Decolonizing Global Health: Tackling Epistemic Injustice and Unfair Knowledge Practices
Hello everyone! Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, wherever you are. I’m Shal Prasad, the Executive Director of the Center for Global Health and Social Responsibility at the University of Minnesota. Thank you for joining us for our eighth annual Quie and Peterson Lecture. Today, we’re tackling the topic, "Decolonizing Global Health: Addressing Epistemic Injustice and Unfair Knowledge Practices."
We’re excited to introduce our esteemed speaker shortly, but first, I want to honor two people central to our Center and the University of Minnesota, Dr. Paul Quie and Dr. Philip Peterson. This lecture is named after them, as long-standing leaders in our global health community and founders of our Center. Through their work, they’ve established this platform that strengthens the University of Minnesota’s global partnerships. We know they’re watching on Zoom today, along with Dr. Cliff Steer, another dedicated supporter of our Center. Thank you all!
The Quie and Peterson Lecture has been an incredible opportunity to spotlight influential voices in global health, with past topics ranging from the political determinants of health to the global climate crisis, pandemic spillovers, and compassion in healthcare. Today, we continue those critical conversations.
As a reminder, this webinar is being recorded and will be accessible afterward. Please feel free to post your questions in the Q&A section on Zoom, and I’ll relay those to our speaker. We also have a special watch party of students from the University of Minnesota joining us.
This year’s theme focuses on epistemic injustice and unfair knowledge practices in global health. These knowledge practices often reinforce inequities and compromise the dignity of those affected, favoring perspectives from privileged researchers and institutions in high-income countries while inadequately addressing the issues they claim to resolve. Representation from the Global South and marginalized groups remains limited in global health research, and a colonialist mindset still pervades much of the field, countering its objectives.
This year’s lecture addresses epistemic injustice and how academicians can recognize and challenge their biases, creating more equitable practices that genuinely serve communities. I can’t think of anyone more suited to address this issue than today’s speaker, Dr. Seye Abimbola.
Dr. Abimbola, a health systems researcher from Nigeria, is currently an Associate Professor at the University of Sydney, Australia. His work centers on knowledge systems in global health, health systems governance, and the adoption and scale-up of health system innovations. Between 2020 and 2022, he held the Prince Claus Chair at Utrecht University for his work on justice in global health research and has recently been awarded an Australian Research Council Discovery Award for his study on dignity-based knowledge practices. He’s joining us today from Geneva, where he is a “Thinker in Residence”—what a fitting title!
Without further ado, please join me in welcoming Dr. Seye Abimbola. Dr. Abimbola, we’re thrilled to have you here today, and with that, I’ll hand it over to you.
---
**Dr. Abimbola:**
Thank you very much, Shal, for that kind introduction. It’s a pleasure to be here today, particularly knowing that Dr. Quie and Dr. Peterson are in the audience. My utmost respect to them for their pioneering work and commitment.
Today, I aim to offer a reframing of epistemic injustice—or as I sometimes prefer, “unfair knowledge practices”—in global health. Framing this issue in terms of power, connection, and the way power influences our capacity to truly understand is crucial. I’m reminded of a quote from James Baldwin: “Ignorance allied with power is the most ferocious enemy that justice can have.” This idea resonates deeply in global health, an area committed to knowledge generation aimed at addressing injustice. But, if power shapes this knowledge, it can hinder rather than help.
Another perspective comes from Nigerian Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka, who argued that “Truth and power form an antagonism.” In his view, power tends toward domination and distortion, often leading to selective truth—a form of a lie. This tension between truth and power challenges us to examine how power distances us from genuine understanding in global health.
In the next part of my talk, I’ll explore two types of disconnection brought on by power: the disconnect between those conducting research and the communities being studied, and the tendency for those in power to position themselves as central, often resulting in a distorted understanding of the realities they aim to address.
( HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT WHICH MAY NOT BE FULLY UNDERSTOOD
Here’s the transcript in full sentences, formatted as requested:
---
The thing that becomes clear is that, insofar as our distance removes us from knowing, it means that what we are removed from knows better than us. So, the center has power, and the periphery knows better. Very often, what we do is imagine that what works for us at the center in Place B (as I've shown on the slide), or what we see in Place B, necessarily applies in Place A or Situation A. We proceed to assume this because we have the power to do so. However, in many instances, we are dealing with complex social systems and realities.
