Deconstructing the notion of "global health research partnerships" across Northern and African contexts
Deconstructing the notion of "global health research partnerships" across Northern and African contexts
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12910-018-0280-7
复制
发表时间：
2018-06-15
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Kalolo, Albino
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gautier, Lara;Sieleunou, Isidore;Kalolo, Albino
背景：全球健康将南北伙伴关系的概念视为该学术领域基础的核心。事实上，全球卫生事业渴望北方和南方行动者享有平等的地位。虽然伙伴关系的概念可用于对全球卫生领域进行道德定位，但这种政治化可能掩盖全球卫生领域持续存在的不平等现象。在本文中，我们通过重新审视全球卫生的起源并解构伙伴关系的概念来反思全球卫生伙伴关系。我们还回顾了可能有助于重新平衡关系的有希望的举措。 结果与讨论：历史记载有助于解开北方人和南方人之间合作研究的起源，特别是来自非洲大陆的合作研究。20世纪80年代，基于物质差异建立的工作关系科学中心创造了一种背景，这必然会在所谓的“合作伙伴”之间造成紧张关系。如今，伙伴关系为资金不足的非洲研究机构提供援助，但这种援助往往与北方资助者要求南方合作者提出的项目优先事项的假设联系在一起。例如，由于缺乏科学写作技能，非洲研究人员往往无法领导出版物或为出版物做出重大贡献。相反，来自非洲国家的学者表示，在讨论研究项目的主要概念问题时，没有人咨询他们的意见，他们感到沮丧。然而，以政治正确的名义，这些不满并没有大声说出来。幸运的是，将家长式项目从一开始就正式纳入互利设计并让所有利益相关者平等投入的举措正变得越来越突出，特别是涉及年轻研究人员的举措。结论：可以采取几个具体步骤来重新考虑伙伴关系。这与将全球健康重新概念化为一门学科是相辅相成的，主要是通过明确指出该学科迄今为止所回避的南北大学之间过去和现在的不平等。真诚和变革性的伙伴关系对于克服许多伙伴关系的片面性至关重要，这些伙伴关系可能为不平等提供滋生土壤。
Background: Global health conceives the notion of partnership between North and South as central to the foundations of this academic field. Indeed, global health aspires to an equal positioning of Northern and Southern actors. While the notion of partnership may be used to position the field of global health morally, this politicization may mask persisting inequalities in global health. In this paper, we reflect on global health partnerships by revisiting the origins of global health and deconstructing the notion of partnership. We also review promising initiatives that may help to rebalance the relationship.Results and Discussion: Historical accounts are helpful in unpacking the genesis of collaborative research between Northerners and Southerners - particularly those coming from the African continent In the 1980s, the creation of a scientific hub of working relationships based on material differences created a context that was bound to create tensions between the alleged "partners". Today, partnerships provide assistance to underfunded African research institutions, but this assistance is often tied with hypotheses about program priorities that Northern funders require from their Southern collaborators. African researchers are often unable to lead or contribute substantially to publications for lack of scientific writing skills, for instance. Conversely, academics from African countries report frustrations at not being consulted when the main conceptual issues of a research project are discussed. However, in the name of political correctness, these frustrations are not spoken aloud. Fortunately, initiatives that shift paternalistic programs to formally incorporate a mutually beneficial design at their inception with equal input from all stakeholders are becoming increasingly prominent, especially initiatives involving young researchers.Conclusion: Several concrete steps can be undertaken to rethink partnerships. This goes hand in hand with reconceptualizing global health as an academic discipline, mainly through being explicit about past and present inequalities between Northern and Southern universities that this discipline has thus far eluded. Authentic and transformative partnerships are vital to overcome the one-sided nature of many partnerships that can provide a breeding-ground for inequality.