Africa faces challenges that demand locally grounded evidence, yet much of the research shaping policy, investment and development decisions is still designed, funded or interpreted outside the continent. The result is a credibility gap. Research may be technically rigorous, but when its questions are disconnected from local priorities, its findings can be difficult to apply and its benefits may flow away from the communities that provide the data.
The imbalance is visible in the continent's research capacity. Africa accounts for only a small share of global scientific output, while research and development spending remains far below the levels required to build independent knowledge systems. UNESCO's latest data places Africa's R&D spending at about 0.38% of GDP, compared with a global commitment in many countries to invest at least 1%. That gap affects laboratories, universities, research careers and institutions' ability to retain talent.
Funding is only part of the problem. Research agendas are often shaped by external funders, whose priorities can determine which questions receive attention, how success is measured and where findings are published. International collaboration can bring valuable expertise and resources, but collaboration becomes extractive when African researchers are treated primarily as data collectors, local access partners or assistants rather than as equal intellectual leaders.
This is why the shift from research conducted in Africa to research led by Africans for African priorities matters. It is not an argument against global partnerships or external expertise. It is an argument for shared authority across the research cycle, from defining the question and selecting the methodology to owning the data, interpreting the evidence and deciding how results are used.
Local leadership can improve research relevance because African researchers are more likely to understand the institutional, linguistic, cultural and economic conditions behind the data. Community knowledge can also expose assumptions that external models overlook. Research on water, health, agriculture, education, gender based violence or workplace inclusion becomes more useful when those affected help define the problem rather than appearing only as subjects in a completed study.
The deeper issue is epistemic power. The power to decide what counts as knowledge, whose knowledge is considered credible, and whose version of reality becomes accepted as the truth. Decolonising research is not achieved simply by changing terminology or adding an African partner to a project. It requires funding models that strengthen African institutions, publication systems that recognise locally generated knowledge, and partnerships that give communities a role in governance and ownership. Recent scholarship identifies control over research priorities, methods, resources and dissemination as central to more credible knowledge production on the continent.
The question of who produces knowledge is not only relevant to governments, universities and development institutions. It also matters to business. Companies make decisions about markets, workers and communities based on research and evidence, but when that evidence is detached from local realities, it can lead to ineffective interventions, missed opportunities and weak social and business outcomes. African-led research can help organisations better understand the markets in which they operate, design more relevant products and services, identify risks earlier and measure impact more meaningfully. This is where Creating Shared Value becomes relevant: using deeper understanding of societal needs and local realities to inform business strategy in ways that create both economic and societal value.
The future should not be a choice between African research and international research. It should be an equal system in which African institutions set priorities, lead partnerships and retain the capacity to produce knowledge that serves public and commercial needs. Africa's development will depend on how much research is conducted, but on who controls the questions, the evidence and the solutions.
