↓ Skip to main content

Deconstructing the notion of “global health research partnerships” across Northern and African contexts

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#17 of 1,009)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
Title
Deconstructing the notion of “global health research partnerships” across Northern and African contexts
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0280-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lara Gautier, Isidore Sieleunou, Albino Kalolo

Abstract

Global health conceives the notion of partnership between North and South as central to the foundations of this academic field. Indeed, global health aspires to an equal positioning of Northern and Southern actors. While the notion of partnership may be used to position the field of global health morally, this politicization may mask persisting inequalities in global health. In this paper, we reflect on global health partnerships by revisiting the origins of global health and deconstructing the notion of partnership. We also review promising initiatives that may help to rebalance the relationship. Historical accounts are helpful in unpacking the genesis of collaborative research between Northerners and Southerners - particularly those coming from the African continent. In the 1980s, the creation of a scientific hub of working relationships based on material differences created a context that was bound to create tensions between the alleged "partners". Today, partnerships provide assistance to underfunded African research institutions, but this assistance is often tied with hypotheses about program priorities that Northern funders require from their Southern collaborators. African researchers are often unable to lead or contribute substantially to publications for lack of scientific writing skills, for instance. Conversely, academics from African countries report frustrations at not being consulted when the main conceptual issues of a research project are discussed. However, in the name of political correctness, these frustrations are not spoken aloud. Fortunately, initiatives that shift paternalistic programs to formally incorporate a mutually beneficial design at their inception with equal input from all stakeholders are becoming increasingly prominent, especially initiatives involving young researchers. Several concrete steps can be undertaken to rethink partnerships. This goes hand in hand with reconceptualizing global health as an academic discipline, mainly through being explicit about past and present inequalities between Northern and Southern universities that this discipline has thus far eluded. Authentic and transformative partnerships are vital to overcome the one-sided nature of many partnerships that can provide a breeding-ground for inequality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 15%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Other 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 35 25%
Unknown 34 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 19%
Social Sciences 21 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Psychology 6 4%
Arts and Humanities 5 4%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 46 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2021.
All research outputs
#381,653
of 23,232,430 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#17
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,315
of 328,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#2
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,232,430 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,985 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.