Research capacity strengthening methods and meanings: negotiating power in a global health programme on violence against women.

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMJ Global Health Pub Date : 2024-12-11 DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015376
Nerissa Tilouche, Beatriz Kalichman, Sandi Dheensa, Evelina Rossi, Claire Hawcroft, Ana Flavia d'Oliveira, Heba Owda, Loraine J Bacchus
{"title":"Research capacity strengthening methods and meanings: negotiating power in a global health programme on violence against women.","authors":"Nerissa Tilouche, Beatriz Kalichman, Sandi Dheensa, Evelina Rossi, Claire Hawcroft, Ana Flavia d'Oliveira, Heba Owda, Loraine J Bacchus","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been much critical reflection among global health researchers about how power imbalances between high-income countries and low- and middle-income country collaborators are perpetuated through research programmes. Research capacity strengthening (RCS) is considered both a mechanism through which to redress structural power imbalances in global health research and a vehicle for their perpetuation. This paper examines the RCS programme of a multi-county study on violence against women, focussing on how it addressed power imbalances between countries and the challenges involved in doing so. It provides specific examples and lessons learnt.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>18 semi-structured interviews were conducted online with group members from all five countries involved in the collaboration between April and June 2020. Reflexive thematic analysis, with inductive and deductive approaches was adopted.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Participants articulated their understandings of RCS as an opportunity for (1) mutual learning, understanding and collaboration and (2) personal and team career development. Participants perceived the RCS programme activities to simultaneously reinforce and challenge power asymmetries within global health research. Power dynamics within the RCS programme operated across three levels; the global health research environment, the research group level and within individual country teams. Participants described structural barriers at all three levels, but felt there were more opportunities to challenge power imbalances at the research group level.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite a strong commitment to addressing power imbalances through the RCS programme, progress was often hampered by the fact that these inequalities reflected broader structural issues in global health, as seen within Healthcare Responding to Violence and Abuse. The programme faced tensions between enhancing researchers' careers while building capacity under the current model, which sometimes conflicted with creating social value or challenging epistemic and normative structures. Participants clearly expressed concerns about power imbalances within the partnership and were keen to address them through the RCS programme. This led to a steep learning curve and significant adaptations within the RCS programme to navigate these issues within existing structural limitations.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":"9 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11647364/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015376","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There has been much critical reflection among global health researchers about how power imbalances between high-income countries and low- and middle-income country collaborators are perpetuated through research programmes. Research capacity strengthening (RCS) is considered both a mechanism through which to redress structural power imbalances in global health research and a vehicle for their perpetuation. This paper examines the RCS programme of a multi-county study on violence against women, focussing on how it addressed power imbalances between countries and the challenges involved in doing so. It provides specific examples and lessons learnt.

Methods: 18 semi-structured interviews were conducted online with group members from all five countries involved in the collaboration between April and June 2020. Reflexive thematic analysis, with inductive and deductive approaches was adopted.

Findings: Participants articulated their understandings of RCS as an opportunity for (1) mutual learning, understanding and collaboration and (2) personal and team career development. Participants perceived the RCS programme activities to simultaneously reinforce and challenge power asymmetries within global health research. Power dynamics within the RCS programme operated across three levels; the global health research environment, the research group level and within individual country teams. Participants described structural barriers at all three levels, but felt there were more opportunities to challenge power imbalances at the research group level.

Conclusion: Despite a strong commitment to addressing power imbalances through the RCS programme, progress was often hampered by the fact that these inequalities reflected broader structural issues in global health, as seen within Healthcare Responding to Violence and Abuse. The programme faced tensions between enhancing researchers' careers while building capacity under the current model, which sometimes conflicted with creating social value or challenging epistemic and normative structures. Participants clearly expressed concerns about power imbalances within the partnership and were keen to address them through the RCS programme. This led to a steep learning curve and significant adaptations within the RCS programme to navigate these issues within existing structural limitations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加强研究能力的方法和意义:关于暴力侵害妇女行为的全球保健方案的谈判能力。
背景:全球卫生研究人员对高收入国家与低收入和中等收入国家合作者之间的权力不平衡如何通过研究规划得以延续进行了许多批判性反思。加强研究能力被认为是纠正全球卫生研究中的结构性权力不平衡的一种机制,也是使这种不平衡永久化的一种手段。本文考察了一项关于针对妇女的暴力行为的多国研究的RCS计划,重点关注它如何解决国家之间的权力不平衡以及这样做所涉及的挑战。它提供了具体的例子和吸取的教训。方法:在2020年4月至6月期间,对参与合作的所有五个国家的小组成员进行了18次半结构化在线访谈。采用反身性主位分析,归纳和演绎相结合。研究发现:参与者将RCS理解为(1)相互学习、理解和协作的机会;(2)个人和团队职业发展的机会。与会者认为,RCS规划活动同时加强和挑战了全球卫生研究中的权力不对称。RCS方案中的权力动态在三个层面上运作;全球卫生研究环境、研究小组一级和个别国家工作队内部。与会者描述了所有三个层面的结构性障碍,但认为在研究小组层面有更多机会挑战权力不平衡。结论:尽管坚定致力于通过RCS方案解决权力不平衡问题,但这些不平等反映了全球卫生中更广泛的结构性问题,这一事实往往阻碍了进展,正如在《应对暴力和虐待的保健》中所看到的那样。在当前模式下,该项目在提高科研人员的职业生涯和建设能力之间面临着紧张关系,这有时与创造社会价值或挑战认知和规范结构相冲突。与会者明确表达了对伙伴关系内部权力不平衡的关切,并渴望通过RCS方案解决这些问题。这导致了一个陡峭的学习曲线,并在RCS计划中进行了重大调整,以在现有的结构限制下解决这些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
期刊最新文献
Age- and sex-specific incidence rates and future projections for hip fractures in Zimbabwe. Strengthening advanced therapy for sickle cell disease in Africa: experience from sickle cell disease centre in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. How climate change is shaping young people's health: a participatory, youth co-led study from Bangladesh, Guatemala and Nigeria. Exploring the burden of cholera in the WHO African region: patterns and trends from 2000 to 2023 cholera outbreak data. Gender equality and quality of life must be central to the design and delivery of sanitation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1