What's peculiar about these systems and realities is that our account of them, our understanding of them, depends very much on where we stand in relation to them, that is, the distance between us and them, and the audience to whom we address ourselves when we give those accounts. Now, imagine a scenario where we are speaking to people who are like us about people who are far removed from us. In doing so, we reinforce those falsehoods and reinforce our ignorance about their realities.
If we were to address ourselves to them respectfully, if we were to understand what the distance between us and them means for our ability to know and do well by them, we would be in a different place. But if we take these things for granted, as we often do, we de-optimize ourselves from being useful in serving the purposes that we’ve set for ourselves.
There is a second type of disconnection—disconnection within a system. When I think about this, I often set myself three categories of actors. You’ll notice from this talk that I think in a modular way, and certain things recur in how I understand the world. When we think about three sets of actors, one set of actors could be governments or similarly powerful entities that tend to be distant from the reality of marginalized communities. I think of a second category as communities marginalized for various reasons and, when they function at their best to achieve equity for themselves, they act as activists. The third category of actors includes practitioners—people who work day-to-day and are assumed to be governed primarily by the needs of the communities they serve, as well as by the rules those communities and governments set.
When this triangle I’ve described functions well, these three actors (governments, communities, and practitioners) operate in a kind of dynamic balance. So, there are three axes in this relationship: one between the government (engineers or policymakers) and the community (which we might call emancipators or activists), and a third category of practitioners who deliver services.
There’s also a fourth category of actors: us, those who move knowledge around. We cook it, remix it, present it, represent it, synthesize it—doing all kinds of things with knowledge to move it around, whether it’s connecting one group of actors to another or connecting among the three main groups I mentioned. Knowledge movers need platforms, and as I mentioned, this set of four actors can exist at any scale. For instance, in a small town, knowledge movers could be town announcers using a platform like the town square. At a broader scale, they could be journalists using the press. At an even broader scale, academics might use journals or media, while district health officials or national health ministries might use data systems.
The role of knowledge movers, regardless of scale, is to connect different actors who would otherwise be disconnected, especially in cases where governments are distant from the realities of the people for whom they design and craft policies. Every distance requires a channel or agent to bridge the connection between these three sets of actors. This also requires what I call a “cloud of witnesses.” For those familiar with the Bible, this is a phrase from the book of Hebrews—a concept of an accountability mechanism to hold powerful actors accountable for how they interact with less powerful actors.
Whenever a powerful entity becomes a law unto itself, something is likely to go wrong. Part of our responsibility as researchers in global health is to think carefully about what holds us accountable, who holds us accountable, and how to conceptualize these structures.
So, knowledge movers need platforms, but platforms themselves are situated in specific locations. Just as the person giving an account is situated in a particular place, so are the knowledge platforms they use. For example, the marketplace in Town A doesn’t serve Town B’s needs, just as the BBC, though providing valuable content, can’t serve Nigeria in the way it serves Britain. Platforms serve their owners and their local context and, in doing so, may be less effective or less optimal for other locations.
I’ve outlined my mental image of the knowledge ecosystem in global health and highlighted the factors that disconnect us as academics and researchers from the people we serve. There’s a need to reimagine how we relate to those we serve, to whom we address ourselves, and the platforms we use when describing their realities. Additionally, within any complex system, there are these different actors that need to be connected to one another.
Finally, I wanted to address the forces that maintain disconnection, especially in academic global health. One of these forces is what I call “compounded power,” where those with power tend to accumulate more. It’s perverse but not unexpected; power often begets more power. I use a line from Billie Holiday’s song to illustrate this idea. Power tends to reinforce itself, and this assumption of perpetual power requires us to think about what might stop us or hold us accountable.
The second force I call “colonial mentality.” This idea is inspired by a song by Fela Kuti, which speaks to the way some, even after colonization, continue to believe that the colonizer’s way is inherently superior. There are those who may feel comfortable with or even dependent on the current power dynamic, which makes them less likely to challenge it.
---
Let me know if you need further adjustments!)
