The ‘us and them divide’: A qualitative study of student experiences of global health education through the lens of ‘inclusivity’

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Social Science & Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117759
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 ,&nbsp;Eliel Cohen ,&nbsp;Xuan Odofin ,&nbsp;Julianne K. Viola ,&nbsp;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":5.0000,"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.
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
“我们和他们的分歧”:从“包容性”的角度对全球健康教育学生体验的定性研究
全球卫生(GH)领域的特点是严重的不平等,包括来自高收入国家(HICs)受过培训的GH领导人的比例过高。没有实证研究探索高收入国家的生长激素教育经验如何在再现或潜在挑战这些不平等方面发挥作用。我们通过定性分析英国一所研究型大学(2019年4月和2020年4月)一年制GH理学学士课程的学生和校友经历来解决这个问题。从教育文献中,我们运用包容性的概念来获取参与者的课程体验,并运用“张力”的概念来定位GH教室的“生活”背景。我们还将这一背景置于西方或外国“凝视”的更广泛理论中,在正义和批判教育学领域的“认知”或“认识论”概念中。我们发现,GH中根本的不平等,即作为“研究对象”的社区被重新呈现的方式,以及它们的频繁缺席(无代表性),造成了所有学生都经历的紧张,无论他们的身份如何。然而,包容性/非包容性的二分法并不简单。GH教育可以被体验为同时赋予权力和疏远。这篇论文确定了最有希望的课程和教学原则,并得出结论,GH教育者必须接受GH教育的基础“张力”。虽然这样做不足以解决紧张局势和不平等,但它可以通过模拟简单的行动来承认认知不公正,向多元化示意,并实际参与GH教育部门影响该领域不平等的潜力,从而加强教育。
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
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Interembodiment: Relational living and interconnected thinking. Urban-rural differences in the longitudinal reciprocal relationship between assets and health among Chinese older adults. Corrigendum to 'Association of socioeconomic inequality in cardiovascular disease risk with economic development across 57 low- and middle-income countries: Cross-sectional analysis of nationally representative individual-level data' [Soc. Sci. Med. 365, January 2025, 117591]. Hustlers and tricksters: Colonialism, the war on drugs, and survival strategies of people who inject drugs. Splitting FND: Differences in targeted therapies for functional movement disorders and functional seizures.
×
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:604180095
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