Development*, *Ecosystem Support*, *Networking, Policy Advisory*, and *Policy Dialogue*. Our data collection focused on the three modality formats best observed during our research stay in Rwanda: (i) Working Groups—Communities of Practice (CoPs), (ii) Accelerator Programmes, and (iii) Integrated Experts. This selection was decided on jointly with our focal points from the DigiCenter. In addition, the DigiCenter also uses other modality formats to enable knowledge interactions, namely with *Trainings*, *Multi-stakeholder Dialogues*, *Hackathons*  and *Study Tours*.

**Communities of practice (CoPs)**: The goal of a CoP is to serve as a knowledge exchange format/platform to bring together people from the public, private, and academic sectors to exchange ideas and share experiences. Working groups on a particular topic are organised by the DigiCenter, comprising people interested in cybersecurity, gaming, smart cities and robotics, along with professionals from these industries. The


**Fig. 5.5** Modality profile of DigiCenter (*Source* Authors' own figure)

modality consists of activities such as meet-ups, which take place in the form of expert talks, panel events, the showcase of individual projects, as well as the associated networking. The DigiCenter provides the premises, takes care of the event logistics, and makes its staff, expertise and network available for this purpose.

**Experts**: The modality format of integrated experts in this case describes the integration of personnel into a partner institution. Currently, the DigiCenter provides two integrated experts—a national expert from Rwanda and an international one (currently from Germany)—working in the Ministry of ICT & Innovation and the Rwanda Information Society Authority. Through their unique role due to their affiliation to both the DigiCenter and their respective Rwandan institution, the integrated experts form a special link between the two institutions.

**Accelerator programmes**: These target people in start-ups and provide them with a range of interlinked activities on a specific topic—in the case of our analysis on Circular Economy and Smart Cities. Over a period of several months, these programmes combine workshops or trainings, mentoring sessions, networking possibilities, the provision of informational resources and seed-funding.

#### *5.4.3 Modality Analysis Based on the Sensitising Concept*

#### *5.4.3.1 Ownership*

The DigiCenter aims for *demand-driven approaches* in the three modality formats we looked at. In the case of CoPs, the thematic content of meet-up sessions is based on the experiences of best-practice examples of people in the DigiCenter network. Each CoP has a team leader from the community, such as an entrepreneur from the games industry, with whom the DigiCenter collaboratively plans events and who carries responsibility for conceptual development. This approach is supposed to contribute to delivering thematic content that is desired by the community and tailored to the context of Rwanda. However, the DigiCenter is currently tackling two main challenges in relation to ownership. Firstly, currently CoP events attract mainly people from the academic sector, especially students. Thus, the DigiCenter works towards its goal of a plurality of communities, ranging from private sector to government, be represented among CoP event participants. Secondly, so far, the events largely take the form of talks, with rather formal Q&A sessions afterwards and participants have not yet taken the initiative to involve themselves more in co-organising future CoP activities and developing the format further, as ideally envisioned by DigiCenter staff to increase ownership on their side.

Also the modality format *integrated experts* proves the DigiCenter's demand-driven approach towards its counterparts, as it largely follows the needs of the respective Rwandan governmental partner institutions the two experts work for. For example, on the ad hoc request of government institutions, the international expert contributed substantially and swiftly to the development of Rwanda's digital COVID-19 warning system. This and some other examples show that this modality format caters to a great extent to the Rwandan partner institutions' context-specific demands.

The *accelerator programmes*, from an ownership perspective, especially Impact Hub Kigali's engagement in the set-up of a CoP on circularity, makes this partner the driving force in this partnership and this increases the chances of longer-term impact of the programme. Further, in this regard, what could also be interpreted as a high degree of ownership on the side of Impact Hub Kigali is that interviewed participants were generally not familiar with GIZ as the organisation behind the programme. This is a positive sign stemming from the fact that the Impact Hub can implement the programme to a large extent on its own.

#### *5.4.3.2 Relationship Dynamics*

In terms of organisational relationship dynamics, the DigiCenter works collaboratively with partners, based on existing contacts in its network, to organise its CoPs. However, it struggles to newly identify relevant actors and potential co-hosts for the six CoPs, where relations are not yet sufficiently established in the respective industry sectors. Relations with the Rwandan government institutions the two integrated experts work for put the experts in a bridging position and enable bidirectional interactions between the DigiCenter and the respective institution (Rwanda Information Society Authority and MINICT, respectively). From a knowledge perspective, the way this modality format is implemented mainly results in DigiCenter-funded inputs to the two partner institutions. However, there is not enough evidence on the question of how far the modality format's design is geared towards a dynamic where experts also bring their knowledge gained through working in their institutions into the DigiCenter. And the modality format accelerator programmes is characterised by multidimensional networks. In the case of the one on circularity, Impact Hub Kigali describes its relationship with the DigiCenter as cooperation at eye-level and a process of true co-design.

In terms of relationship dynamics between our partner organisations and participants of their modality formats, two general challenges and divergences in perception became evident in the course of our research. First, selecting the right mix of participants is difficult. For example, in the case of CoPs, staff we interviewed diverged in their assessment of whether the current community members' composition was too homogenous or too heterogeneous. Similar backgrounds of meet-up participants can, on the one hand, enable more technical and detailed discussions, but mean less-varied networking possibilities. On the other hand, more diverse backgrounds can stimulate out-of-the-box thinking. According to the reports from the staff, participants from different core areas of expertise cannot follow discussions properly. Second, partner organisations often find themselves in a basic conflict between supporting few beneficiaries/participants intensively versus reaching many more people, but less intensively. For example, in the case of accelerator programmes, the implementing partners would be motivated to increase their numbers of participants. But to deliver their programmes in depth and good quality, they use modality activities, such as one-on-one mentoring sessions. Those activities are resource intensive; they are not very scalable.

#### *5.4.3.3 Innovation & co-creation*

There are three things about the DigiCenter's modality formats that are of particular note.

*Communities of practice* can contribute to building targeted networks in particularly interesting ways by providing physical places for meetups in the DigiCenter's premises, which have state-of-the-art technology. Despite these special networking opportunities, tangible results, technical solutions or new partnerships remain elusive in this modality. The DigiCenter has now created a designated CoP taskforce to address effectiveness questions.

*Integrated experts* contribute significantly to the innovative development of new solutions, with measurable impact. One example is the Mbaza Chatbot, giving access to COVID-19 information throughout Rwanda and developed for the Rwanda Biomedical Center. This is mainly achieved through activities we consider as knowledge transfer in contrast to knowledge exchange. Decisive in developing the Chatbot was the transfer of capacity, new development approaches, and know-how enabled by the international expert and the DigiCenter.

The *accelerator programmes* effectively foster peer inspiration through facilitating trans-sectoral collaboration and exchange of ideas. This is due to the partially heterogeneous composition of the participants' respective business areas and simultaneously the interactive session design, which leads to start-ups engaging in fruitful exchanges across various fields of activity. At the same time, the direct innovative impact potential of the accelerator programmes, so far, is mainly limited to profit-oriented companies as the sole kind of participants' work context. Even though the DigiCenter generally aims to pursue ecosystem support, other important players around the issues of circularity and smart cities besides start-up companies are not targeted as participants of the programmes.

#### *5.4.3.4 Sustainability*

So far, the DigiCenter's monitoring & evaluation (M&E) system does not include explicitly knowledge-related sustainability indicators. However, the Center works towards finding ways to capture long-term impacts of CoPs and accelerator programmes. Challenges in this regard arise from these modality formats' complex mode of action which limits the measurability of concrete results. For instance, it is difficult to track the extent to which an idea born or inspired during an accelerator programme session contributed to a start-up's success at a later point in time. Sustainable impact can generally be expected to materialise only years after completion of a programme cycle, but the programmes are too recent to allow for such follow-up evaluations. Despite these impediments to measurability, it became evident that, generally, long-term effects of the modality very likely depend on the overall commitment of those responsible in partner organisations commissioned with implementing the accelerator programmes.

In contrast, considerable parts of integrated experts' achievements are already visible as outcomes in the form of digital solutions. This modality format is embedded in Rwanda's existing digital ecosystem and makes use of existing resources. However, there are two main challenges to sustainability. First, the changing priorities of the institutions to which they are seconded challenge experts' long-term orientation and require a great amount of adaptability on their side. Second, the integral peopledependency of the modality and the financial integration through the GIZ raise questions regarding the long-term future of the developed solutions and the prevalence of the modality format beyond the funding period.