IT'S SIMPLE FORM IS AS BELOW
Here’s a refined text version of the transcript, summarizing key points while preserving the main ideas:
---
The discussion opens with the concept that distance from a subject can often lead to limited understanding, and those who are removed may not know as much as those who are closer to the reality. This distance can create a power imbalance, where central authorities impose policies assuming they’ll work universally, despite the differences in circumstances at the local level. When distant decision-makers assume their experiences and solutions apply everywhere, they risk misunderstanding complex, local systems. This disconnect is amplified when they speak to others like themselves rather than directly to those impacted.
The speaker categorizes key actors in systems: governments or powerful entities, marginalized communities (often represented by activists), and practitioners who provide services. Ideally, these actors interact in a dynamic balance, with governments setting rules, communities advocating for themselves, and practitioners serving community needs. A fourth group includes knowledge movers, such as academics or journalists, who play a critical role in connecting these actors by spreading information.
Knowledge movers rely on platforms, which vary by scale and context—from town announcers to journalists and academic publications. However, platforms also have their biases, often favoring the needs of those who created or own them. For instance, platforms like the BBC or academic journals may not serve other countries as effectively as they serve their origin countries.
The speaker highlights two forces that maintain disconnection: "compounded power," where those with power continue to accumulate it, and "colonial mentality," where former colonies or less powerful groups sometimes internalize inferiority or deference to authority. These dynamics reinforce the existing disconnection and prevent meaningful accountability.
In closing, the speaker urges a rethinking of the knowledge ecosystem in global health, emphasizing the need to connect with local realities and audiences to serve their needs better. Recognizing and addressing these disconnections is essential for academic and policy work that genuinely benefits diverse communities.
Here’s the transcript text in a simplified format:
---
In the example of institutions like BMJ or BBC, there's a prevailing notion that if research is done, say, in Nigeria or India, it only holds value if it’s published in Western journals like BMJ. This has created a sense that these standards are something to aspire to. This mentality isn’t inherent but rather learned, indicating a miseducation.
This leads to another issue: as researchers, we’re often taught and incentivized to adhere to these norms to progress in our careers. It’s so normalized that even when we sense something wrong, it’s difficult to change because the entire system incentivizes these actions.
The next category is mislabeling. The way we view and label different countries as "low- and middle-income" often generalizes them in ways that may not reflect their unique contexts. For instance, while reviewing grant applications recently, I noticed many projects lumped countries under these labels without considering the specific country's context. These labels, while convenient, can lead to a stereotyped understanding, masking individuals and societies behind categories like "vulnerable." This oversimplifies people’s identities and leads to unfair practices.
Then, there’s the issue of under-governance, where certain rules either don’t exist or aren’t enforced, or are even bent to serve specific interests. For example, the ICMJE authorship criteria were initially inclusive, but the way they’re applied often excludes others. Rules are insufficient by themselves and need to be carefully implemented to avoid further marginalizing people.
Another issue is underrepresentation. Often, people on the receiving end of research efforts aren’t represented among the decision-makers, which can lead to a lack of respect or recognition of their perspectives. Researchers, in such cases, tend to reinforce their own biases because they are largely their own audience, discussing and validating ideas within a narrow circle.
In a recent synthesis on unfair practices in global health, we gathered complaints from the literature. Many scholars have voiced concerns about unfair practices over the last several years, and these complaints reveal the expectations that these practices fail to meet. Our analysis grouped these expectations into four categories:
1. **Transparency**: Researchers often operate from a specific worldview, making non-neutral choices. At the very least, they should be transparent about their motivations, the perspectives they included or excluded, and why.
2. **Non-extraction**: This addresses who benefits from the knowledge produced. Ideally, those who contribute to research should primarily benefit from it, rather than the research reproducing exploitative structures.
3. **Democratization**: This point might be the most challenging for many, as current practices have been so normalized. Democratization is about fair, respectful engagement, where researchers don’t impose themselves in contexts without permission or consideration of the community's perspective.
---
This simplified transcript keeps the essence of the original discussion focused on unfair practices, mislabeling, transparency, non-extraction, and democratization in global health research.
