Strengths and weaknesses of the South-South Learning Exchange: a qualitative analysis of experts’ perspectives

I. Triulzi, R. Kabra, K. Allagh, J. Kiarie
{"title":"Strengths and weaknesses of the South-South Learning Exchange: a qualitative analysis of experts’ perspectives","authors":"I. Triulzi, R. Kabra, K. Allagh, J. Kiarie","doi":"10.12688/gatesopenres.14699.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:  South-South learning exchange (SSLE) refers to an interactive learning process where peers exchange knowledge and experience to work towards a beneficial change. Despite organizations having recently increased the opportunity to run SSLEs, the SSLE support mechanisms and processes are not well documented in the scientific literature. This study explored experts’ perspective on SSLEs, strengths, weaknesses and mechanisms leading to outcomes.  Methods:  We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews on experience of participants and organizers of SSLEs. Data were collected between 1st September 2021 to 26th November 2021. All data were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed. In the analysis, we adopted an inductive approach derived from thematic analysis.  Results:  Sixteen experts who have participated in or facilitated one or more SSLE were interviewed. Experts’ accounts demonstrated an appreciation of participants’ empowerment, positive peer-to-peer “mind change” and convincing and powerful hands-on learning of this approach as strengths in the successful implementation of the SSLE. Being resource heavy, participant reluctance and absence of a validated methodology emerged as main weaknesses of the South-South learning approach, which could impair the effectiveness of this scheme.   Conclusions:  The SSLE is a promising approach to exchange knowledge and experience to work toward a desired change. This study suggested that this approach could gain robustness and credibility adopting a validated and systematic methodology. Furthermore, national and international funds improve availability of and accessibility to learning on the SSLE.","PeriodicalId":12593,"journal":{"name":"Gates Open Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gates Open Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.14699.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:  South-South learning exchange (SSLE) refers to an interactive learning process where peers exchange knowledge and experience to work towards a beneficial change. Despite organizations having recently increased the opportunity to run SSLEs, the SSLE support mechanisms and processes are not well documented in the scientific literature. This study explored experts’ perspective on SSLEs, strengths, weaknesses and mechanisms leading to outcomes.  Methods:  We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews on experience of participants and organizers of SSLEs. Data were collected between 1st September 2021 to 26th November 2021. All data were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed. In the analysis, we adopted an inductive approach derived from thematic analysis.  Results:  Sixteen experts who have participated in or facilitated one or more SSLE were interviewed. Experts’ accounts demonstrated an appreciation of participants’ empowerment, positive peer-to-peer “mind change” and convincing and powerful hands-on learning of this approach as strengths in the successful implementation of the SSLE. Being resource heavy, participant reluctance and absence of a validated methodology emerged as main weaknesses of the South-South learning approach, which could impair the effectiveness of this scheme.   Conclusions:  The SSLE is a promising approach to exchange knowledge and experience to work toward a desired change. This study suggested that this approach could gain robustness and credibility adopting a validated and systematic methodology. Furthermore, national and international funds improve availability of and accessibility to learning on the SSLE.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
南南学习交流的优势和劣势:专家观点的定性分析
背景:南南学习交流(SSLE)指的是一种互动的学习过程,在这个过程中,同伴们交换知识和经验,努力实现有益的改变。尽管组织最近增加了运行SSLE的机会,但SSLE支持机制和过程在科学文献中没有很好的记录。本研究探讨了专家对SSLEs的观点、优势、劣势和导致结果的机制。方法:采用半结构化访谈法对SSLEs参与者和组织者的经历进行定性研究。数据收集于2021年9月1日至2021年11月26日。所有数据以数字方式记录,逐字转录,并进行分析。在分析中,我们采用了源自主题分析的归纳方法。结果:访谈了16位曾参与或协助过一次或多次SSLE的专家。专家们的描述表明,他们赞赏参与者的赋权、积极的点对点“思想改变”,以及对这种方法的令人信服和有力的实践学习,这些都是成功实施SSLE的优势。南南学习方法的主要缺点是资源繁重、参与者不愿意参与以及缺乏经过验证的方法,这可能会损害该计划的有效性。结论:SSLE是一种很有前途的方法来交流知识和经验,以实现期望的改变。本研究表明,采用经过验证和系统的方法,该方法可以获得稳健性和可信度。此外,国家和国际基金改善了学习特殊语言学习的可得性和可及性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Gates Open Research
Gates Open Research Immunology and Microbiology-Immunology and Microbiology (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
期刊最新文献
Developing a framework for understanding policy decision-making behaviors in the transition of an HIV prevention program towards sustainability: a case study from Zambia's voluntary medical male circumcision program. Knowledge and uptake of contraceptive and other sexual reproductive health services among in-school adolescents in three South African townships: Baseline findings from the Girls Achieve Power (GAP Year) Trial. Using models and maps to inform Target Product Profiles and Preferred Product Characteristics: the example of Wolbachia replacement. Vaccine decision-making among pregnant women: a protocol for a cross-sectional mixed-method study in Brazil, Ghana, Kenya and Pakistan. Simulated data for census-scale entity resolution research without privacy restrictions: a large-scale dataset generated by individual-based modeling.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1