The possible worlds of global health research: An ethics-focused discourse analysis

Brisbois, Ben; Plamondon, Katrina

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.034

Cited by 23 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Extending the descriptive findings of the scoping review, this CIS was guided by scholarship in this field that focuses on how equity considerations are reflected in the portrayal, justification, assessment, and descriptions of GHPs [ 12 , 25 , 26 ]. Through a series of readings, descriptive data were extracted from each article, followed by qualitative content analysis [ 27 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Critical scholarship on GHPs points to the risks of exploitation and harm that can actually entrench the very inequities they seek to redress by, for example, disproportionately serving more privileged partner interests in ways that strain the already limited material and human resources of less privileged partners [ 7 – 12 ], or by maintaining neocolonial power structures within countries [ 11 – 13 ]. 2 GHPs have typically directed Northern resources, interests, and priorities toward activities carried out in the global South.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Global health partnerships (GHPs) are situated in complex political and economic relationships and involve partners with different needs and interests (e.g., government agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, universities, professional associations, philanthropic organizations and communities). As part of a mixed methods study designed to develop an equity-sensitive tool to support more equity-centred North-South GHPs, this critical interpretive synthesis examined reported assessments of GHPs. Results We examined 30 peer-reviewed articles for power dynamics, equity and inequities, and contradictions or challenges encountered in North-South partnerships. Among articles reviewed, authors most often situated GHPs around a topical focus on research, capacity-building, clinical, or health services issues, with the ‘work’ of the partnership aiming to foster skills or respond to community needs. The specific features of GHPs that were assessed varied widely, with consistently-reported elements including the early phases of partnering; governance issues; the day-to-day work of partnerships; the performance, impacts and benefits of GHPs; and issues of inclusion. Articles shared a general interest in partnering processes and often touched briefly on issues of equity; but they rarely accounted for the complexity of sociopolitical and historical contexts shaping issues of equity in GHPs. Further, assessments of GHPs were often reported without inclusion of voices from all partners or named beneficiaries. GHPs were frequently portrayed as inherently beneficial for Southern partners, without attention to power dynamics and inequities (North-South, South-South). Though historical and political dynamics of the Global North and South were inconsistently examined as influential forces in GHPs, such dynamics were frequently portrayed as complex and characterized by asymmetries in power and resources. Generally, assessments of GHPs paid little attention to the macroeconomic forces in the power and resource dynamics of GHPs highlights the importance of considering the broader political. Our findings suggest that GHPs can serve to entrench both inequitable relationships and unfair distributions of power, resources, and wealth within and between countries (and partners) if inequitable power relationships are left unmitigated. Conclusions We argue that specific practices could enhance GHPs’ contributions to equity, both in their processes and outcomes. Enhancing partnering practices to focus on inclusion, responsiveness to North-South and South-South inequities, and recognition of GHPs as situated in a broader (and inequitable) political economy. A relational and equity-centred approach to assessing GHPs would place social justice, humility and mutual benefits as central practices—that is, regular, routine things that partners involved in partnering do intentionally to make GHPs function well. Practicing equity in GHPs requires continuous efforts to explicitly acknowledge and examine the equity implications of all aspects of partnering.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social constructionist analyses of health-related policy and documentation have provided a deeper understanding of how other health issues operate in practice. Brisbois and Plamondon (2018) in a noteworthy recent example analysed a selection of global health research documents and identified contrasting representations of the world in which global health research is taking place. Their research highlighted the ways in which damaging representations could impact the health of communities.…”

Section: Documents As Active Agentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tensions in intergenerational practice guidance: intergroup contact versus community development

Wright-Bevans

Murray

Lamont

2020

Int J Ageing Later Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intergenerational practice (IP) is an approach within community health promotion which aims to bring older and younger community members together in collaborative activity. Little research has critically examined the assumptions and values within IP and their implications for these communities. A sample of 15 IP planning documents were analysed using a social constructionist thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke2006) guided by Prior’s (2008) concept of documents as active agents. Three tensions were identified: a community-led model versus a contact model; old and young as targets versus older people as targets; and process-focused versus outcome-focused evaluation. IP has relied on contact theory as a mechanism of change, which has rooted IP to an overly individualistic practice targeted at older people (rather than all ages). In contrast, the community-led ethos of IP was also evident alongside values of mutual benefit for old and young, and a desire for more process-focused evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Documents As Active Agentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2020

Int J Ageing Later Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The publishers will keep this document online on the Internet -or its possible replacement -for a considerable time from the date of publication barring exceptional circumstances.The online availability of the document implies a permanent permission for anyone to read, to download, to print out single copies for your own use and to use it unchanged for any research-related and educational purpose. Subsequent transfers of copyright cannot revoke this permission. All other uses of the document are conditional on the consent of the copyright owner. The publisher has taken technical and administrative measures to assure authenticity, security and accessibility.According to intellectual property law the author has the right to be mentioned when his/her work is accessed as described above and to be protected against infringement.For additional information about the Linköping University Electronic Press and its procedures for publication and for assurance of document integrity, please refer to its www home page: http://www.ep.liu.se/.

show abstract

The possible worlds of global health research: An ethics-focused discourse analysis

Cited by 23 publications

References 22 publications

Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis

Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis

Tensions in intergenerational practice guidance: intergroup contact versus community development

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About