**Transcript**
The speaker began by emphasizing the importance of consent and boundaries in research. They likened the act of investigating someone's personal space to searching under a bed without permission. They asserted that individuals have a right to determine what information about them is shared and researched. The speaker highlighted that researchers should not intrude without invitation; instead, the subjects of research should guide the process, leading discussions on how they want to be studied.
The core message stressed the transformative potential of research, urging scholars to consider the broader implications of their work. The speaker noted that researchers should consistently reflect on the purpose of their research and how it could positively change the conditions surrounding the issues they study. They pointed out the importance of considering upstream factors—structural elements that shape individuals' lives—rather than focusing solely on immediate outcomes.
The speaker shared a realization from reviewing various articles: there is a desire among people for researchers to imagine differently and engage more proactively with upstream solutions rather than merely analyzing individual behaviors. This led to a broader question about the role of academics in global health and how they can act as both connectors and disconnection points within systems.
They explained that academics often occupy an outsider position in the systems they study. Their role should not be to replace existing internal connectors within these systems but rather to strengthen and support them. They should work to enhance existing platforms for collaboration while occasionally stepping in to facilitate connections when necessary.
A reference was made to a book discussing education system strengthening, noting the idea that a healthier system is one connected to more of itself, allowing for greater self-learning. The speaker aimed to communicate these ideas in straightforward language, making it easier to engage in meaningful discussions.
As the talk concluded, the speaker encouraged audience participation, prompting them to submit questions. A question arose regarding the speaker's experience as the inaugural editor of BMJ Global Health and how that role influenced their perspective on academic publishing. They recounted their journey, starting as a medical student on an editorial board for a student-run journal, which piqued their interest in academic publishing.
In 2005, during their final year of medical school, they encountered an interesting debate at BMJ regarding the role of academic journals in publishing research. They shared their belief that the internet should have revolutionized academic communication but had not yet achieved this goal. They recalled a discussion about whether BMJ should emulate The Economist, which transitioned away from being an academic journal, suggesting a need for academic journals to reevaluate their primary functions.
Upon being appointed as editor of BMJ Global Health, the speaker aimed for the journal to serve purposes beyond merely publishing research. They sought to create a platform for meaningful discussions about global health, emphasizing that while research is valuable, the journal's mission should encompass broader conversations about advancing the field.
Over time, the speaker grew more comfortable with the direction of BMJ Global Health, although they initially did not fully grasp the importance of maintaining strong local medical journals in Nigeria or Kenya. They recognized that BMJ Global Health could not replace these essential publications and acknowledged the growing clarity of that understanding throughout their tenure.
Here's the converted text from the audio transcription you provided:
---
It's not going to do that job; those spaces need platforms that serve them primarily. This can only serve them secondarily, at best. So, that was something that changed in my view, and I got firmer and firmer through the years about how I understood what that was about.
Why did I do a mix of things? I think the most important reason was that it was too much work, and you can only do that for so long. People are always surprised when they hear me say this: I maintained my full-time day job throughout, and I have two young daughters, aged 10 and 7—one was born after I became a parent. This gives you a sense of how much work it was. It became clear to me that this is not sustainable, and I have other things I wanted to spend my time on, one of which was finishing my little book and writing another one.
Thank you for that. We've been getting a bunch of questions, and I'm going to start with a follow-up question related to what you just mentioned. This is from a student. You said it cannot be the same for Nigeria as it is for Kenya. How do we increase the accountability of journals to populations whose data is printed in them? The follow-up is: Have some of our journals become too powerful, like the platforms that hold the land sets in the New England Journal, and how do we then bring accountability from both an access and role perspective?
That's many questions. I believe that we have to hold one another to account. I was reflecting with one of my friends recently here in Geneva. Last week, I said that I feel like I've done my bit speaking in the abstract about what is wrong with certain studies. Now I've entered a phase where I want to pick a study or a body of work and write an essay explaining why you should not view it that way—respectfully, of course. But I think we have to get into a place and a space where we can hold one another to account in that way; otherwise, we will…
I have another friend here in Geneva who said, "People like you," and I said, "Really?" He responded, "I think they like it because they don't really read what you've written. If they read what you wrote, they wouldn't." I suspected that anyway. There is a sense in which I think it's important to be clearer and sharper in holding one another to account.