#### *5.4.4 Further aspects of DigiCenter*

Across the DigiCenter's wide and diverse range of modalities of knowledge interactions, the knowledge cooperation of the DigiCenter is characterised by its two-fold role. On the one hand, it follows a demanddriven implementation role that focuses on the needs of partners. On the other hand, it takes an active role in shaping the structure and direction of its knowledge interactions. Further, the DigiCenter follows a practical understanding of knowledge that centres on skills and capacity development. Linking this to the results of our analysis of the DigiCenter's different modalities of knowledge interaction, it can be concluded that through their inputs, the DigiCenter itself predominantly organises *knowledge transfer*. The focus here lies on the allocation of capacity, skills and know-how through DigiCenter staff or cooperating partners. More generally, the DigiCenter functions as a *physical networking space*  that enables knowledge sharing, knowledge exchange, and knowledge cocreation between the partners and target groups themselves. Therefore, and in addition to transferring knowledge, the DigiCenter also *facilitates* processes of knowledge generation and sharing among partners and participants in its projects. In this regard, the DigiCenter focuses on technical approaches and solutions that principally correspond with the standards and guidance of the BMZ, but at the same time are adapted towards the Rwandan context. Here, the DigiCenter tries to navigate its work based on common interests between both countries' governments.

#### *5.4.5 Conclusions and Recommendations*

In the following, we introduce selected potentials for the three modalities of knowledge interaction we focused on that were mentioned in interviews and discussed during a validation workshop with the DigiCenter:

– **Communities of practice**: Despite the over-representation of students from the academic sector and much less participation from the private and public sectors than hoped for, CoPs have a huge potential for a more balanced gender representation. The possibility of increasing women's participation includes giving them priority on calls or fostering targeted event invitations through word-of-mouth and through platforms used by women in Rwandan tech communities. In addition, long-term participation in CoPs could be increased through establishing a framework giving participants more power to bring in their perspectives and co-determine the direction of future activities.


#### 5.5 Water Security and Climate Adaptation in Rural India

The Water Security and Climate Adaptation in Rural India (WASCA) project aims to *improve water resource management* with regards to water security and climate adaptation in *rural areas of India*. It was launched by GIZ in India in April 2019 with an initial life span of three years and emerged as an enhanced continuation of the predecessor project Environmental Benefits for Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA EB) (2013–2019). The WASCA project is closely linked to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), a public works scheme initiated by the Indian Ministry of Rural Development that guarantees the right to work for India's rural unskilled population while also contributing to asset development such as roads, canals ponds and wells (Babu et al., 2014). As of 5 May 2022, close to 319 million people are employed under the scheme (MoRD, 2022). The overall objective of WASCA is *to enhance water resource management by enabling an evidence and geospatial information-based planning approach for the MGNREGA scheme*. Through consultancy, educational trainings in geographical information systems (GIS) and development of planning tools, WASCA plays a supporting role to MGNREGA. At the same time, the administration under MGNREGA is responsible for its implementation and is using WASCA's input for guidance on sustainable (water) development, economic activities and capacity development. The project attempts to achieve three main outputs:


WASCA operates in four Indian states: Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. In these states, ten pilot districts covering 115 block and 5,345 local administrations responsible for 22 million people have been selected for support through WASCA (GIZ, 2021). Although WASCA has a primary focus on water management, knowledge—its interchange and dissemination—lies at the core of the project activities and is key to achieving its objectives. Due to lack of human resources, knowledge capacities and awareness regarding water management issues on the part of the MGNREGA administrations and rural population, WASCA's activities predominantly focus on addressing these issues by knowledgerelated capacity development. WASCA's project period ended on the 31 March 2022 and was succeeded by WASCA 2.0. Although the exact content of the new project phase is not yet determined, it is intended to build upon and enhance the efforts and achievements made by its predecessor.

#### *5.5.1 WASCA's Modality Profile*

WASCA's modalities of knowledge interaction are a diverse set of functions, formats and activities that are well aligned with each other and accustomed to addressing the issues related to knowledge capacity issues, as stated above. The modality profile of WASCA is depicted in Fig. 5.6.

On the level of modality functions, WASCA focuses on two main areas:

1. **policy advisory**—persuasion and creation of awareness on the value and benefits of GIS-based planning approaches in the government administrations on different levels (from state- to local-level); and

**Fig. 5.6** Modality profile of WASCA (*Source* Authors' own figure)

2. **capacity development**—enhancement of knowledge capacities and technical expertise on science- and GIS-based planning procedures for water management of staff in administrations and rural population.

WASCA's modalities can be further deciphered into five different modality formats:


The following additional activities are undertaken:

– **GIZ internal exchange**: For further intensification of knowledge interactions and synergy-creation, modality formats and activities directed at GIZ-internal exchange between WASCA and other projects are used. Subject-specific exchange platforms and special working groups for natural resource management, climate, biodiversity and gender equality were established in which GIZ staff have monthly meetings for exchanges about current work progress and experiences. Further formalised and long-term collaborations between WASCA and other GIZ activities have been initiated. One example is the close collaboration with the GIZ programme develoPPP, which aims to facilitate new public–private partnerships (PPP) within the WASCA context. Another example is the collaboration with a project focusing on the establishing of community nutrition gardens and self-help women groups.

– **Triangular Cooperation**: Triangular cooperation represents a contextual modality used by WASCA. In the WASCA 2.0 process, WASCA will be involved in a trilateral cooperation with Peru. This transnational cooperation mode is used for the purpose of knowledge sharing and dissemination. Through online workshops and meeting activities with Peruvian and Indian partners, WASCA shares its working experience with knowledge-capacity enhancement measures in water management resources (including the CWRM planning framework, training programmes, and GIS-based planning approach) in India. These activities are, from a knowledge perspective, one sided, with WASCA being the "knowledge sender" and the Peruvian counterpart being the "knowledge receiver".

#### *5.5.2 Modality Analysis Based on the Sensitising Concept*

Considering our sensitising concept, the following aspects about WASCA are important:

#### *5.5.2.1 Ownership*

Prior to WASCA, the MGNREGA administration did not have any structured water management and planning procedures in place. WASCA has made sure in its exit strategy that the administration can conduct a GIS-based approach without further support. WASCA's CWRM framework, the GIS-based planning approach and its capacity building activities filled this gap and enhanced administrators' technical expertise for science-based planning. This allows the MGNREGA administration to steer evidence-based planning processes themselves. During the project, WASCA has chosen to collaborate with local firms and organisations that possess a good understanding of the local context, local dialects, geography and social condition in the operating sites. Also, a scalable and user-friendly design of the GIS-based planning procedures was put in place, which enhances the possibilities for inclusiveness of the local society.

#### *5.5.2.2 Relationship Dynamics*

WASCA is the successor of MGNREGA EB (see above). Its longstanding relationships with partners are built upon its predecessor. Using a wide range of different modalities to connect to different actors that foster long and mutual relationships with each other makes WASCA's knowledge interactions very dynamic and intertwined. Many actors are involved on many different levels and in many different places.

Based on the responses of our interviewees, there is a high level of trust in the work and competencies of each other, lively and frequent interaction dynamics and high transparency between the actors. An important part in creating these conditions has again been the experts who work in the pilot states. In the case of Madhya Pradesh, the expert was located in a state government building next to the MGNREGA administration as well as close to the external consultancy partners. This set good conditions for vivid exchange of explicit and tacit knowledge between WASCA and its partners. Further, (informal) WhatsApp groups were established for digital communication, by which close and trusting ties between the actors were further fostered.

We observed a high accessibility and high transparency, especially between WASCA, the MGNREGA administration, the consultancies and NGOs. The accessibility to decisions and transparency of private actors is, however, rather limited. Although they have successfully established PPPs between the MGNREGA administration and a few private actors through the develoPPP programme (including Mars Cooperation, Symrise and several farmer producer organisations), our interviewees commented that private actors are usually rarely drawn into participation in WASCA, since they lack interest in investing in remote rural areas and possess a different approach and mind-set for water management and planning procedures which is opposed to public actors.

Finally, WASCA has also contributed to more participatory decisionmaking procedures, driven from the bottom up, and transparency between external actors. By implementing user-friendly open source GISapproaches to water management and planning, the planning procedure from state- to local-level is enhanced and gives local administrations more abilities to identify and address pressing issues. The digital and quantitative data foundation generated by its activities furthermore led to an increased bottom-up planning procedure, in which particular demands from the local level could be adequately addressed**.** 

#### *5.5.2.3 Innovation & Co-creation*

WASCA facilitated an intense learning and capacity development process for all levels of administration in the pilot states through its large-scale training programmes in GIS. Due to its successful implementation in a few selected rural pilot areas in the states, the central Indian government is striving to expand the WASCAs approach to all states across all agroecological zones.

