ABSTRACT
Objective: University College London (UCL) and Newgiza University (NGU) have been in an academic collaboration since 2016 to establish undergraduate healthcare programmes in Egypt with an underlying ethos of capacity building and co-development. We explored impacts of pandemic-related travel restrictions on staff across both organisations. Methods: We conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with academic and professional services staff from UCL and NGU schools of medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy. Data were jointly coded using reflexive thematic analysis and categorised according to the American Council on Education's Comprehensive Internationalisation Framework. Results: Nine themes were identified, which related to each of the six components of the framework. In addition to mobility, participants' experiences also spread across the other five components (institutional commitment, leadership, curriculum, faculty support, and partnerships). Successful adaptations were made and staff felt able to 'keep the show on the road'. However, staff remained keen to keep in-person engagement a priority when possible, especially for quality management site visits. Conclusions: Travel restrictions can have widespread impacts on all aspects of international collaborations. In this well-established relationship, there was sufficient resilience to withstand these impacts and, many positive unintended consequences emerged. A hybrid engagement model should be prioritised in future partnerships.
ABSTRACT
This article describes the authors' personal experiences of collaborating across international borders in academic research. International collaboration in academic medicine is one of the most important ways by which research and innovation develop globally. However, the intersections among colonialism, academic medicine, and global health research have created a neocolonial narrative that perpetuates inequalities in global health partnerships. The authors critically examine the visa process as an example of a racist practice to show how the challenges of blocked mobility increase inequality and thwart research endeavors. Visas are used to limit mobility across certain borders, and this limitation hinders international collaborations in academic medicine. The authors discuss the concept of social closure and how limits to global mobility for scholars from low- and middle-income countries perpetuate a cycle of dependence on scholars who have virtually barrier-free global mobility-these scholars being mainly from high-income countries. Given the current sociopolitical milieu of increasing border controls and fears of illegal immigration, the authors' experiences expose what is at stake for academic medicine when the political sphere, focused on tightening border security, and the medical realm, striving to build international research collaborations, intersect. Creating more equitable global partnerships in research requires a shift from the current paradigm that dominates most international partnerships and causes injury to African scholars.