Epistemic injustice in academic global health

Abstract

This Viewpoint calls attention to the pervasive wrongs related to knowledge production, use, and circulation in global health, many of which are taken for granted. We argue that common practices in academic global health (eg, authorship practices, research partnerships, academic writing, editorial practices, sensemaking practices, and the choice of audience or research framing, questions, and methods) are peppered with epistemic wrongs that lead to or exacerbate epistemic injustice. We describe two forms of epistemic wrongs, credibility deficit and interpretive marginalisation, which stem from structural exclusion of marginalised producers and recipients of knowledge. We then illustrate these forms of epistemic wrongs using examples of common practices in academic global health, and show how these wrongs are linked to the pose (or positionality) and the gaze (or audience) of producers of knowledge. The epistemic injustice framework shown in this Viewpoint can help to surface, detect, communicate, make sense of, avoid, and potentially undo unfair knowledge practices in global health that are inflicted upon people in their capacity as knowers, and as producers and recipients of knowledge, owing to structural prejudices in the processes involved in knowledge production, use, and circulation in global health.

Using scientific authorship criteria as a tool for equitable inclusion in global health research

“…Data interpretation in international research partnerships ought to be a collective exercise in which local team members are considered to have privileged knowledge, given their greater contextual exposure and expertise regarding the topic under study. 16 This knowledge can be applied during data analysis and is also relevant to the framing of the research question, which determines what data to acquire and analyses to conduct. Hence, interpretation is integral to all the other elements of criterion 1-that is, conception, design, data acquisition and data analysis.…”

“…This casts reasonable doubt on the inclusiveness of the work from conception to publication, and suggests interpretive marginalisation of local LMIC authors-which then also casts doubt on the validity of the work. 16 Beyond scientific content, rejections or 'revise and resubmit' decisions from journals should also be based on assessments for exclusionary authorship, particularly as pertains local authors in HIC-LMIC global health research collaborations. We encourage journals to take this seriously when considering which manuscripts to send out for peer review or to accept for publication.…”

Inequalities in COVID-19 Research from Sub-Saharan Africa: Differences in the Prestige of Journal Articles with Internal and External Lead Authors, Collaborations and Publishers

“…Epistemic wrongs from pose/positionality are the practices associated with the groups involved in the knowledge production process (Bhakuni & Abimbola 2021). Sub-Saharan Africa, as a social entity in the research world, has the mandate to create its own research agenda.…”

“…On the other hand, the inclination towards international collaboration with countries outside Sub-Saharan countries at the expense of internal Sub-Saharan African collaboration is an epistemic wrong that could also be associated with gaze/audience. Epistemic wrongs from gaze are the practices that sti e the voices of a marginalized social entity in a research community by the audience (Bhakuni & Abimbola 2021). In this case, authors from Sub-Saharan Africa prefer to collaborate with researchers outside Sub-Saharan Africa because it is an opportunity to associate with the dominant group in global health research whose research is considered credible to the global audience.…”

“…In this case, authors from Sub-Saharan Africa prefer to collaborate with researchers outside Sub-Saharan Africa because it is an opportunity to associate with the dominant group in global health research whose research is considered credible to the global audience. Authors from Sub-Saharan Africa do this to bene t from the "credibility excess" that researchers from the developed countries enjoy and alleviate their own "credibility de ciency" (Bhakuni & Abimbola 2021).…”