Contemporary North–South research collaborations are fraught with power relations originating in colonialism. Debates about research ethics have tended to turn around the “procedural ethics” formal model and the “everyday ethics” practical model. We build on that to suggest a second debate that scrutinises ethics and power relations not only in the researcher–researched relationship but also in the relationships within research teams and ethics review boards. The research asked: how can we shift power in research to decolonise research and build more equitable partnerships? We explored this with data obtained through collaborative autoethnography in a multi-country development research programme, Evidence and Collaboration for Inclusive Development (ECID). This included regular self-reflective meetings, visual methods, a self-evaluation survey, and blogs addressing power issues. Coordinated from London, the research had all the cards to adopt a ‘colonial’ gaze in which the North would ‘research’ the South. The case narrates the journey of the research team to decentralise power in the programme, which included sharing control over the selection of research topics, and the research design, budget, and publications. Drawing from the lessons learned from the research approach that was adopted in ECID, this paper offers an 8-step model towards decolonising research ethics.

Scholars have long debated formalizing the informal sector through taxation, but how do these processes affect gender inequalities? Our study in Nigerian markets contributes a gender framework to the equitable taxation literature on formalization. The study draws on a survey of 451 traders in 12 markets, key informant interviews, and ethnographic research in four markets of two states. We find that in at least two situations taxation policies discriminated against women implicitly: (1) male tax collectors had higher incidences of harassment on all traders and (2) taxing traders with flat taxes penalized women, as they earned less than men but were taxed the same.

For years Colombia has been the world's largest coca producer. Its public management of crops for illicit use has swung between eradication, substitution, and, recently legalization. Forced eradication has been shown to be ineffective, and legalization is an incipient option, so the Peace Agreement puts forward substitution as the path to follow. Yet, what kind of substitution does it suggest? This article analyzes voluntary substitution projects in Peasant Reserve Zones. While some projects have evolved locally due in part to strong peasant associations, they have not gained traction nationally. In general, the difficulties inherent in any business play a role, but there are also structural limitations such as continued fumigations, obligations of prior eradication, the costs of production and transportation due to the lack of infrastructure and public services, and the issue of land rights, which limits peasants' access to the formal funding established by the Peace Agreement.

This case study engages critically with the challenges of integrating research into an international development programme. Recognizing knowledge production is currently dominated by western and colonial systems of meaning–making, the case study also explores how development research can be less extractive and how it can promote more equitable forms of knowledge production. This is explored and illustrated through the ethical challenges raised in the Evidence and Collaboration for Inclusive Development (ECID) programme. This was a four-year programme, funded by the UK Government, and delivered through a consortium of nine partners led by Christian Aid, and implemented by in-country partner organizations in Myanmar, Nigeria and Zimbabwe during 2019–2021. The article begins by contextualizing the ECID programme within the wider research environment and within the Nigerian country context (which is given particular focus). It then explores the ethical challenges that emerged from the programme and how these were addressed. The paper concludes by offering an innovative model for shifting power in development research and doing research ethically with communities in a development programme. This requires thinking about how ethics in development research and practice can be reviewed in organizations, which typically do not have their own ethics review boards, and in ways which do not reproduce western hegemony in relation to whose knowledge and ethics count in research practice.