Mariam Sbaiti , Eliel Cohen , Xuan Odofin , Julianne K. Viola , Jin Keng Stephen Lam
{"title":"The ‘us and them divide’: A qualitative study of student experiences of global health education through the lens of ‘inclusivity’","authors":"Mariam Sbaiti , Eliel Cohen , Xuan Odofin , Julianne K. Viola , Jin Keng Stephen Lam","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117759","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Global Health (GH) field is characterised by stark inequalities, including a strong over-representation of GH leaders from/trained in high-income countries (HICs). There are no empirical studies exploring how experiences of GH education in HICs could have a role in reproducing, or potentially challenging, these inequalities. We address this by qualitatively analysing student and alum experiences of a one-year GH Bachelor of Science course at a research-intensive UK university (April 2019 and April 2020). Drawing from educational literature, we mobilise the concept of inclusivity to access participants' course experiences, and the concept of ‘tensionality’ to situate the ‘lived’ context of the GH classroom. We also situate this context within broader theories of a Western or foreign ‘gaze’, the concept of ‘cognitive’ or ‘epistemic’ (in)justice and field of critical pedagogy. We find that the underpinning inequalities in GH, the ways in which communities that are the “object of study” are re-presented and their frequent absence (non-representation), creates a tension experienced by all students, regardless of their identities. However, the inclusive/non-inclusive dichotomy is not a simple one. GH education can be experienced as simultaneously empowering and alienating. The paper identifies the most promising curricular and pedagogic principles and concludes that GH educators must embrace the underpinning ‘tensionality’ of GH education. Whilst doing so is insufficient to resolve tensions and inequalities, it can enhance educational by modelling simple action to acknowledge cognitive injustice, gesturing towards pluriversality and engaging practically with the potential of the GH education sector to impact inequalities in the field.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"367 ","pages":"Article 117759"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625000887","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
The Global Health (GH) field is characterised by stark inequalities, including a strong over-representation of GH leaders from/trained in high-income countries (HICs). There are no empirical studies exploring how experiences of GH education in HICs could have a role in reproducing, or potentially challenging, these inequalities. We address this by qualitatively analysing student and alum experiences of a one-year GH Bachelor of Science course at a research-intensive UK university (April 2019 and April 2020). Drawing from educational literature, we mobilise the concept of inclusivity to access participants' course experiences, and the concept of ‘tensionality’ to situate the ‘lived’ context of the GH classroom. We also situate this context within broader theories of a Western or foreign ‘gaze’, the concept of ‘cognitive’ or ‘epistemic’ (in)justice and field of critical pedagogy. We find that the underpinning inequalities in GH, the ways in which communities that are the “object of study” are re-presented and their frequent absence (non-representation), creates a tension experienced by all students, regardless of their identities. However, the inclusive/non-inclusive dichotomy is not a simple one. GH education can be experienced as simultaneously empowering and alienating. The paper identifies the most promising curricular and pedagogic principles and concludes that GH educators must embrace the underpinning ‘tensionality’ of GH education. Whilst doing so is insufficient to resolve tensions and inequalities, it can enhance educational by modelling simple action to acknowledge cognitive injustice, gesturing towards pluriversality and engaging practically with the potential of the GH education sector to impact inequalities in the field.
期刊介绍:
Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.