Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr;7(4):e008950.
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-008950.

How to identify epistemic injustice in global health research funding practices: a decolonial guide

Emilie S Koum Besson  1
Affiliations

How to identify epistemic injustice in global health research funding practices: a decolonial guide

Emilie S Koum Besson. BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Apr.

Abstract

Epistemic injustice is a growing area of study for researchers and practitioners working in the field of global health. Theoretical development and empirical research on epistemic injustice are crucial for providing more nuanced understandings of the mechanisms and structures leading to the exclusion of local and marginalised groups in research and other knowledge practices. Explicit analysis of the potential role of epistemic injustice in policies and practices is currently limited with the absence of methodological starting points. This paper aims to fill this gap in the literature by providing a guide for individuals involved in the design and review of funding schemes wishing to conduct epistemic injustice analysis of their processes using a decolonial lens. Placing contemporary concerns in a wider historical, political and social context and building from the intertwined issues of coloniality of power, coloniality of knowledge and coloniality of being that systematically exclude non-Western epistemic groups, this practice paper presents a three-step decolonial approach for understanding the role and impact of epistemic injustices in global health research funding. It starts with an understanding of how power operates in setting the aim of a call for research proposals. Then, the influence of pose and gaze in the review process is analysed to highlight the presence of epistemological colonisation before discussing methods to address the current funding asymmetries by supporting new ways of being and doing focused on knowledge plurality. Expanding research on how epistemic wrongs manifest in global health funding practices will generate key insights needed to address underlying drivers of inequities within global health project conception and delivery.

Keywords: public health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Global coloniality and global health research funding - Source Ndlovu-Gatsheni SJ (2014).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Examples of credibility deficit and interpretive marginalisation in academic global health (Source: Bhakuni and Abimbola18).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Aligning pose and gaze in research grant schemes.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Martin B. Research grants: problems and options 2000;17.
    1. Shiffman J. Knowledge, moral claims and the exercise of power in global health. Int J Health Policy Manag 2014;3:120:297–9. 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.120 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Olusanya JO, Ubogu OI, Njokanma FO, et al. Transforming global health through equity-driven funding. Nat Med 2021;27:1136–8. 10.1038/s41591-021-01422-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ndlovu-Gatsheni SJ. Global coloniality and the challenges of creating African futures. Strateg Rev Southern Africa 2014;36 https://upjournals.up.ac.za/index.php/strategic_review/article/view/189
    1. Hirsch LA. Is it possible to decolonise global health institutions? Lancet 2021;397:189–90. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32763-X - DOI - PubMed

Publication types