I must admit that it has not been an easy piece to write, and I have delayed it for some time. I realized that silence is not an option. For those individuals who are not privileged to speak, but are passionate for the movement and change, silence is a disservice. Global research institutions in low-income countries give away power in exchange for resources, funding, recognition, and the chance to be published in high impact journals by affiliation. That situation is often perceived as more comfortable and risk averse than addressing local systemic issues. Decolonization can succeed only if the colonized are willing to move out of their comfort zone and seize the opportunity to take responsibility for their destiny.
As part of the call to decolonize global development and global health in particular, there has been an emphasis on shifting different aspects of the system, including the role of donors and journals, addressing racism, decolonizing the mind, and ensuring adequate working conditions for international aid staff in low-income and middle-income countries. Historically, decolonization has always been a violent process and parts of global aid are currently experiencing the same. Disrupting and calling out neo-colonial practices requires courage to bear the cost that comes with doing so.
I am writing this piece specifically in the context of academic research partnerships between high-income and low-income countries and what can be anticipated for those working to decolonize to #ShiftThePower. In response to the movement, when researchers in low-income countries challenge the current systems to fight power asymmetries on their terms, the process of power transfer is going to be violent – taking different forms. Little has been written about how to deal with the complexity of the process, particularly the violence that comes with challenging and shifting power, and how this violence manifests itself in research collaborations between high-income and low-income countries.
Violent, marginalizing behaviors can include continual questioning of the ability, capacity and technical skills of the staff from low-income countries.
Violent, marginalizing behaviors can include continual questioning of the ability, capacity and technical skills of the staff from low-income countries. Other behaviors that undermine equitable collaboration include critical decisions being made about the study by high-income country researchers in a top-down manner or traveling to the site without prior communication with the low-income country’s principal staff. Violence also manifests as publishing papers or deciding authorship without the knowledge of the low-income country’s staff who are usually significant contributors; and communicating unsubstantiated allegations against the low income country staff to their research or university leadership without an opportunity for them to be heard is also a means of coercive influence. Silence is also a tool of violence, sometimes; emails will not be answered even with regular reminders. When escalated, the strategy is passive aggression to devalue the individual. Individuals in high income countries are uncomfortable accepting leadership from the ground.
I have come to understand the power dynamics that influence decision making from my position as a marginalized player in the system. Although the literature often situates power as a consequence of an inherent superiority of high-income countries universities, I have come to believe those power asymmetries are primarily influenced by the “weaknesses” of institutions in low-income countries.
The extent of violence depends on the degree of power imbalance.
Over the past 12 years, I have seen that the extent of violence depends on the degree of power imbalance. The privilege of power as academics in global health comes from being male, white, based at a high-income country research institution, seniority (both in academic position and age), and working on an agenda that attracts funding, institutional value, and support. Striving to be accepted by the internal ruling group (that holds power), for institutional support, is a very interesting occurrence that I have found to be a strong driver of power in the workplace. The majority of individuals strive to be a so-called company person, quietly accepting organizational policies and conforming to the institutional vision that serves to maintain the status quo.
There is, however, a minority who excel in their work and want to be respected for their personal achievements. When such individuals seek institutional support to navigate the process of decolonization and the violence that often comes with it, they often expect people to join them in the goal of achieving improvement and change. By being creative, showing initiative, and refusing to conform, however, they often fail to gain the support of their leaders and peers who are interested in maintaining their positions and safety in status quo. Hence, the quest for growth and dignity in global aid, which requires a degree of autonomy, has to be carefully thought through and planned for. The change, if to be led by staff in low-income countries, requires effort to reduce violence through the use of more constructive strategies, presenting an alternative narrative.
Speaking up is also an opportunity to continue the virtuous cycle of compassion for the many researchers in low income countries struggling to navigate power, decolonization and the violence of it all.
I started out by saying, I have delayed this piece for some time, but silence isn’t an option anymore. Speaking up is also an opportunity to continue the virtuous cycle of compassion for the many researchers in low income countries struggling to navigate power, decolonization and the violence of it all. People have been there for me in my dark hours; I hope I can be of some help to others through my honest reflections on power in the global aid and research sector. My message to those in leadership roles anywhere and who can spend their privilege of being in powerful roles: “We must take sides;” said Elie Wiesel “neutrality helps the oppressor not the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor not the tormented,”
A version of this article was originally published by the Lancet Global Health, it includes guidelines for researchers from low income countries and a supplementary file supplied by the author on behavior and guidelines to reduce violence of the different actors.