Theme 4: Economics and politics: resilience in health research partnerships

Statement of focus 

An underexplored theme in literature on global health partnerships is the examination of complexities entangled with broader political, economic and social structures. This view aims to understand the co-producing relationship between these partnerships and broader structures. This is important for deliberations on what and how ethical considerations are conceptualised, foregrounded and realised.  

Session summary 

Presenters in these sessions explore various entanglements and the ethical implications of taking these relations seriously - themes related to funding and power, labour and inequity, and issues of recognition and redistribution.  

In the first presentation, Brenda Odero argues that global health funding models have long fostered structural dependency, undermining accountability and trust. The United States’ sudden withdrawal of funding for essential HIV/TB research from South Africa is a glaring example exposing significant cracks in the funding landscape. Brenda’s work also demonstrates that alternative models are possible, as highlighted in the South African case study, whereby national government implemented some stop-gap measures and other emergency funding alternatives, Brenda identifies core values that are necessary to fully realise such efforts.  

In the second presentation, Teguh Sasongko examines the central role of language translators' contributions, which are often unrecognised and unpaid, in scientific knowledge production. Drawing on his work with Cochrane Malaysia, Teguh demonstrates how the work of language translators is often misrecognised as inconsequential to knowledge co-creation and subsequently goes unpaid. To address this, Teguh proposes an ethics framework that explicitly accounts for a more inclusive value-based approach, recognising translators in a fairer labour practise, who are essential to knowledge production.  

In the third presentation, Thao Tran reflects on how participatory methods, intended to redistribute power between researchers and participants, can instead exclude community voices. Through her work on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Vietnam, Thao highlights how communities, often excluded from setting the research agenda, and healthcare workers, already burdened with multiple tasks, including care, are unfairly expected to represent community voices - often without timely compensation. Thao’s focus on issues of inequitable distribution of resources and lack of recognition of contributions reveals how current approaches have systemic shortcomings that not only undermine genuine participation but also obscure deeper unequal power dynamics.