Locally-led development has become a touchstone of modern development practice. But most of the conversation centres on program delivery: who implements, who decides, who gets funded. Less often do we ask the same questions of research itself.
Who sets the research agenda? Whose knowledge counts as evidence? Who bears the risks, and who builds their career?
These aren’t abstract questions. They’re the difference between research that serves communities and research that extracts from them.
From extraction to equity
Locally-led development research means fundamentally rethinking who produces knowledge, whose expertise counts, and who benefits from the work. It means decolonising knowledge production – not as a buzzword, but as a practical commitment that shows up in every stage of the research process.
It’s worth being honest about what it is and isn’t.
Locally-led research is: local researchers and institutions leading; research questions coming from communities; Indigenous and local knowledge valued equally; and partnerships that are equitable, not extractive.
It is not: consultation without decision-making power; participatory methods applied to projects designed elsewhere; rebranding the same power dynamics with new language; or funders controlling questions, methods, and data ownership.
Three ways to put it into practice
1. Recognise local researchers as full collaborators, not data collectors
Local research partners aren’t there to facilitate your access. They bring context-specific knowledge that’s essential to quality research. That means co-authorship, shared analysis, and genuine recognition of their contribution – not an acknowledgement footnote.
2. Commit to shared decision-making from the start
Co-design means local researchers have real influence over research questions, methods, analysis, and how findings are disseminated. They shape the work, not just endorse it. Build the relationship first, then develop the research together – not the other way around.
3. Consider who bears the risks — and who benefits
Local researchers often face consequences that external researchers don’t – social, political, sometimes physical risks. If you’re not accounting for their safety and wellbeing in your research design, you’re not practicing ethical, locally-led research.
Ask yourself: who benefits from this research? Who gets published? Who builds their career and networks? If the answers all point to your institution, the research isn’t locally-led.
What this looks like in practice
In our Exchange 25 session The Practice of Everyday Leadership and How to Support It, Irene Semos and fellow Pacific leaders brought these questions to life. They spoke about working with community timing, navigating cultural context, building trust before anything else, and recognising that communities hold knowledge and strengths that no external researcher arrives with. It’s worth watching in full here.
We also asked our community what would most strengthen locally-led development research. The results reflected just how interconnected the barriers are: 38% said direct local funding, 23% said co-design from the start, 23% said flexible donor requirements, and 15% said longer timelines. No single lever is enough on its own.
Where to start
If you’re thinking about how to apply these principles in your own research partnerships, our How to Partner for Development Research guide offers practical guidance on building equitable, collaborative research relationships: https://rdinetwork.org.au/resources/research-partnerships/guidance-on-research-partnerships