WASCA facilitates further learning and co-creation processes across states. In the case of the WASCA team in Rajasthan, for example, the GIZ internal exchange platform on natural resource management led to a collaboration with experts working on agriculture issues with plantation methods in Tamil Nadu. Experts from Tamil Nadu travelled to Rajasthan to learn about measurement indicators for water resource management that were developed by the local experts in Rajasthan, while at the same time sharing with Rajasthan new plantation techniques that could be integrated into WASCAs state-specific activities.

A core challenge for learning and co-creation through WASCA is the rotation of state officials in the MGNREGA administration. State officials in the Indian administration follow a rotating system in which they change their workplace every few years. As one interviewee mentioned, this circulation of officials dampens the commitment and enthusiasm for learning. Additionally, it also causes a "loss" of knowledge once the official has left**.** 

#### *5.5.2.4 Sustainability*

Viewing WASCA from a sustainability perspective, three aspects become apparent. First, WASCA contributes to an increased sustainability in the administration through project alignment across different ministries and a greater coherence. A common issue within the Indian administration is that many different ministries operate according to their mandate, without paying much attention to possible synergy effects and existing resources in other ministries and areas of the government. WASCA has set itself the ambition to break "silos" across ministries and topics and move towards a more holistic approach of addressing water- and climaterelated planning issues. In Madhya Pradesh, for instance, WASCA's expert put a lot of effort into increasing the dialogue and coherence between the Public Health Engineering department and the Ministry for Environment, Forest and Climate Change. By utilising WASCA's focus on water security and climate adaptation, a foundation for a closer collaboration between the two ministries was set.

Second, WASCA has also contributed to sustainability, by its easily accessible science- and GIS-based planning approach. Since the GIS-based planning approach is designed to be user-friendly, only using easy accessibly and open-source software and data, there is the potential for more structured planning processes for water and beyond that can persist in time.

Third, the extensive use of local resources also contributes to sustainability. WASCA chooses to collaborate with local consultancies and NGOs that are familiar with local languages, geography and social conditions. By doing that, the project is working for the enhancement of local in-house capacities and through that an enhancement of local self-sustainability.

#### *5.5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations*

WASCA has had a wide reach and large impact on the working procedures of the administration of MGNREGA. Having operated for three years in four pilot states, WASCA was able to make a significant contribution to water security and climate adaptation measures through its CWRM planning framework and its science and GIS-based planning approach. As a result of WASCAs success, the national government is open to a nationwide scale up of WASCA's planning approaches.

WASCA's modalities of knowledge interactions have played a crucial role in this by facilitating knowledge interactions between different actors and conducting knowledge capacity-building activities. The close established working relationships with its partners through integrated experts, the training programmes in GIS, and its synergy creating-activities with other projects (both GIZ internal and external) have been crucial in achieving this.

With respect to the transition from the WASCA to the WASCA 2.0 project, two major challenging fields have been identified for improvement:


#### 5.6 Indo-German Energy Forum

The Indo-German Energy Forum (IGEF) was established in 2006 as a bilateral high-level platform for deepened and enhanced cooperation between India and Germany in the energy sector. It is commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWK) and the Indian Ministry of Power. Partner ministries are the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (BMUV) and the BMZ. The Indian counterparts are the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy and the Indian government agencies Bureau of Energy Efficiency and Central Electricity Authority as well as Indian financial institutions and various state governments (IGEF, 2022).

IGEF's high-level character is due to engagement at the level of the state secretary. IGEF's support office is steered by the Indian Bureau of Energy Efficiency, GIZ and the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), who jointly advise and support the Indian and German governments regarding energy transformation and the promotion of the Indian energy market. The support office's prime objective is to provide liaison services for the involved stakeholders, to identify possible topics for the IGEF dialogue, and to support projects in the private sectors. It also makes valuable contact with the Indian and German governments and companies that strive to engage in the process.

We consider the IGEF support office as a knowledge actor that fosters dialogue amongst and between stakeholders in governments and industries on the following topics:


In addition to IGEF, GIZ assists BMWK in the energy partnerships in other countries in the global project Support for Bilateral Energy Partnerships in Developing and Emerging Countries in Algeria, Brazil, Chile, China, India, Jordan Mexico, Morocco South Africa and Tunisia. IGEF is the only case in our case selection that actively engages in *policy brokering*  and *trust-building* in the context of knowledge cooperation. Through policy brokering, IGEF supports the linking of policy and practice in Germany and India through the navigation of the complex policy making scenarios and multiplicity of stakeholders and interests in both countries. Trust-building is an important component to strengthen confidence in the work of the IGEF support office, and consequently the Indo-German political relations.

#### *5.6.1 IGEF's Modality Profile*

IGEF uses different modalities to carry out knowledge interactions amongst and between governmental, private sector and academic stakeholders. Their deciphered modality profile is depicted in Fig. 5.7. The support office coordinates the platform's modality formats and activities, identifies possible topics for dialogue or projects and supports all modality formats in their successful implementation (IGEF, 2022).

The modality formats and activities that the IGEF support office supports pursue the modality functions of policy advisory, policy dialogue,

**Fig. 5.7** Modality profile of the Indo-German Energy Forum (*Source* Authors' own figure)

policy brokering, trust-building, networking, and capacity development. Modality formats that contribute to knowledge interactions, and thus knowledge cooperation, through IGEF are the High-Level Forum and its four sub-groups, as well as the local business council.

	- 1. flexibilisation of existing thermal power plants
	- 2. renewable energies
	- 3. energy efficiency
	- 4. green energy grid integration.

The members of the respective sub-groups are two chairpersons, one each from Indian and German ministries (i.e. BMWK/BMZ and Ministry of Power/Ministry of New and Renewable Energy), representatives from industry associations, research institutes, investors, technology providers and project developers as well as staff from government organisations (e.g. Solar Energy Corporation of India, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt) (IGEF, 2022). Members of the sub-groups usually meet once or twice a year to plan the cooperation and follow-up activities such as field visits, delegations, trainings, participation in trade-fairs or the commissioning of analyses or events to better grasp the topics and enhance Indo-German cooperation. The sub-groups enable a knowledge exchange and transfer amongst members, while members are capacitated through external partners, such as consultants commissioned for studies or organisations that offer field visits. Task forces can emerge from the sub-groups and are mostly made up of companies that aim to react quickly to trends in the energy sector. Task forces exist for a short term to conceptualise and implement cooperation projects, such as on green hydrogen. They contribute to the sub-groups by reporting back to them and can be granted funding for activities by IGEF. Thus, task forces take on a business-to-government interaction character.

– **Local Business Council (LBC)**: The support office invites German enterprises in the energy sector operating in India to the LBC for networking purposes to discuss and exchange ideas on business ventures and trends in the energy sector along an open agenda that businesses can design according to their needs. The LBC serves the purpose of business-to-business interactions, and is promoted against the background of BMWK's mandate of promoting economic activities. The IGEF support office also utilises the LBC to channel back the needs and challenges of German businesses to the sub-groups and eventually the forum.

#### *5.6.2 Modality Analysis Based on Our Sensitising Concept*

In the outlined modalities, the IGEF support office's role is not direct involvement in the formats as a participating stakeholder, but to operate as an *enabler* of the formats through their organisation and implementation, which is why we differentiate between the characteristics of the formats as such and the role of the IGEF support office in them.

#### *5.6.2.1 Ownership*

Shared ownership in the high-level steering committee is at the core of IGEF's mandate: The Forum was founded to promote political dialogue on the transformation of the energy systems *in both countries.* The highlevel steering committee responds to a demand from India and Germany to exchange knowledge on the energy transformation process and to support each other in the endeavour. The cooperation is backed up on the highest political level in both countries, respecting the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" (IGEF, 2022). The design of the forum reflects the common effort and demand with respect to the different responsibilities in reducing overall and per capita emissions. Stakeholders in both countries can decide upon dialogue topics and cooperation trajectories.

The role of the support office is to identify and *navigate shared interests* of the forum's sub-groups and to translate these into *activities*. The support office is responsible for following the communicated needs of the co-chairs of the sub-groups who are the highest authority of the sub-group and have the power to decide. In the sub-groups, the IGEF support office reacts on an ad-hoc basis to the demands of the working groups through small-size funding or organisational support, for example to initiate a study, to plan study visits to particular sites or delegations visits to institutions in India or Germany.

