Table 2 Second auto-ethnographic vignette

As with most Global Health research projects, this current project’s fiscal origin was the Global North. It was after the preliminary objectives were set that a process of engaging a ‘local collaborator’ started. My local collaborator was Joshua.

The first time I met Joshua in person was at the terrace of a university guest house in the Global South. We had made our appointment weeks before via e-mail, after I was referred to Joshua by a fellow researcher at a different Northern university. This academic colleague used to be Joshua’s PhD supervisor, but was also familiar with the development organisation whose activities we were now asked to evaluate. The colleague wrote that “If you are looking for assistance in [city], knock at their doors, because these are well-trained people.” (e-mail correspondence August 2016). Joshua replied enthusiastically to my e-mail in which I described that I would visit the Southern country to make “first contact” for a pilot study and would be “consulting the [university] ethical board” (e-mail correspondence September 2016).

Joshua arrived at our meeting in a worn Toyota sedan with one side-mirror hanging by an electrical cord, yet he was impeccably clothed. I would later write in my fieldnotes that I “felt comfortable, because [Joshua] did not seem to notice my insecurities” (fieldnotes). Joshua calmly discussed his previous research in which he studied local health systems, whilst we drank tea and ate toast with sunny side-up eggs. The timing of the new study, Joshua argued, was immaculate, as the government was seeking to implement a new local health system. This new system was supposed to prevent a dynamic “where the performance of [health workers] drops as soon as the supervising NGO or implementation partner leaves,” (fieldnotes) and provided sufficient cause for further qualitative research, Joshua argued. At the end of the first meeting, I asked Joshua about the procedures for obtaining ethical clearance. Joshua emphasised the necessity of moving through institutional review and did not foresee any issues if we anticipated about 300 US dollars of expenditures related to that procedure. My final notes of that meeting were: “I do not want to put Joshua to work without having arranged a partnership agreement, be it informally.” We agreed to discuss further in Vancouver, where we would visit the same conference in November.

Joshua and I met again on an autumn day in Vancouver, 14,027 km (8,715mi) away from our earlier encounter. It had only been two months since our first acquaintance, yet there was a stark difference in the nature and dynamics of that meeting. We sat down in the leather chairs of a café within the conference centre, while raindrops clouded our views on the harbour and what seemed to be an endless stream of departing hydroplanes. The insecurities that I felt during our first meeting had made way for feelings of excitement, and my dirt-stained clothes for a navy-blue suit. I had invited a senior colleague to join the meeting that I had so proudly arranged and was excited to finally discuss the substance of our collaborative research project.

Instead of discussing the substance of a collaborative research project, the meeting in Vancouver mainly revolved around financial arrangements. Joshua explained that there were three possibilities for collaboration: Joshua could (1) send an invoice for specific activities, (2) work on consultancy basis for a daily fee, or (3) become a co-investigator in the research project. The former two options, Joshua explained, would be relatively costly, while the third option would be more “budget friendly” (fieldnotes) but implied that Joshua would take part in project decision-making. In that discussion it was decided to start with the first option, with the possibility for a more extensive collaboration at a later stage should a more substantial budget be obtained. Several weeks later, Joshua sent me an invoice for 425 US dollars which covered Joshua’s work to arrange ethical clearance for the study. Despite earlier intentions, I would have only five more brief interactions with Joshua in the four years to follow – two of which were via e-mail. A final e-mail correspondence followed on the submission of a manuscript: “Thanks Robert, all the best, J”.