Underrepresentation of developing country researchers in development research

Amarante, Verónica; Burger, Ronelle; Chelwa, Grieve; Cockburn, John; Kassouf, Ana Lúcia; McKay, Andy; Zurbrigg, Julieta

doi:10.1080/13504851.2021.1965528

Cited by 48 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Redressing current asymmetries will require deliberate analysis to identify existing unjust defaults and assumptions. The lack of understanding of the ways in which Euro-North American-centric epistemic domination hinders the success of Global South epistemic groups applications legitimises funding asymmetries and the exclusion of local voices to address local challenges 6 8 10 49…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Supporting the production of the knowledge needed to accurately understand Global South issues, craft appropriate interventions, or design projects that are responsive to Global South applicants’ culture, context and needs, requires research funders and Global South applicants to show clear commitments to the inclusion of diverse perspectives, accounts and ways of thinking and doing through practical transformational change 4 6 21…”

Section: Step 3: Coloniality Of Being and Addressing Asymmetries In G...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While different ways to allocate research-funding are associated with different issues, global health research funding carries additional challenges due to unequal power dynamics related to the coloniality of power, of knowledge and of being (figure 1). 2–4 While the studies are designed to address health challenges in the Global South, the financial power including decision-making around delivery remains concentrated in the Global North 5 6…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How to identify epistemic injustice in global health research funding practices: a decolonial guide

Besson

2022

BMJ Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Epistemic injustice is a growing area of study for researchers and practitioners working in the field of global health. Theoretical development and empirical research on epistemic injustice are crucial for providing more nuanced understandings of the mechanisms and structures leading to the exclusion of local and marginalised groups in research and other knowledge practices. Explicit analysis of the potential role of epistemic injustice in policies and practices is currently limited with the absence of methodological starting points. This paper aims to fill this gap in the literature by providing a guide for individuals involved in the design and review of funding schemes wishing to conduct epistemic injustice analysis of their processes using a decolonial lens. Placing contemporary concerns in a wider historical, political and social context and building from the intertwined issues of coloniality of power, coloniality of knowledge and coloniality of being that systematically exclude non-Western epistemic groups, this practice paper presents a three-step decolonial approach for understanding the role and impact of epistemic injustices in global health research funding. It starts with an understanding of how power operates in setting the aim of a call for research proposals. Then, the influence of pose and gaze in the review process is analysed to highlight the presence of epistemological colonisation before discussing methods to address the current funding asymmetries by supporting new ways of being and doing focused on knowledge plurality. Expanding research on how epistemic wrongs manifest in global health funding practices will generate key insights needed to address underlying drivers of inequities within global health project conception and delivery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Step 3: Coloniality Of Being and Addressing Asymmetries In G...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How to identify epistemic injustice in global health research funding practices: a decolonial guide

Besson

2022

BMJ Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The remaining 11% were collaborations by Southern and Northern researchers. Additionally, there are also fewer citations per article for Southern-authored articles than for Northern-authored articles" (Amarante et al, 2021).…”

Section: Global Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Generalizing with equity: the Busara research agenda on contextualisation and cross-cultural measurement in the Global South

Lab¹,

Tang²,

Owsley³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The events of recent years have made especially plain the inequities between Global North and South. One such inequality is in the way some social groups are often missing from the data, so that knowledge, policies, services and products do not take proper account of them. This bias exists strongly in the conceptual development of the behavioral sciences, and it makes the research base fragile, with papers making claims of universality that do not stand up to scrutiny. In order to deal with concerns about replication, external validity and the strength of this research base, there are now many initiatives to improve experimentation in the social sciences. However, truly generalizable findings come about when institutions are present in the long term to aggregate across studies. That works even better when those institutions have a deep understanding of the contexts in which they seek to generalise from and to. Busara was founded as an institution to apply context-specific behavioral science literature, and this work has been a constant throughout our history. We now propose to launch a structured three-year Open Science investigation of the gaps in the understanding of canonical patterns of behavior, cognitive processes, preferences, beliefs, and decision-making processes in the Global South, comparing our work in multiple contexts and exploring variance across time, place, and demography. At the conclusion of this project, we will begin integrating our findings into wider theories of global cultural, psychological and microeconomic heterogeneity.

show abstract

“…Experiments in the social sciences have taught us an enormous amount in recent decades (Falk & Heckman, 2009;Duflo & Banerjee, 2013). Yet there has also been considerable criticism of a perceived dominance of experimentation in the study of development, which critics hold represents and deepens fundamental power imbalances in the production of knowledge (Amarante et al, 2021). A special issue of World Development (Volume 127, March 2020) reviewed many of the issues, with important critiques made by Nimi Hoffman and Kaplan et al in particular.…”

Section: Global Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Participant voice first: the Busara research agenda on ethical research in the Global South

MUMO¹,

Lab²,

Wein³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of experiments in social science has brought huge gains in our knowledge of the world. However, in recent debates, sharp critiques of the power imbalances of the discipline have been made. There have been some responses on how we can improve our approach to be more ethical. These responses have often conceived of research ethics rather narrowly, and not included wider responsibilities beyond the protection of participants. Often missing from both sides has been empirical study of the preferences of those research participants, and the societies they belong to. As part of our commitment to racial, gender and wider social justice, commitment to advancing the voices of research participants, and under the banner of our values of respect and purpose, Busara proposes to organise and formalise its agenda on research ethics. We will combine past learnings with new studies over the next three years, to deeply understand the experiences of research participants, and find better ways of closing the loop in communication with those participants. From there, we will co-create, test and disseminate changes to research processes and practices that improve participant welfare and uphold ever-higher standards of ethical practice. We believe that this is both more just, and likely to produce better quality research.

show abstract

Underrepresentation of developing country researchers in development research

Cited by 48 publications

References 12 publications

How to identify epistemic injustice in global health research funding practices: a decolonial guide

How to identify epistemic injustice in global health research funding practices: a decolonial guide

Generalizing with equity: the Busara research agenda on contextualisation and cross-cultural measurement in the Global South

Participant voice first: the Busara research agenda on ethical research in the Global South

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About