The ad-hoc mechanisms is possible due to the high-level commitment and IGEF's monitoring & evaluation indicators that allow for flexibility. Thus, involved stakeholders can own the process as they thematically and strategically guide the working groups themselves with the support of the IGEF support office. Moreover, the involvement of different stakeholder groups, such as the private sector and research institutions, leads to a greater degree of ownership as actors are directly concerned and involved in the energy transition of their respective countries. The IGEF support office ensures that the partners are represented in the study products and authorship is given to them, which contributes to their formal ownership.

German enterprises operating in the Indian energy sector are invited to a meeting at the LBC once or twice a year. While the support office invites them, the participants decide on the agenda. IGEF tries to ensure the LBC is as accessible as possible and plans the meetings as hybrid events to allow non-Delhi based businesses to participate.

#### *5.6.2.2 Relationship Dynamics*

A high level of trust in the support office on both the Indian and German sides is key to the the success of high-level dialogue modality. The support office continuously fosters its trustful relationship with and between Indian and German stakeholders through building close working and informal relationships with, for example, the delegations that travel to Germany. The IGEF office contributes to trustful relationship through its availability and competency..

Relationship dynamics are differently shaped in the forum, sub-groups and LBC. The forum is a platform in which stakeholders from India and Germany express a political will for the partnership. Investments that result from cooperation are mostly targeted towards Indian partners. Given the high-level character of the forum, only the co-chairs of the sub-groups have a speaking role and report on the progress of the partnership and on possible further endeavours. Secretaries of state agree or disagree and eventually carry the decision-making power. All other stakeholders, such as the businesses, have a listening role and are more actively engaged in the work of the sub-groups that contribute to the content of the forum.

The sub-groups support the initiatives taken on in the forum and aim towards the modality function of networking and capacity development to work towards policy advisory. This creates a space for further stakeholders to contribute to the energy cooperation between India and Germany. However, the chairs of the sub-groups have the final decisionmaking power in the groups. The sub-groups' focus is on knowledge transfer, for example through study visits to further learn about a specific energy-related topic, rather than on knowledge exchange.

The IGEF support office invites the small number of German companies based in India and active in the energy sector to the LBC. This creates a rather informal space for networking and creating closer relationships. However, sometimes businesses only participate once in the LBC and are more likely to approach the German embassy directly with requests or ideas.

#### *5.6.2.3 Innovation & Co-creation*

After each forum, memorandums of understanding are jointly created that guide the way forward for collaboration and further activities. The support office itself is not the initiator but prepares the documents needed and supports the Indian and German sides in the process. The subgroups play a significant role in developing new solutions, approaches and know-how, as well as in fostering a network in the energy sector within and across India and Germany. New activities within IGEF can be implemented relatively spontaneously, due to the support office's flexible indicators, as explained above. The LBC promotes peer exchange and networking. Businesses can learn from each other's strategies, trajectories or approaches, which can foster inspiration and innovation.

#### *5.6.2.4 Sustainability*

The quantitative nature of indicators that are used to monitor the support office's success do offer insights into how many activities are supported and accompanied, but do not allow for insights on the success of the IGEF platform itself. The indicators provide the information that the dialogue continues and the tools that the support office can access are employed to foster the exchange between India and Germany on the many aspects of energy transition IGEF's architecture that foresees the annual meeting and the institutionalised sub-groups are designed for long-term-cooperation that can take up innovations and translate political momentum into activities. The IGEF support office is mandated to take on follow-up processes of the forum and sub-groups. Additionally, energy efficiency and renewable energy generation have a high priority in German development cooperation and within the geopolitical landscape, as highlighted, for example, by the German–Indian cabinet consultations on the 2 May 2022 (Presse und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, 2022). This further promotes the work of IGEF and results in funding possibilities for new approaches. Simultaneously, tangible results going beyond the count of events that took place under IGEF are currently not captured or measured. Thus, there is little empirical evidence on the impact of the high-level political dialogue.

#### *5.6.3 Further IGEF Specific Aspects and Conclusion*

The high-level political character of IGEF differentiates the project from many other GIZ initiatives. Modalities of the support office are, therefore, specifically geared towards supporting IGEF through policy brokering and dialogue which influences the design of activities, the stakeholder setting and relationship among actors. The support office as secretariat is a further structure that eases the Indian rotation system of state officials that have an active role in the forum's sub-groups. When state officials are newly in office, the IGEF support office briefs them and offers information on the working groups and the status quo.

Another aspect of the IGEF support office is the variety of German and Indian ministries involved. Next to liaising among stakeholders within the formats of the IGEF, the support office needs to navigate between ministries with overlapping and complementing interests and institutional mandates that make the work of IGEF possible.

The logical chain and close connection between the technical and financial cooperation agency GIZ and KfW that jointly steer the support office promotes possibilities for financing after technical collaborations enabled the creation of approaches and the design of projects in the energy sector. Funding possibilities further incentivise stakeholders to take part in IGEF's modality formats and make it an attractive platform for cooperation. Another incentivising aspect is the ad-hoc and demandbased budgets and follow-up activities that can be made possible in the sub-groups. The institutional structure of the support office and the design of the IGEF project are important and contribute to the processual flexibility.

Overall, the IGEF's support office logic is very different from the other empirical cases in the sense that it is established as a rather *continuous process support structure* for the political dialogue between India and Germany on the energy transition. Due to its function to enable and foster dialogue between the two parties, the four criteria for effectiveness of the sensitising concept follow a different logic: the support office's role is to ensure the smooth rollout of its modality functions and formats but strives to stay in the background of the high political platform it supports. The support office is hence successful when ownership between the parties involved in IGEF is well navigated, relationship dynamics allow for a constructive exchange, the forum continuously produces new outputs and political course is set in the direction of energy transition.

#### References


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Empirical Findings Across Cases

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

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


#### 6.1 Constitutions of the Modalities of Knowledge Interactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another key take-away is that modalities of knowledge interaction should not be considered individually, but only in context. No modality is designed in a vacuum, so there is a need to take into consideration other already existing formats and activities, previous trials of modalities, as well as project or organisational goals and externalities such as

1 Rwandapedia's content and accessibility are unique as a tool in knowledge cooperation. The learning platform provides access to a free encyclopaedic repository of data on Rwanda's development journey, but also on its HGIs. *Hackathons* can serve as another inspiration for other organisations and projects. Hackathons are widely used in the digitalisation landscape, they also have the potential to be implemented for other topics, i.e. in form of events like case competitions in which external (young) participants can come up with solutions within few days while getting in touch with an organisation and gaining consulting experience. The *Local Business Council* at IGEF is another rare modality format, because of its specialisation on a particular target group (German firms in the energy sector active in India) and its loose networking character.

preferences of partners, national strategies or trends in the development cooperation landscape. SDG Partnerships at USPC are a good example of the interlinkage of different formats that are flexibly used, based on the needs of partners.

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

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

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

#### 6.2 Effectiveness of Knowledge Cooperation

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

#### *6.2.1 Ownership*

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

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

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

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

#### *6.2.2 Relationship Dynamics*

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

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

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

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

Further, we realised that our partners often play the role of *knowledge facilitator* and by that contribute to the institutionalisation and structure of knowledge interactions. Knowledge facilitators are not part of the interaction process itself, but they predominantly establish contacts between different actors and offer modality formats for exchange and transfer processes to occur. This became particularly apparent in the cases

**Fig. 6.1** Knowledge exchange understanding of Rwanda Cooperation Initiative *Source*  Authors' own figure

of RCI and IGEF. Their coordination of modality formats and activities sets a frame for, and gives structure to, the knowledge interactions. To what extent this approach is stimulating or limiting for these knowledge interactions and their effectiveness has to be investigated through further research.

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

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

#### *6.2.3 Innovation and Co-creation*

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

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

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

#### *6.2.4 Sustainability*

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

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

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

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

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

#### 6.3 Functions of Modalities of Knowledge Interaction

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

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


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


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


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

#### References


**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Conclusion

**Abstract** Finally, we summarise overall learnings and provide a perspective beyond the initial research question of our project. We present insights based on our empirical engagement with the topic, but these insights have also sharpened our conceptual thinking. Our research questions have been answered in the previous chapters in detail. Here, we bring together overarching reflections in condensed form.

