What is wrong with global health? So-called glorified data collectors in low-income regions

Odjidja, Emmanuel Nene

doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(21)00371-5

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have shown that global health research practices are currently geared towards the interests of certain social/epistemic groups over others 11 17–19. This situation translates into less priority being placed on the knowledge and perspectives of certain groups and what is of pronounced interest and consequence to them, in addition to affording less credibility to the knowledge they hold 20–24…”

Section: The Role Of Research Funders In Decolonising Global Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

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: The Role Of Research Funders In Decolonising Global Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…It is time for LMIC scientists and implementers to be more than just "glorified data collectors". 11 HIC=high-income country. LMIC=low-income and middle-income country.…”

Section: Nbcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new path to mentorship for emerging global health leaders in low-income and middle-income countries

Hamid

Rasheed²

2022

The Lancet Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the consequences of disparate power dynamics in global health research have been widely documented in history. [1][2][3][4][5][6] Although there is greater recognition of the need for significant local engagement and a movement away from predatory research practices, true equity in global research remains elusive.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies in many global health subdisciplines have examined authorship trends and have described imbalances in regional representation and country-income classification distribution. 6,8,9 Persistent regional authorship disparities may partly reflect a country's economic resources and its corresponding ability to invest in health services and health care research. Authors from high-income countries (HICs), mainly English-speaking countries, are frequently more dominant contributors in global health literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Authorship Distribution and Under-Representation of Sub-Saharan African Authors in Global Oncology Publications

Tuyishime

Hornstein

Lasebikan

et al. 2022

JCO Global Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE Local researchers must be engaged in research conducted in their populations. However, local authors from low- and middle-income countries are often under-represented in global health journals. This report aims to assess and describe the representation of authors in the Journal of Clinical Oncology Global Oncology ( JCO GO). METHODS This retrospective cross-sectional study describes data from JCO GO articles published between October 2015 and March 2020. Data were collected on studied countries, authorship position, classified as first, middle, or last, and country of authors' institutional affiliations. Countries were then categorized on the basis of their World Bank region and income classifications. We describe aggregate authorship distribution and distribution by region and income classification. Additionally, we explore the relationships between author's country and studied country. RESULTS Of the 608 articles identified, 420 (69.1%) studied a single country population. Although articles represented studies from all World Bank regions, the sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) region accounted for the highest number (n = 145; 34.5%). In all other regions except SSA, most of the first (66.7%-100%) and last authors (56.6%-95.2%) had primary institutional affiliations based in the same region as the studied country. However, among articles about SSA countries, SSA first authors (n = 65; 44.8%) and last authors (n = 59; 40.7%) were under-represented. In fact, there were more North American first (n = 74; 51.0%) and last authors (n = 72; 49.6%) than SSA authors. There was higher SSA representation among middle authors (n = 97; 68.8%) in studies from the region. A similar trend was also noted with the under-representation of authors from low-income compared with high-income countries. CONCLUSION SSA authors are under-represented in global oncology articles. Concerted strategies are needed to build local capacity, promote meaningful engagement, and foster equity.

show abstract

What is wrong with global health? So-called glorified data collectors in low-income regions

Cited by 16 publications

References 3 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

A new path to mentorship for emerging global health leaders in low-income and middle-income countries

Authorship Distribution and Under-Representation of Sub-Saharan African Authors in Global Oncology Publications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About