In doing that, I often think about what was, and still is, the evidence-based medicine movement. One of the ways they disciplined people who did research and the journals that published research was that early in their history, they would do audits of journals. They usually went for the top ones: BMJ, JAMA, LANCET, etc. They would describe what the journals have done wrong and what authors have done wrong in publishing. Based on that, they would generate guidelines and insist that journals use those guidelines, and that reviewers…
In other words, they built a policing mechanism. I don't think we can get to where we want to go without something similar. We have to get ourselves there, and again, we have to do that among ourselves.
It's this eternal question, isn't it? How do you socialize good behavior? It takes time.
Here’s another student question. I like how you incorporate artists into your formulation of these concepts, which is fantastic. I love making a list of music choices. Could you include more of this practice and how it connects, particularly in relation to facilitating epistemic injustice or justice?
I think in music a lot. When I stepped down from BMJ, I sat down with a playlist on Spotify. I will encourage you to listen. Let me know if you want a link. I think in music a lot, and for me, what's important about that is that often that's how people make sense of reality. Music is often poetry. It's strange because my wife always complains about this: the more street that music is, the more I like it. The more it reflects certain points of view on reality that may otherwise be marginalized, the more I'm drawn to it, if you see what I mean.
In that sense, it's part of how we think about art, literature, and poetry. That's how I think about music. I forgot on that slide to mention the great Lauryn Hill. The miseducation was from Lauryn Hill, and that live album is wonderful.
There are a few more questions coming. One was about the neutrality of academic institutions. I'm sure the polarized world is not new. We are probably seeing more of the polarized world coming to the forefront. Regarding the neutrality of what we do, how do we then, from the viewpoint of practical application of the knowledge generation that we create, keep away from neutrality while addressing the injustices that might be epistemic or structural in society?
It's a tricky question, and it's very difficult to tackle. In part, we have to remind ourselves that universities and institutions were not created for social justice and equity. That's not the point of the institution—not a particular specific university, but the idea of a university was not for that purpose. For universities and entities, including yours—which I really like the label of your center—that needed to be said; it wasn't in the water. It had to be said and brought into being.
The nature of universities, by its very nature, does not uphold the status quo. One of the best ways to uphold the status quo is to pretend as if you're neutral. When you're neutral, of course, you're not involved in the fact that… Remember, the construction compounds; the spoils continue to compound, but if you're neutral, of course, I'm not involved. It's life; it's reality.
I'm not involved, so there is that. Institutions continue to do that, and we continue to do that. What makes it even trickier is that there's a way in which we are encouraged to frame evidence generation as if it is neutral. If I looked at a reality in Nigeria, and I know that a group in Nigeria is oppressing another group, and I choose to describe that oppression as oppression, that choice is not a neutral one. I could also choose to describe that as a natural order of things, that this is how the world works, full stop.
People do that. There are those who could say one group is oppressing another. We are encouraged, including by journals and the demands of our career advancement, to stay out of things that call things what they are. Again, it's a choice we have to make regarding what we want to do. But I wish that we recognize when we make a choice to be neutral, we are, in fact, being epistemically unjust.
Thank you for that. That question came from Dr. Miguel, who works a lot with the refugee communities here. The next question is from Professor Bill Wess from El Salvador. Can you extend your thoughts beyond the academic world of global health? Global health is a huge tent; there are various actors. How do we then go beyond, and do you have suggestions for folks beyond academia?
It's practical in many ways. I'm here for two weeks, but I will be in and out both in person and virtually for the next six months. Part of why I'm here is to engage with people who enact knowledge practices, not necessarily academics. Some of them are academics or at least researchers, but not all. How we decide on interventions, for example, which interventions we choose to implement, support, commission an evaluation about, or review.
The Gates Foundation, for example, made a call for applications from countries on innovative practices to achieve some goal. They had five sets of criteria, and the first four made me happy. The last one was, "Do not propose anything that currently exists in the country?" They also wanted this to be scalable. You're asking yourself, what do you think the people in that country have been doing all their lives? Do you think they have no ideas that they’ve been trying?
