On 19 November, SweDev moderated a seminar in the Swedish parliament highlighting the urgent challenges facing development research amid funding cuts – including declining international cooperation and researchers shifting fields – and the importance of strengthening researcher–practitioner collaboration and secure Sweden’s role in global development research.
On Wednesday, 19 November, the Swedish Development Research Network (SweDev) together with parliamentarians Olle Thorell (s) and Anna Lasses (c) hosted a seminar at the Swedish parliament, bringing together researchers, practitioners, and representatives from key institutions to discuss how to strengthen the evidence base for Swedish development policy. With reference to SweDev’s newly released survey report, we now live in a time where development researchers in Sweden are switching fields, and international cooperation is declining, as a consequence of recent funding cuts. The seminar underscored both the urgency of the current situation and the opportunities that remain – if the rights structures, resources and long-term strategies are put in place.
A shifting landscape for development research
The seminar opened with reflections on how rapidly the global environment for research and international cooperation is changing. Research plays a crucial role in finding solutions to today’s and tomorrow’s challenges, yet political pressures, censorship, shrinking civic space, and reduced aid budgets threaten evidence-based analysis worldwide. Sweden’s own reductions – particularly cuts targeting development research – were described as part of a broader trend that risks weakening global health initiatives, eroding crisis response capacity, and undermining research partnerships built over decades.
SweDev’s survey report revealed alarming signals from the research community: around 80% of respondents reported increasing difficulty pursuing international development research during the past two years, and more than half have switched research areas entirely due to funding cuts. This dramatic shift threatens both Sweden’s domestic competence and its long-standing cooperation with partners in low-income countries.
Participants highlighted concrete examples, such as the International Science Program (ISP) at Uppsala University, whose budget has been cut by half – one illustration of how the changed funding landscape directly impacts long-term collaboration and knowledge production.
Despite these challenges, the message was clear: research matters and it is very much needed – but it cannot be conducted at the same scope as before without stable, dedicated funding.
Research and practice
Representatives from Swedish public agencies emphasized that evidence remains central to effective development cooperation. They described ongoing efforts to strengthen internal evidence management, improve access to up-to-date research across their global operations, and enhance the skills and systems necessary to integrate scientific knowledge into daily decision-making. Planned changes include improved knowledge-sharing platforms, stronger connections with Swedish researchers across thematic areas, and more systematic procedures for ensuring that programs rest on the best available evidence.
Other contributions underline the importance of bridging research and practice. The networks and initiatives already working to connect researchers and policymakers noted that these efforts need to be improved and strengthened for greater continuity. Cross-sector collaboration between researchers was further highlighted as a means to address the challenges of bridging research and practice and to strengthen researchers’ roles.
Dedicated development research funding
A recurring point was the unique nature of development research, which often requires longer time horizons, extensive collaboration with partners in low-income contexts, and more costly data collection than domestic or desk-based research. When dedicated funding instruments disappear, researchers are incentivised to redirect their work toward more general calls, reducing Sweden’s ability to support globally relevant research and undermining partnerships built over decades.
The shift toward open calls has not eliminated funding; however, it has resulted in fewer applications for development-related grants. There are indications that those who do apply often perform well – but the structure risks weakening long-term competence and partnerships. Participants noted the importance of reviewing who sits on evaluation panels and how decisions are made to ensure development perspectives are properly represented, and also a more nuanced assessment of how the funding cuts have impacted on what type of development research projects get funded (if and how certain geographic and topical areas are affected).
At the same time, agencies working in peacebuilding and development showcased models for systematic evidence use through integrating research with experiential knowledge and contextual understanding – involving researchers from the regions where programs are implemented – and fostering working groups where scholars and practitioners learn from each other in real time. Such approaches, participants agreed, could inspire similar structures across the broader development sector.
What is needed now?
In the final discussion, participants identified several priorities moving forward:
- A more proactive narrative that demonstrates the value of development research, including openness around learning, failure, and innovation.
- Closer cooperation between researchers and practitioners, and stronger cross-sector networks to bridge gaps between evidence generation and policy implementation.
- More researchers embedded in agencies early in the program process, ensuring long-term and evidence-driven approaches.
- Careful use of language, acknowledging the importance of evidence without cultivating the perception that development cooperation was not previously evidence-based, which could unintentionally undermine trust in policy.
- Continuous follow-up on how the changed funding structures and application processes affect development research in practice.
Looking Ahead
The seminar closed with a shared ambition: Sweden should continue to be a constructive, responsible actor in global development. Development research strengthens resilience, informs better policy, and provides the analytic capacity needed to tackle global challenges. Participants stressed that Sweden has already invested heavily in building this competence – an investment that must not be lost.
Despite the pressures facing the sector, the discussion conveyed optimism. There is strong willingness to build clearer channels for collaboration, strengthen coordination, and ensure that research informs development policy from the very beginning – not as an afterthought.
The seminar served as a starting point for renewed, collective action to secure a future where evidence-based development research continues to play the role it must.