Collaboration and Coalition Engagement Policy
‍

1. Preamble

1.1 NutGraph Social Data Lab and its research network Land Conflict Watch (LCW) regularly collaborate with a wide range of organisations, research groups, and coalitions.

1.2 Such collaborations include exploratory discussions, roundtables, consultations, and informal exchanges, where ideas, field insights, and approaches are openly shared.

1.3 We value these spaces and the role they play in shaping thoughtful, evidence-based work. At the same time, as our work has grown, we have found it useful to articulate a few shared norms that help ensure collaborations remain constructive, transparent, and mutually beneficial.

1.4 We believe in the following core values of coalition building:

• Clear goals and objectives
• Diverse membership in terms of expertise and skills, with common interests
• Participatory process
• Shared understanding of terms and roles
• Identified leaders and an established process for fair decision-making
• Trusting relationships
• Reliable systems for communication
• Defined process for conflict resolution
• Balance of collaboration and organisational autonomy

1.5 This Policy outlines how we approach such engagements, and the practices that enable more effective and equitable collaborations.
‍

2. Applicability

2.1 This Policy applies to (1) exploratory discussions and consultations, (2) coalition and network participation, and (3) early-stage project or proposal conversations.

2.2 It is intended as a guiding framework for organisations engaging with NutGraph / LCW, and for how we structure our own participation.
‍

3. Principles for Effective Collaboration

3.1 Clarity of Purpose and Direction: We have found that collaborations work best when there is early clarity on why the engagement is being convened and what it is expected to lead to — research outputs, project design, funding proposals, or any other collective strategy or action. Where this is clear upfront, it helps us share more targeted inputs and engage more meaningfully. If the direction of work evolves over time, we appreciate being looped in so we can align appropriately.

3.2 Use of Inputs and Ideas: In many of these spaces, participants may share field insights, analytical approaches, or emerging ideas. We see these as professional contributions that benefit from context and continuity of engagement. Where organisations wish to build on such inputs, for example in proposals, reports, or project concepts, we find it most effective when (1) this is communicated in advance, (2) there is clarity on how the inputs are being taken forward, and (3) opportunities for deeper collaboration are explored. This helps ensure that ideas are developed with the benefit of the original context and expertise behind them.

3.3 Representation and Attribution: Collaborations often involve multiple organisations contributing in different ways. To keep this accurate and meaningful, we believe there should be alignment in advance on how organisations will be referenced. Where our name or work is being referenced in proposals, coalition materials, or public communication, it must be reviewed by us beforehand so that representation remains accurate.

3.4 Moving from Discussion to Collaboration: Many conversations naturally evolve into potential projects or partnerships. At that stage, we prefer clear communication and a structured understanding on the following:

• Scope of work
• Roles and contributions
• Funding and resourcing
• Data use and outputs

Putting this in place early helps avoid ambiguity later and ensures smoother collaboration for all involved. The collaboration must be finalised subject to the review and approval of all participating partners.

3.5 Participation in Coalitions and Networks: We value coalition spaces as important platforms for exchange of ideas, shaping discourse, and building collective understanding. At the same time, we engage most effectively when (1) there is a clear sense of direction or outcome, (2) participation translates into meaningful contributions, (3) roles of participating organisations are clearly outlined, and (4) opportunities for contribution are visible and equitable.

4. Data and Knowledge Sharing

4.1 Certain collaborations may involve access to, or discussions relating to, datasets, methodologies, data architecture, backend systems, analytical frameworks, field protocols, verification processes, or other technical know-how developed by NutGraph / Land Conflict Watch. These are distinct institutional assets and, unless otherwise agreed in writing, participation in a coalition, consultation, workshop, meeting, or exploratory discussion should not be understood as granting access to, or rights to reproduce, adapt, or build upon, such datasets, systems, or methodologies.
4.2 Access to LCW’s datasets or database extracts shall be governed separately under the Data Access & Licensing Policy

4.3 Any sharing of methodologies, data architecture, backend systems, analytical frameworks, field protocols, verification processes, or other technical know-how shall be governed separately under the Methodology, Data Architecture & Knowledge Sharing Policy

4.4 Where a collaboration involves jointly developed datasets, technical frameworks, or analytical outputs, NutGraph / LCW prefers to align upfront on ownership, attribution, scope of use, and future reuse.
‍

5. Decision-making

All key decisions made within the scope of the collaboration and coalition must be transparent, inclusive, mission-consistent, and accountable. These could include strategic decisions — such as scope, budget, timeline of collaboration, reputational, financial, and/or legal implications, and entering or exiting collaboration agreements — or operational decisions, such as meeting schedules, deliverables timelines and approvals, workflow, and designing research methodology.
‍

6. Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest may arise when either a member of the coalition or a project personnel has private interests or professional obligations (for example: financial, political, or reputational) that could influence their professional judgement or decision-making in the project jointly undertaken. Any such conflict of interest is requested to be communicated in writing to the coalition members prior to entering into such collaboration, or immediately thereafter. Decisions on recusal shall be mutually taken by, and communicated to, the members involved.
‍

7. Conflict Resolution

All members are expected to engage in the dispute resolution process with a genuine commitment to reaching a mutually acceptable outcome. When disagreements arise that adversely impact a project undertaken through collaboration or coalition, the following conflict resolution process is recommended:

• Direct dialogue with project personnel: The relevant leads from each coalition member organisation should first attempt to resolve a dispute through direct dialogue, and have in writing any resolution that is mutually agreed upon and shared with senior leadership.
• Senior leadership: If unresolved through direct dialogue, the dispute is encouraged to be escalated to senior leadership of the organisations involved within a reasonable timeframe. Any decision on resolution must be made in writing and mutually agreed by the parties involved.

8. General Approach

8.1 This Policy reflects how we have found collaborations to work best in practice. It is intended to support open exchange, encourage transparent ways of working, and enable stronger, longer-term partnerships.

8.2 Where, over the course of an engagement, the nature of participation, use of inputs, or representation does not remain aligned with these principles, NutGraph / LCW may recalibrate the scope of its participation, limit the nature of inputs shared, or step back from the engagement. We typically aim to communicate such shifts in good faith and, where possible, align on a way forward.