It’s those ways of completely disregarding and diminishing a people. In everything we do, we are all knowledge actors, and it's how we engage with that order. I think this is an important question. This is from a student, primarily looking at bridging the gap between a particular field and the practical need in a community. We always feel that academia sometimes is too sterile, with very strict sterile practices. How do you convert that into practical need? As a student, what advice would you have for someone wanting to apply their work practically?
I'm going to say something that's not very nice. Try not to start your career in academia because it will mess with you if you really want to serve the real needs of people. I give the example of engineers and emancipator plumbers. Often within each of those, there are people who are either researchers or trying to serve a particular need. People in those spaces are more aligned with serving the needs of people than people who are proper academics.
There are academics who do that well, but they have to almost be the trend; they almost have to sort of get out of the constraints. If you are in that system and if you're a faithful citizen of the academic country, you won't be able to do that properly. So, it's partly about exploring opportunities that allow you to do that properly because the incentive system in academia early in your career would not allow you to do that work.
This is probably a continuation of that. This is from the audience again. It's about understanding one's privilege—whatever privilege that is, economic, colonial, etc. How do you check that while involved in the work in global health? How do you do what? Sorry, how do you check your privilege?
I'm not sure it's something that can be taught easily. I know there are people who teach those things in the U.S. I'm not sure it's something that can be taught. You have to be very sensitive and aware. I'm not sure how to better tell you that, but to really, really—and I think
Here's the converted text:
---
**Speaker 1:** I can get in New England of medicine. When I see people ask questions like that, I can understand that that's where it's coming from. Or if a funder would fund me if I was asking this question, yeah, I'm going to ask that question. Or if funders like this topic right now, so I'm going to go into the community and just say, "Okay, um, do you guys want digital solutions?" And then you sort of engineer that. So it is really about being honest with ourselves. Part of my hope here also is that while recognizing that as individuals, we can only do so much. If there's a system within which you function, that system asks for us to do certain things, it's hard to not do. But I want to hope that we do them with so much discomfort that when the opportunity arises, we will change that structure.
**Speaker 2:** Yeah, those structural changes are sometimes going to be the huge challenge there. This is from Dr. Judy Lasker, who's a well-known sociologist. She asked this question about labeling countries: LMI C, Global North. One of the categories she mentioned that she came across recently was the global majority countries and global minority countries, which sort of emphasizes a little bit of the power structure. What is your thought about using terms like that? Because we tend to, whether we like it or not, internally categorize things, isn't it?
**Speaker 1:** Yeah, I've used that. I sometimes use it. What is good about it is that every time you use it, you have to imagine the world slightly differently. It sort of does something to your mind every time. Majority, yes, of course. It's easy to forget. So it's a kind of reminder. It gets you in a way. So I do like that category. But again, I have to make very clear that there are times when categories that we are not comfortable with are necessary, or they are the only ones that are available. But I think it's always important. Every time I see LMI C, I just have an instinct to question, "Is it necessary here?" My head goes there immediately. And I wish that we would all do that. Like, did I have to say I? Is there another category that captures this? African countries? Is this South Asian countries? Is this Bangladesh, full stop? I guess country. So there are— and I like the global majority term as well.
**Speaker 2:** This is wonderful. This is a question that I have had for some time, and an anonymous attendee is asking this question: Are there valuable lessons we learn from indigenous communities in the premise of indigeneity itself? And from my side, how do you balance the tension between not hyper-romanticizing indigenous knowledge while at the same time looking at, quote-unquote, new advances? How do you balance the tension between them? It's something I think about.
**Speaker 1:** Um, there's— when I think— when I hear indigenous knowledge or indigenous knowledges, in my head, I sort it into slightly different sets of things. One of them is knowledge of place and time, which one can only fully grasp when one is on country, when one is embedded. There's something about that that is indigenous in that sense. There's also, in my head, another category of what I would call indigenous practices, that is about practices and ways of doing things and of imagining the world that have been present for a very long time. I always argue back at people who want to say that something is separate from science, and I would often say, "Look, IND didn't come about by accident. It was a scientific process." People didn't just know that if you go and cut the back of a tree, it will kill you. That wasn't by accident. It wasn't, you know, I’m not religious. I was going to say it wasn't spirits that told them. Of course, people are entitled to spiritual beliefs. But my point is that people figured that out through a process of trial and error, through a process of checking and testing and learning over time. So for me, that's a category of indigenous language in my head. I don't separate it from disciplined inquiry because it came about through disciplined inquiry. You may not have written the paper, or you may not have plotted a two-by-two table of all the things you do with the plant. But people understood that, and it works in many instances. This is that kind of indigenous knowledge. For me, I try not to create that separation between what I might call science or even modernity. I see a continuum.