**Keywords** Knowledge · Knowledge and power · Knowledge interaction · Effectiveness · Development cooperation

Finally, we summarise overall learnings and provide a perspective beyond the initial research question of our project. We present insights based on our empirical engagement with the topic, but these insights have also sharpened our conceptual thinking. Our research questions have been answered in the previous chapters in detail. Here, we bring together overarching reflections in condensed form.

In contrast to many other studies, we did not look at ODA and SSC separately, but worked across these categories. This provides us with a broad perspective on modalities of knowledge interaction. To highlight major thoughts in this regard, first, we offer our conclusions on the relationship between knowledge and power. Next, we present overarching findings on the sensitising concept for assessing effectiveness of modalities of knowledge interaction. Finally, we discuss the question of whether knowledge cooperation is a new pillar in development cooperation.

#### 7.1 Knowledge and Power

#### *7.1.1 Knowledge Interactions and Power on the Micro Level*

Knowledge interactions are embedded in *asymmetrical power relations*. Who is involved in knowledge interactions as well as the hierarchical context in which they take place is relevant, as this influences the impact of the relationships in knowledge cooperation. The question of who is perceived as "knowledge sender" and "receiver', and who as "facilitator" is particularly linked to relationship hierarchies and different power positions. It is an important question whether specific groups of society are part of knowledge interactions or meant to receive outcomes of interactions only as receivers through mediators, for example, regarding what is called "local knowledge".

While looking at knowledge and power from the perspective of effectiveness on the micro-level of interactions, in the course of our research two things became evident regarding the relationship between hierarchies and effectiveness. First, knowledge asymmetries are always there. In essence, they are the very reason why knowledge interactions are organised: to enable transfer, exchange and/or co-creation among actors with different levels of different kinds of knowledge. This is why it is beneficial to actively and explicitly address existing hierarchies in this regard. Second, a necessarily rather hierarchical uni-directional knowledge transfer can be a reasonable form of knowledge interaction in certain instances, such as when actor A requests insights on public financial management from actor B, and actor B therefore organises a frontend input lecture. However, only forms of knowledge *co-production* can sustainably enable actors in a partnership to overcome power imbalances jointly. This could mean, for instance, that actors A and B collaborate to develop joint solutions to public financial management challenges, thereby effectively reducing differences in status between the two of them.

#### *7.1.2 Knowledge and Power on the Macro Level*

On the macro-level, we conclude that the organisations we partner with in our research project contribute via their knowledge-intensive work to the soft-power capacity of their respective governments by influencing discourses and by establishing and maintaining politically relevant relationships. For example, sharing Rwanda's Home-Grown-Initiatives or drawing on the narrative of the ROK's history and specific "development success" are forms of "country branding". They increase the concerned countries' visibility in the global development arena and contribute to a more prominent positioning as "gateway to development solutions", potentially with a correspondingly sized gain in soft power.

In this regard, the *choice of modalities* of knowledge interaction follows to a considerable extent the *macro-goals* of building links with important actors and strengthening the public perception of the organisations, their activities and the respective countries they are linked to as a whole, besides the actual topic and content of the exercise.

#### 7.2 Overarching Findings on Effectiveness Framework

This book contributes to the conceptual discussion on effectiveness by suggesting a sensitising concept for assessing effectiveness of modalities of knowledge interaction. We attempted to develop our sensitising concept in a collaborative and inclusive way with our partner institutions. It includes the following four dimensions: *Ownership, Relationship Dynamics, Innovation & Co-creation* and *Sustainability.* 

With regard to the dimension of *Ownership*, we found that most of our partners perceive themselves as being *demand-driven*.

Concerning the dynamic of *Relationship Dynamics*, it appeared that dynamics of knowledge interactions are often shaped by a *transfer*  without (immediate) knowledge backchannel. Thus, within our case selection, we did not find the "pure" form of knowledge exchange according to our conceptual understanding. However, we found that our partner organisations often play the role of a *knowledge facilitator* and in that way contribute to the institutionalisation and structure of knowledge interactions.

Regarding the third dimension, *Innovation & Co-creation*, we found in our case studies that when creating a good learning experience for partners through knowledge interaction modalities, innovation and new products are more likely to emerge. However, in knowledge co-creation processes, learnings are more commonly spread across involved actors*.* 

In terms of *Sustainability*, a key finding was that *measuring long-term impact is a commonly shared issue,* namely that impact assessment indicators cannot capture the complexity of long-term effects. It also became evident that *embedding knowledge cooperation* into existing procedures and policies is promising for the *permanence* of a partnership or project's impact.

The collaborative and inclusive approach we took with this sensitising concept is crucial to us: while there is an academic preoccupation with the issue, the question of the interpretive high ground of who sets norms and standards ultimately remains a political one (Esteves & Klingebiel, 2021). The latter is an important part of our understanding of how effectiveness criteria need to be developed. Therefore, we see the relevance of further addressing the issue of "how to develop a common understanding of quality criteria" in inclusive forums.

#### 7.3 Knowledge Cooperation as a New Pillar?

The Task Team on South–South Cooperation1 (TT-SSC), hosted at the OECD-DAC Working Party on Aid Effectiveness, discussed in 2011 whether knowledge-based cooperation, (or knowledge sharing), should be a third pillar alongside technical cooperation (TC) and financial cooperation (FC) (OECD, 2011, p. 3; TT-SSC, 2011). A different view would be that such a distinction cannot be made because TC or FC themselves contain elements of knowledge cooperation. In contrast, among those involved in SSC knowledge cooperation is regarded as the core of SSC or described at least as a main feature of what SSC agencies do to a very large extent. At this point, it should be left open whether knowledge cooperation can be regarded as an independent pillar, or as a subordinate element of TC/FC, or an SSC specificity. What we can certainly say is that there is a *clear need for effective knowledge cooperation* as a way of attaining Agenda 2030: we see that new needs and fields open up for actors such

<sup>1</sup> The Task Team on South–South Co-operation was founded in 2008 in response to the acknowledgement of the importance of new providers of development resources, after the Third High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Accra, Ghana with the objective of delivering evidence-based policy recommendations (OECD, 2022).

as IGEF with its high-level dialogue platform, or RIS with its knowledge cooperation platform GDC, or RCI with the use of innovative IT-based approaches, to name just a few of these recent dynamics.

The discussions around knowledge cooperation, modalities and effectiveness exist to some extent, but the underlying conceptual discussion remains unexplored. According to our understanding of the topic, there is no international platform where such issues might be discussed and dealt with, bringing together actors from SSC and OECD-DAC. There are institutionally interest-driven discussion forums, but no cross-contextual platform for an open discussion on the topic of meta-modalities.

Lastly, knowledge cooperation is not a niche topic of development cooperation. Looking beyond that, we see that knowledge cooperation is already taking place in the private sector, civil society and academia. There is hardly any global, regional, national or local challenge which does not need to bring together different public (governments, parliaments) and non-public actors (private sector, academics, CSO, etc.) together. The COVID-19 pandemic and the consequences of climate change clearly show this increasing need for inclusive solutions at all levels. Knowledge interaction is therefore often associated with multi-actor approaches. Investing public/development funds can often be an important start in this regard. Therefore, knowledge interaction can also help to build orchestrated solutions between public and non-public actors (Paulo & Klingebiel, 2016).

#### References


Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). https://www.idos-research. de/uploads/media/DP\_8.2016.pdf

TT-SSC (Task-Team on South–South Cooperation). (2011). *Unlocking the potential of South-South cooperation. Policy recommendations from the Task Team on South–South Cooperation*. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/ TT-SSC%20Policy%20Recommendations.pdf

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Appendices

#### Appendix 1: Reflections and Limitations

Throughout our research process, we ascribe an important role to critical (self-)reflection. At the core of our considerations lies our positionality. We have been socialised and educated in North-Western Europe and have partially worked for German implementation organisations of development cooperation, i.e. GIZ and KfW. This background shapes our readings of literature and understandings of concepts and approaches. Based on our reference to a majority of authors, who were socialised and/or educated in the Global North, one could also criticise us for reproducing dominant, and often harmful, discourses. For example, our research follows the Aristotelian distinction between theory and empiricism, as cited by Tenkasi and Hay (2008, p. 52). While this approach is often regarded as a "universal" understanding of science, it was instrumentalised to enforce a Eurocentric hegemony of knowledge creation (Hostettler, 2014).

Additionally, we have limited access to non-English or non-German literature, which shapes the scope of discursive discussions in this book. Anglophone and German literature on development cooperation mainly focuses on North–South cooperation, while research on South–South cooperation is rarer. While this is a wider ethical challenge to be discussed, it has concrete effects on our research. Basing our research on available literature, and specifically including literature on South–South cooperation, our literature review mirrors the academic distortion to a certain degree.

