Jump to comment:

• Unpacking the imbalances in authorship in global health.
  Hani Kim, Uros Novakovic and Carles Muntaner
  Published on: 22 October 2019
• Should a paper published by a 'local' researcher about a local country be more valuable?
  Sibylle Herzig van Wees
  Published on: 18 October 2019

• Published on: 22 October 2019

  Unpacking the imbalances in authorship in global health.

  • Hani Kim, Program Officer/Researcher Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Other Contributors:
    • Uros Novakovic, Architect
    • Carles Muntaner, Professor

  DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in this letter are those of the authors only, and do not represent the views or interests of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

  We enthusiastically agree with the Editor's observation that what underlies the growing concerns about imbalances in authorship are the questions of power asymmetries in the production and benefits of knowledge in global health.

  Critical and open self-reflections and reflexivity on "gaze" (who we write for) and "pose" (position from which we write) are much needed steps towards moving beyond representation on the list of authors.

  However, if what underlies the imbalances in authorship is in fact power asymmetries, solving the problem of imbalances in authors requires directly interrogating the relations of power. Indeed, in our recent article, we identified marginalization the scholarship that interrogates the relations of power represents one of the persistent manifestations of the dominant norms of global health along with democratic deficit and depoliticization of the discourse (Kim et al. 2019). These manifestations may overlap or confound the relation between country/community of origin. We further argue that these manifestations are ideological in character in that they are not merely tendencies but functional in naturalizing and universalizing the implicit assumptions and norms of the dominant narrative.

  The editorial raises an extremely important poin...

  Show More

  DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in this letter are those of the authors only, and do not represent the views or interests of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

  We enthusiastically agree with the Editor's observation that what underlies the growing concerns about imbalances in authorship are the questions of power asymmetries in the production and benefits of knowledge in global health.

  Critical and open self-reflections and reflexivity on "gaze" (who we write for) and "pose" (position from which we write) are much needed steps towards moving beyond representation on the list of authors.

  However, if what underlies the imbalances in authorship is in fact power asymmetries, solving the problem of imbalances in authors requires directly interrogating the relations of power. Indeed, in our recent article, we identified marginalization the scholarship that interrogates the relations of power represents one of the persistent manifestations of the dominant norms of global health along with democratic deficit and depoliticization of the discourse (Kim et al. 2019). These manifestations may overlap or confound the relation between country/community of origin. We further argue that these manifestations are ideological in character in that they are not merely tendencies but functional in naturalizing and universalizing the implicit assumptions and norms of the dominant narrative.

  The editorial raises an extremely important point when it observes that "foreign gaze can corrupt the local expert’s own sense of reality" or “foreign gaze can make a local expert write like an expatriate”.

  The key question is: what underlies this “corrupting” of the local perspectives? It’s certainly not the “ foreignness” per se but the power relations circumscribing the “foreign” and “ local” views. We argue that it is the ideological character of the dominant norms that shape our consciousness (foreign or local alike). The dominant narrative is ideological in that it naturalizes and universalizes its own implicit assumptions and norms, therefore perpetuates itself. As such, the dominant narrative functions to shape our consciousness, the knowledge we count as valuable and thus produce and reproduce, and ultimately serves the interests of the elites and dominant classes (Muntaner et al. 2016).

  We salute the editor’s efforts to draw critical reflections to the “gaze” and “pose” embedded in the scholarship in global health, and the power asymmetries. We struggle, however, with how the necessary critique of relations of power can be located within the reflexivity matrix. We call on the community of global health researchers, practitioners, funders, and policy makers to extend the editor’s laudable efforts further by positing slightly different questions: What are the relations of power underlying the authorship and choice of research/programmatic questions? How do they affect the knowledge produced?

  What is necessary in solving the problem of imbalances in authorship is directly contesting the dominant norms and implicit assumptions, and making power visible, towards the goal of democratizing the ownership and control of the knowledge production in global health.

  Kim H, Novakovic U, Muntaner C and Hawkes MT. Global Health Action. 2019;12: 1651017
  Muntaner, C, Chung H, Murphy K, Ng E. J Urban Health, 2012;89:915-24

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 18 October 2019

  Should a paper published by a 'local' researcher about a local country be more valuable?

  • Sibylle Herzig van Wees, Senior Lecturer Uppsala University

  Thank you for this extraordinary piece! It provides a more nuanced picture of the concern regarding unequal authorship in global health publishing. In the spirit of your argument, I would like to share my experience and thoughts on this with an example. I have recently received a reviewers comments on an article I submitted for publication that stated that the author is encouraged to review the article, especially if Cameroonian because more research on the topic from Cameroonians is necessary. The article needed more work, I am new to publishing and I am not arguing with that. However, I felt a lot of frustration with the comment about the piece being worth more if written by a Cameroonian as opposed to me a ‘foreigner’/’northerner’. To add to your wonderful piece, I have two reflections on my example: First, I echo your argument that sometimes ‘foreign’ researchers are better placed to conduct ‘local’ research. I conducted research on a very controversial global health project whereby millions of dollars disappeared. If a Cameroonian would ask the questions I asked, they would risk their life. My research took place in an authoritarian state, Cameroonian researchers select very carefully what they say and what they can’t say because of a simple well-founded fear of persecution. They also worry about how critiquing a health programme could affect their future job opportunities with these actors. Second, some Cameroonians don’t want to do the write up because they have sev...

  Show More

  Thank you for this extraordinary piece! It provides a more nuanced picture of the concern regarding unequal authorship in global health publishing. In the spirit of your argument, I would like to share my experience and thoughts on this with an example. I have recently received a reviewers comments on an article I submitted for publication that stated that the author is encouraged to review the article, especially if Cameroonian because more research on the topic from Cameroonians is necessary. The article needed more work, I am new to publishing and I am not arguing with that. However, I felt a lot of frustration with the comment about the piece being worth more if written by a Cameroonian as opposed to me a ‘foreigner’/’northerner’. To add to your wonderful piece, I have two reflections on my example: First, I echo your argument that sometimes ‘foreign’ researchers are better placed to conduct ‘local’ research. I conducted research on a very controversial global health project whereby millions of dollars disappeared. If a Cameroonian would ask the questions I asked, they would risk their life. My research took place in an authoritarian state, Cameroonian researchers select very carefully what they say and what they can’t say because of a simple well-founded fear of persecution. They also worry about how critiquing a health programme could affect their future job opportunities with these actors. Second, some Cameroonians don’t want to do the write up because they have several jobs to ensure job security in a very unstable job market. They choose not to publish or not to be first author. Unlike in my part of the world, employers in Cameroon don’t ask for a publication list in random ‘northern’ journals, they want to see evidence of work experience. The ‘north’ – ‘south’ publishing divide narrative is taking a dangerous trajectory, one in which context seems to matter very little and the focus on capturing the true understanding and reality of people’s lives with the most suitable research methods are unimportant. Maybe we should question our system – whereby publishing as many papers as possible has to be top priority for many academics if they want to progress –before we point our fingers at those not participating in this perverse system.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top