**Speaker 2:** This is interesting because I think sometimes we tend to be too discreet in these knowledge practices but don't recognize the overwhelming connectedness there. Two questions from different people: one from Ryan Strange, and I’m going to combine the question with Dr. Taslim Ras, who's in Cape Town, South Africa. The question is about how do you find allies in the work that you're doing, particularly when you are working against some of the power structures? And Taslim has a direct question: Are there mechanisms available for Global South researchers to hold global funders accountable? Withholding labor is not an option, he says.
**Speaker 1:** No, no. Allies and then accountability. I, um, in its heyday, Twitter was a great place to find allies. It's not as great as it used to be, but it still does some of that. I hold close to my friends. I tend to have a very stable friendship network. I've had that all my life, and I love the people who I love. I think it's very important to take friendship seriously in this kind of work, that your friends will sustain you. And to make new friends too. You would always, I think, find those opportunities and meet people who are thinking alike. To find them and to hold them, I think, is important.
**Speaker 2:** The point about accountability, especially from the Global South, um, I'm going to speak as a Nigerian, and I apologize if this is too specific. The people I know, including friends of mine who are in Nigeria, who are often trying to push for something else—for funders behaving differently—get a lot of pushback from fellow... When I used to work in the Ministry of Health in Nigeria, that was also my reality. In fact, my first forum in a World Bank meeting was me having a proper debate with this World Bank guy who had come to do stuff, explaining to him why it doesn't make sense. I was pulled to the side after the meeting and told, "Don't do that again." So I just wanted to first point out that even within a country, often it's a difficult thing to do. These guys come with money, and it's hard to challenge someone who has come with money. It's difficult.
**Speaker 1:** So just saying that first. Second, I feel that funders, if they've ever been open to being challenged, they're certainly open now to being challenged. I think what would be wise to do is to find avenues to say what you need to say. It could be in person, it could be in writing, it could be in a meeting. I think it's important to put those ideas on the table when it is safe and wise to do so. To put those ideas on the table because I think there is the effect of numbers. If they hear similar things across five countries within the space of three weeks, they know there's something afoot. Those kinds of things are beginning to happen slowly. They are beginning to see that there's something going on. Now, it's often difficult. You see, as I was describing earlier, there are people who will very gladly take whatever. So if a funder wants to justify what they're currently doing, they just point to those people and say, "Look, people are happy." I've seen funders do that a lot, in fact. But again, to the extent that you can make a case and make a point, please make it.
**Speaker 1:** Now, the other way in which I think about this problem is that when funders ask for a certain thing, very often they have asked for that thing because some academics have told them that's what they should ask for. In other words, this idea just didn't drop into the heads of funders. It likely came from people who are in our community. So sometimes it is those people that we have to aim our pushbacks at and sort of say, "You know, this is not the right thing to do." Explaining carefully. One more thing before I leave that question. I was describing earlier that I’m beginning to put myself in a place where I’m wanting to really pick bodies of work and explain what is going on for me. Part of that is to serve two purposes. One is so that it can be used to teach. I think there's a lot of material to teach about epistemic injustice very clearly. That certain status quos get taught, and what one ought not to do and why does not get taught. But also to do that, especially to the work of people who are very powerful. So it's also clear to people that these are not gods. They are human beings, and sometimes they have lapses in judgment. Sometimes they advise funders to ask for silly things, and funders do so. So I think, again, it's that transparency and being able to hold one another accountable in this community that we must do.
**Speaker 2:** This is wonderful. I'm reminded of a friend of mine, Christian, saying the maturity of an NGO is when they say no to money.
**Speaker 1:** Interesting. Thank you for that. This has been wonderful. We are close to wrapping up, so I am going to start by saying this has been wonderful. We could sit here for hours talking about this. I really appreciate the time. One
No comments:
Post a Comment