We aim to overcome these limitations through the inclusion of diverse and critical literature and especially through a collaborative research approach. We are in close cooperation with partners who are explicitly involved in the shaping and implementation of our research project. While the research subject and design are closely aligned to existing literature and the inputs by our partners, it was we who shaped the specific research question, and selected the cases and methods. This is mainly due to the set-up of the research, including the time and resources that we, the core team, can invest in it, compared to our partners. The research design, therefore, reflects our team's underlying beliefs and assumptions, as much as potential biases regarding potential research gaps and points of interest. In addition, our own paradigms and experiences also shape our data collection and analysis, since we only actively perceive and describe those dimensions and specificities that we are aware of.

For us, employing a collaborative research approach is a balancing act. We do not want to solely extract data and do research *about* our partners but together *with* them. Our partners should have the ability to play a part in shaping our analysis, so that they can eventually also profit from the results of the analysis. Our partners, however, do have their own values, incentives and interests, and they want to be perceived in a certain way. Examples might be the financial interests of individuals, institutions and companies, or the reputations of elites and governmental representatives. We tried carefully to take this into consideration in discussions on the research focus with partners and during data collection. Though we strive for triangulation of data from different sources, this was only possible to a certain degree and our data is biased in this regard. Our partners work in and for very different political contexts. These political contexts are influential and relevant to our partner's modalities, but in the scope of our research we did not find a constructive manner in which to bring controversial political aspects into focus.

Existing power structures also have a more practical component, which are reflected in the wider systems—societal, organisational and political in which this research takes place as much as in the "habitus" (Bourdieu, 1998, p. 8) and the social positioning of the persons involved. Besides intersectional dimensions such as ethnicity, nationality, status and gender, these power structures also include the positionality of the different partners, including our affiliation to the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), within the existing development cooperation sector. It is, therefore, necessary to carefully consider motivations and influencing factors that shape our research. To ensure we pay close attention to the power dynamics in which we operate, we established a research diary as a possible way of identifying potential impacts on the power relationships within the research. At the same time, this research diary is also a tool to reflect upon ourselves and the positionalities within the research (Nadin & Cassell, 2006, p. 209; Hagemann-White, 2016, pp. 23–24). Furthermore, power relations do not just characterise the wider system or our relation to the partners, but also the relations among staff of the partners and their relation to the target groups of their activities. Due to these power relations, some voices often remain silent in the process of knowledge creation, which is also described as epistemic violence.

The COVID-19 pandemic leads to further ethical considerations. While we were pleased to conduct "live" research in Rwanda and India, there are evident downsides to travelling in a pandemic. With all benefits that come with meeting in person strictly following sanitary measures we could not guarantee that we did not become a burden on the local health system or contribute to the spread of the virus. Next to pandemic-related aspects, we certainly contributed to the climate crisis with the carbon dioxide emissions of our flights to Rwanda and India and our choice to conduct "live" data collection.

#### Appendix 2: Further Description of the Sensitising Concept

In the following, we present and discuss each dimension of our framework more thoroughly.

#### *Ownership*

This dimension is included as it sheds light on *who is actually involved and considered* in modalities of knowledge interaction processes. It describes the extent to which each stakeholder involved is a joint owner of the interaction process itself and controls it (Keijzer et al., 2018; Keijzer et al., 2020). Hereby, three sub-dimensions are of particular importance:


#### *Relationship Dynamics*

Knowledge interactions are greatly shaped by power relations between actors (Ipe, 2003). The criteria of relationship dynamics emphasises the particular hierarchical constellations that arise when a knowledge interaction process happens. There are three sub-dimensions particularly relevant to characterise relationship hierarchy.

– **Trust**. In order to successfully establish any kind of relationship between actors (and enable the possibility for a knowledge interaction process to happen) trust is vital. Only through trust do actors develop the willingness to interchange knowledge and learn from each other (Ipe, 2003, p. 347). Therefore, it is important to understand to what degree actors are able to trust and rely on competences and commitments of their partners and to what extent they foster formal and/or informal relationships that may further deepen trust levels.


#### *Innovation and Co-creation*

We incorporated this criterion as knowledge interactions are directed at the interchange of knowledge (Schartinger et al., 2002) and it becomes desirable to understand what benefits and effects result from this process. In particular, three sub-dimensions are important to capture innovation and co-creation.

– **Learning experience**. This sub-criteria is central, since knowledge interactions are directed at the interchange of knowledge (Schartinger et al*.*, 2002) and learning plays a central role in the process of acquiring new knowledge (Howells, 2002, pp. 872–873). Assessing actor's perceived learning curve, the experienced relevance of the learned content towards the specific context as well as the perceived relevance of the chosen modalities for the personal learning process are vital aspects in order to assess the benefits and effects arising from the modalities of knowledge interactions.


#### *Sustainability*

This dimension is included, since it emphasises how the modalities of knowledge interaction processes are *relating and interacting with its larger context*. It describes the extent to which knowledge interactions, and benefits resulting from this process, are likely to continue (OECD, 2021) and persist over space and time. Five sub-dimensions are especially important to be considered when considering sustainability.


the mechanisms and procedures in place as well as the transparency and mutual accountability granted through these mechanisms and procedures.


#### Appendix 3: Case-Specific Data Collection Processes

#### *Rwanda Cooperation Initiative*

The methods applied in the case of Rwanda Cooperation Initiative (RCI) are displayed in Table A.1.

We conducted nine semi-structured interviews of which eight were with RCI's management board and one with an external consultant working for RCI. Further, questionnaires were shared with former participants of RCI's study trips that were directed at knowledge interactions since 2020. In total, we received 39 responses (23 complete, 16 partial) from 24 different delegations. The third method we used were participatory observations of two study trips during our time in Rwanda. The first one was a delegation from the Central African Republic that came


**Table A.1** Methods applied during our research with RCI

to Rwanda to learn about the reintegration of ex-combatants in Rwanda. The second observed study trip was a delegation from Chad that focused on Rwanda's E-tax system. We also conducted an internal workshop as well as an internal validation workshop with RCI's management board after our data collection process was finalised. In these sessions, we had a joint discussion on effectiveness dimensions of modalities of knowledge interactions. Further, we also presented our results and recommendations to our partners.

#### *Research and Information System for Developing Countries*

Table A.2 illustrates the methods applied in the case of Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS).

As seen in the table, we conducted semi-structured and focus group interviews with ten employees of RIS. The positions ranged from senior management to research assistant level, allowing for a broad range of insights, covering the strategic planning of RIS as much as the implementation of single modality formats and activities.

The second method we utilised was participatory observations on events that were conducted by RIS and relevant to our case study. Due to the ongoing pandemic and governmental restrictions, only one event


**Table A.2** Methods applied during our research with RIS

was in physical form. Other events were either held as online live events or were pre-recorded online events available on media platforms such as Youtube. The physical live event we attended concerned the South Asia Economic Summit and was held on 19 April 2022. The online live event was a presentation on a report regarding good governance in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. The pre-recorded online events included online panel discussions, lectures and talks. In this case, the selected events are diversified, but share a common focus on the interchange and dissemination of knowledge.

#### *UNDP Seoul Policy Centre*

Table A.3 illustrates the methods applied in the case of the UNDP Seoul Policy Centre (USPC).

First, we conducted semi-structured interviews. In total, we conducted two focus group interviews and three individual interviews. Two focus group interviews were conducted virtually with staff members responsible for SDG Partnerships, respectively in the areas of *Governance* and *Development cooperation*. We conducted an additional digital individual interview and one group interview at the UNDP Country Office Rwanda at the premises in Kigali. We did so to understand the SDG Partnership with Rwanda Cooperation Initiative and the role of the UNDP Country Office in the SDG Partnerships. As a second method, we conducted participatory observations on two different e-consultation events with USPC's partners. We were not present during the events, but could


**Table A.3** Methods applied during our research with USPC

retrospectively watch the meeting recordings. In our observations, we particularly analysed the relationship between USPC and its partners and thereby aimed to triangulate findings from our interviews and prior document analysis. Lastly, we organised an internal validation workshop with interviewees to present and discuss our findings.

#### *GIZ Rwanda: DigiCenter*

The methods applied in the case of GIZ Rwanda (DigiCenter) are displayed in Table A.4.

