Back to Search Start Over

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

Authors :
Triulzi I
Kabra R
Allagh KP
Kiarie J
Source :
Gates open research [Gates Open Res] 2024 Mar 27; Vol. 7, pp. 116. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Mar 27 (Print Publication: 2023).
Publication Year :
2024

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' perspectives on SSLEs, strengths, weaknesses and mechanisms leading to sustainable outcomes.<br />Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews on experiences 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.<br />Results: Sixteen experts, who have participated in or facilitated one or more SSLE, were interviewed. The 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 implementation of the SSLE. Being resource heavy, participant and donor 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.<br />Conclusions: The strengths of SSLEs are anchored in the theories of experiential and social learning, highlighting SSLE's potential to create an environment that enhances knowledge exchange. the study highlights the challenges SSLE initiatives face. In particular, these include limited commitment and funds, limited evidence of impact, disparate approaches, and the absence of standardized guidelines and evaluation practices.<br />Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.<br /> (Copyright: © 2024 Triulzi I et al.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
2572-4754
Volume :
7
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Gates open research
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
39035471
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.14699.2