↓ Skip to main content

“The way the country has been carved up by researchers”: ethics and power in north–south public health research

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
“The way the country has been carved up by researchers”: ethics and power in north–south public health research
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0488-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aisling Walsh, Ruairi Brugha, Elaine Byrne

Abstract

Despite the recognition of power as being central to health research collaborations between high income countries and low and middle income countries, there has been insufficient detailed analysis of power within these partnerships. The politics of research in the global south is often considered outside of the remit of research ethics. This article reports on an analysis of power in north-south public health research, using Zambia as a case study. Primary data were collected in 2011/2012, through 53 in-depth interviews with: Zambian researchers (n = 20), Zambian national stakeholders (n = 8) and northern researchers who had been involved in public health research collaborations involving Zambia and the global north (n = 25). Thematic analysis, utilising a situated ethics perspective, was undertaken using Nvivo 10. Most interviewees perceived roles and relationships to be inequitable with power remaining with the north. Concepts from Bourdieu's theory of Power and Practice highlight new aspects of research ethics: Northern and southern researchers perceive that different habituses exist, north and south - habituses of domination (northern) and subordination (Zambian) in relation to researcher relationships. Bourdieu's hysteresis effect provides a possible explanation for why power differentials continue to exist. In some cases, new opportunities have arisen for Zambian researchers; however, they may not immediately recognise and grasp them. Bourdieu's concept of Capitals offers an explanation of how diverse resources are used to explain these power imbalances, where northern researchers are often in possession of more economic, symbolic and social capital; while Zambian researchers possess more cultural capital. Inequities and power imbalances need to be recognised and addressed in research partnerships. A situated ethics approach is central in understanding this relationship in north-south public health research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 120 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 16%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Master 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 11 9%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 34 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 24 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Psychology 5 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 45 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,936,384
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#301
of 1,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,537
of 422,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#7
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,966 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.