Overall, we conducted nine interviews with 13 interview partners. Out of these, six interviews were conducted separately with six staff and management members of the DigiCenter. Two further interviews were conducted with two members of the Impact Hub management level, who are responsible for the implementation of the Circular Economy Acceleration Programme. The other five interview partners were participants of the Circular Economy Acceleration Programme and participated in four focus group interviews. The second method we used was participatory observations. We participated in workshop and discussion events organised by the GIZ Rwanda DigiCenter. These events were on many different topics, such as gaming and robotics and the Circular Economy Accelerator Programme but had a common focus on creating a space for interchange and dissemination of knowledge as well as knowledge


**Table A.4** Methods applied during our research with the DigiCenter

*Source* Authors' own table

networking. We also conducted two workshops to present our insights to our partners. In these workshops, we presented our research results and had joint open-ended discussions on topics surrounding modalities and knowledge interactions.

#### *GIZ: Water Security and Climate Adaptation in Rural India*

Table A.4 illustrates the methods applied in the case of GIZ India (WASCA).

The data collection process for WASCA consists of two parts. In the first part, we conducted interviews with seven GIZ staff members who


**Table A.4** Methods applied during our research with WASCA

*Source* Authors' own table

work with the project at the head office in New Delhi. We had the opportunity to interview the coordinator of the WASCA project, four technical experts and two policy advisors. Since all our interviewees have very different focus areas and responsibilities in the WASCA project (e.g. water security, rural development/resilience, private sector collaboration, GIS-Implementation), the selection of interviewees represents a diverse set of people who were able to give us broad insights into the project. The interviews were held on 29 and 30 March 2022 at the office of GIZ India in New Delhi.

In the second part of the data collection process, we conducted field visits to two piloting states of WASCA: Madhya Pradesh (Bhopal) and Rajasthan (Dungarpur). During the field visits, we primarily interacted with two integrated WASCA experts who are located in each state and work on the implementation of the project at state to local level. Furthermore, we conducted interviews and meetings with partners of WASCA. This includes consultancies that support WASCA with scientific and technical expertise in water management and by the provision of technical trainings in GIS on the ground. Further, it also includes government officials as well as administrative staff from MGNREGA who conduct work related to WASCA at state, district and local level. We conducted the field trip to Madhya Pradesh between 30 March and 2 April 2022, and the trip to Rajasthan between 4 and 7 April 2022.

Finally, we also conducted an internal validation workshop with GIZ India (WASCA). In this sessions, we presented our results and recommendations to our partners and had further discussions on modalities of knowledge interactions.

#### *GIZ: Indo-German Energy Forum*

The methods applied in the case of GIZ Indo-German Energy Forum (IGEF) can be reviewed in Table A.5.

As seen in the table, in total two interviews were carried out. The first was a focus group interview at the GIZ in New Delhi, conducted with two staff members of the IGEF support office. We applied participatory mapping to capture the modality formats and activities. This allowed the interviewees to structure activities in their own way and to reflect upon interconnections between activities and their function as well as the mandate of IGEF (Fig. A.1).


**Table A.5** Methods applied during our research with IGEF

**Fig. A.1** Participatory mapping of IGEF's activities and their interconnections *Source* Authors' own figure

In a second interview, we gathered further insights into the characteristics of the modalities used by IGEF, validated first findings and discussed results.

#### Appendix 4: Initial Interview Guideline

#### *Introduction*

– Thank you very much for taking the time and for giving us the opportunity for this interview. Before we start, we would like to give you a brief overview of our project, say something about the structure and how we use the interview.


#### *Goals*

– What are the main overarching goals of RC? (=main objectives) (in which areas/topics; national/international/global; short/medium/ long term)

#### *Knowledge*


#### *Problem Introduction/Project Focus*

– The importance of knowledge in international cooperation is undisputed. In this regard, there is a lot of literature on the effectiveness of international cooperation and on evaluating the outcomes of specific knowledge cooperation. But at the same time, there is a lack of literature looking more closely at knowledge *formats*: By knowledge formats, we mean: *how* and in which *form* do partners design and implement knowledge (-intensive) activities?

#### *Modalities and knowledge interactions*

	- (*[auf Nachfrage:]* which activities?)
	- *([Worst case give examples:]* fora, networks, specific events, programmes, informal meetings…)
	- What is the goal of the format?
	- Could you please describe this format? What is the process from beginning to end?
	- What activities does this format contain (encounter)?
	- What is RCs contribution to the format (inputs)?
	- We would like to understand the origin of the idea to organize study trips

Whose idea was the format? How was it initiated? Who was involved in the developing process (within RCI & regarding external actors/partners)? In case of disagreement, who makes the last decision? Can you give an example?

Is this a typical process? Or are there other processes/ examples?

• Implementation process:

	- What distinguishes a successful delegation trip from a less successful one?
	- Can you describe a situation when you felt a study trip did not succeed?
	- Once the delegation has left, do you stay in contact? If so, how?
	- What do you know about the long-lasting effect (sustainability) of your delegations?
	- To what extent are delegations as format evaluated? If yes:
		- Do you have specific processes or tools for evaluation? Who is involved in evaluations?
		- What is working well with the evaluation system? What could be improved?
		- What do you do with the feedback from participants? If no: Why not?

#### *Success of Organisations in Achieving their Goals*

You have earlier introduced the wider goals of RC.


Especially in times like these, knowledge cooperation is of high importance globally.


#### *COVID-19*


#### *End of interview*


#### Appendix 5: Guiding Questions Participatory Observation

See Table A.7.


#### **Table A.7** Guidelines for participatory observations

*Source* Authors' own table

### Appendix 6: Questions for Survey with RCI See Table A.8.




20. Que pourrait-on améliorer?

21. Avez-vous pu faire part de votre expertise à Rwanda

Cooperation lors de votre visite d'étude ?


# References


© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2024 S. Klingebiel et al., *Exploring the Effectiveness of International Knowledge Cooperation*, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55704-0


(pp. xix–lxii). Verso. http://www.boaventuradesousasantos.pt/media/Introd uction(3).pdf


*der empirischen Erhebung von Gewalt in Paarbeziehungen und sexualisierter Gewalt* (pp. 13–31). Springer VS.


UNDP Seoul Policy Centre. https://www.undp.org/policy-centre/seoul/ publications/cooperation-opportunities-knowledge-intensive-world


*South–South Cooperation*. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/ TT-SSC%20Policy%20Recommendations.pdf


# Index

#### **A**

Africa, viii, 52, 57, 59 Aid, viii, 27, 66 Aid effectiveness, 26, 120

#### **B**

Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS), 56, 61

#### **C**

Capacity, xi, 1, 59, 60, 62–64, 71, 72, 80, 81, 84, 85, 90, 106, 119 Capacity building, 11, 58, 60, 61, 67, 72, 75, 87, 90, 114 Capacity development, x, 11, 15, 53, 54, 60, 69, 70, 81, 83–85, 89, 93, 96, 104, 108, 113, 114, 116 Co-creation, x, 13, 14, 36, 63, 65, 68, 74, 81, 89, 107–111, 118, 120, 127, 128 Collaboration, viii, 36, 58, 59, 61, 62, 67, 69, 70, 74, 80, 85–87, 89, 90, 93, 96, 98, 112, 115, 128, 129, 134, 140

Consultation, ix, x, 44, 73, 97 Context, viii, x, 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 31, 33–36, 38, 48, 52, 54, 57, 60, 63–65, 69, 71, 74, 76–78, 80, 81, 87, 88, 92, 105, 106, 108, 118, 124, 126–129, 140

#### **D**

Data, ix, 3, 26, 29–31, 33, 37, 38, 43–45, 47, 48, 51, 52, 55, 63, 70, 76, 86, 89, 90, 103, 105, 124, 125, 130, 133, 134, 140 Definition, vii, ix, 2, 8, 10, 17, 28, 48, 106 Design, ix, 2, 25, 37, 58, 75, 78–80, 88, 94, 95, 97, 98, 105, 107, 108, 124, 137 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), viii, ix, 2, 3, 30, 38, 48, 75, 78, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87, 89–92, 97, 98, 106, 107, 113, 114, 123, 132–134, 136

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2024 S. Klingebiel et al., *Exploring the Effectiveness of International Knowledge Cooperation*, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55704-0 157

Development, vii, viii, x, 1–3, 7–9, 11, 13–15, 25–27, 29–31, 37, 38, 52–60, 62–67, 69–72, 77–80, 83, 91, 92, 97, 104–106, 108, 110–114, 118–121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 134, 143 Development Assistance Committee (DAC), vii, viii, 2, 14, 27, 29, 30, 66, 120, 121 Development cooperation, vii, 1–3, 7, 8, 11–15, 25–27, 29–31, 35, 37, 38, 55, 56, 60, 70, 97, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 118, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 130 Development expertise, viii Development partners, 27, 53 Development policy, 27 Development project, vii Development solution, viii, 66, 119 Development success, viii, 2, 119 Digitalisation, 63, 105, 106 Discourse, viii, xi, 9, 10, 15, 26, 56, 60, 62, 65, 70, 110, 115, 119, 123 Dissemination, vii, 63, 84, 86, 87, 131, 132 Donor, 12–15, 26, 29, 35, 55, 59, 66, 110, 127

#### **E**

Evidence, vii, 2, 15, 26, 29, 38, 71, 73, 78, 85–87, 97, 106, 111, 120 Expert, ix, x, 12, 45, 53, 54, 65, 67–70, 73, 76–80, 82, 85, 86, 88–90, 104–107, 109, 112, 114, 133, 134

#### **F**

Field-research, ix

Financial cooperation (FC), vii, 11, 15, 98, 120 Framework, 3, 4, 26, 28–31, 33, 46, 65, 82, 86, 87, 90, 125 Function, x, 3, 14–17, 33, 51, 53, 54, 57, 60, 65, 67, 69, 70, 74, 76, 81, 84, 85, 92, 96, 98, 106, 110, 112–116, 134

#### **G**

Germany, 77, 82, 91–93, 95–98, 113–115 Global North, 9, 63, 64, 123 Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC), 26, 27, 29, 30 Global Policy Network (GPN), 66, 67, 70, 71 Global South, 2, 9, 27, 63, 66, 73 Group discussion, ix, 43, 45, 131, 140

#### **H**

Hierarchies, x, xi, 9, 46, 62, 63, 108, 118, 126 High-income country (HIC), 52 Home-grown initiative (HGI), 52, 113

#### **I**

Impact, x, 3, 25, 26, 29, 31, 33, 37, 56, 64, 71–74, 78–80, 90, 97, 111, 112, 118, 120, 125, 132, 139 Impact assessments, x, 29, 36, 44, 56, 64–66, 111, 120, 128 India, viii, ix, 2, 3, 27, 28, 38, 47, 48, 56, 57, 59, 62, 64, 75, 83, 87, 91–98, 104, 105, 114, 115, 125, 133, 134, 136

India, Brazil and South-Africa (IBSA), 28, 30, 61, 63, 114


#### **K**

Knowledge, vii–xi, 1–4, 7–16, 18, 26, 29–31, 44–47, 52, 53, 55–60, 62–74, 76, 78–82, 84–96, 103, 105–113, 115, 117–121, 123, 125–134, 136–141 Knowledge cooperation, vii, 1–4, 16, 31, 33, 35, 60, 63, 70, 76, 81, 92, 93, 103, 105–108, 110–113, 118, 120, 121, 126, 127, 136, 137, 139 Knowledge co-production, xi, 118 Knowledge exchange, x, 12, 13, 52, 57, 58, 65–68, 71, 73, 76, 79, 81, 82, 91, 94, 96, 108, 109, 119 Knowledge facilitator, x, 66, 67, 74, 109, 119 Knowledge interaction, vii–xi, 1–4, 7, 8, 11–18, 26, 29–31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 44–47, 60, 65–68, 71, 73, 74, 76, 81, 84, 86, 88, 90, 92,

93, 103, 105, 106, 108–113, 117–121, 125–130, 133, 134, 137

Knowledge relations, x

Knowledge transfer, xi, 12, 13, 58, 79, 81, 96, 108, 109, 118, 127 Korea, 66, 67, 69, 70 Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), 91, 98, 123

#### **L**

Least developed country (LDC), 52 Local knowledge, 9, 85, 118

#### **M**

Method, ix, 25, 33, 37, 43–48, 89, 106, 124, 129–135, 140 Modality(ies), vii–x, 1–3, 7, 8, 14–18, 26, 29–31, 33, 38, 44–47, 51, 53–55, 57–63, 65, 67–74, 76–82, 84–88, 90, 92, 94, 96–98, 103–115, 117–121, 124–131, 133–135, 137, 138 Monitoring & evaluation (M&E), 80, 95, 111, 113

#### **N**

Networking, x, 60, 61, 70, 77, 79, 81, 93, 94, 96, 97, 105, 112–114, 116, 133 Network of Southern Think Tanks (NeST), 28, 30, 61, 115 North–South cooperation (NSC), 26–29, 111, 123

#### **O**

Observation, 10, 45, 48, 109, 131, 133 Official development assistance (ODA), ix, 2, 11, 15, 17, 26, 55, 106, 111, 117, 127 Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development

(OECD), vii, viii, 2, 12, 15, 27, 29, 30, 66, 120, 121, 126, 128, 129 Output, x, 56, 75, 83, 98, 108, 111, 113 Ownership, 13, 27, 28, 31, 34, 54, 55, 62, 67, 70, 77, 78, 87, 95, 98, 107, 108, 125, 126

#### **P**

Pandemic, ix, 1, 57, 63, 69, 72, 93, 112, 121, 125, 130, 139 Participatory observation, ix, 46, 52, 129–132, 139 Partner, viii–xi, 26, 34–37, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 59, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69–71, 74–80, 91, 105–112, 114, 119, 124, 140 Partner country, 26, 62, 66, 67, 69–71, 74, 107, 110, 111, 114 Partnership, xi, 2, 14, 27, 28, 34, 35, 37, 59, 67–74, 78, 79, 92, 93, 96, 106–108, 110–113, 115, 120, 126, 127, 129, 131, 142 Policy advice, x, 53, 65 Power, x, xi, 2–4, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 31, 34, 35, 73, 82, 92, 93, 95, 96, 105, 108, 117, 118, 124–127 Project, vii–x, 2, 15, 27, 29, 37, 38, 53, 59, 62, 71, 75–77, 81, 83–85, 87, 89–92, 94, 97, 98, 104–108, 111–115, 117, 119, 120, 124, 130, 134–136

#### **R**

Recipient, viii, 12–15, 26, 29, 62, 66 Relationship, xi, 3, 7, 31, 35, 36, 46, 56, 62–64, 71, 72, 79, 82, 86, 88, 90, 96, 97, 104, 108, 110, 117–119, 125–128, 132

Relationship dynamics, 31, 55, 62, 71, 78, 79, 88, 96, 98, 108, 126, 127

Republic of Korea (ROK), viii, 2, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74, 107, 110, 113, 119


#### **S**

Sensitising concept, ix, 3, 25, 26, 29, 30, 34, 44, 45, 47, 48, 51, 54, 62, 70, 77, 87, 94, 98, 107, 118–120, 125 Soft-power, xi, 119 South–South cooperation (SSC), vii–ix, 2, 14, 17, 26–28, 38, 52, 56–60, 62–66, 105, 106, 110, 111, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123, 124 South Korea, 107 Study visit, x, 52–58, 67, 69, 73, 74,

86, 95, 96, 104, 107, 108, 110, 112, 141–143

Survey, ix, 33, 38, 43–47, 52, 55–57, 61, 110, 130, 140 Sustainability, 29, 56, 64, 67, 71–73, 80, 82, 89, 90, 97, 111, 112, 119, 120, 128, 129, 138 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 38, 67–74, 106, 108, 110, 112, 113, 115, 131

#### **T**

Technical cooperation (TC), viii, 11, 15, 120 Think tank, viii, 58, 60, 62, 65, 115 Training programme, x, 61, 85, 87, 89, 90, 104, 108, 114 Triangular cooperation (TrC), 15, 52, 57, 58, 62, 87, 91, 105 2030 Agenda, vii, 31 Typology, ix, 3, 8, 14, 17, 67, 104, 106, 113

#### **U**

UNDP Seoul Policy Centre (USPC), viii–x, 2, 3, 38, 44, 49, 66–74, 104–108, 110, 112–115, 131, 132, 136 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), viii, 66–74, 107, 131 Upper-middle income country (UMIC), 52

#### **W**

Water Security and Climate Adaption in Rural India (WASCA), xx, 44, 49, 75, 83–91, 104–109, 111, 112, 114, 133, 134 Working group, x, 76, 87, 95, 98, 104, 114 Workshop, ix, 16, 31, 43, 46–49, 52, 69, 70, 72, 77, 81, 87, 130, 132–134, 136, 140