Kunnuji Michael, Shawar Yusra Ribhi, Neill Rachel, Manoj Malvikha, Shiffman Jeremy
Department of Sociology, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria.
Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023 Feb 23;3(2):e0001365. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001365. eCollection 2023.
Recent calls for global health decolonization suggest that addressing the problems of global health may require more than 'elevating country voice'. We employed a frame analysis of the diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framings of both discourses and analyzed the implications of convergence or divergence of these frames for global health practice and scholarship. We used two major sources of data-a review of literature and in-depth interviews with actors in global health practice and shapers of discourse around elevating country voice and decolonizing global health. Using NVivo 12, a deductive analysis approach was applied to the literature and interview transcripts using diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framings as themes. We found that calls for elevating country voice consider suppressed low- and middle-income country (LMIC) voice in global health agenda-setting and lack of country ownership of health initiatives as major problems; advancing better LMIC representation in decision making positions, and local ownership of development initiatives as solutions. The rationale for action is greater aid impact. In contrast, calls for decolonizing global health characterize colonialityas the problem. Its prognostic framing, though still in a formative stage, includes greater acceptance of diversity in approaches to knowledge creation and health systems, and a structural transformation of global health governance. Its motivational framing is justice. Conceptually and in terms of possible outcomes, the frames underlying these discourses differ. Actors' origin and nature of involvement with global health work are markers of the frames they align with. In response to calls for country voice elevation, global health institutions working in LMICs may prioritize country representation in rooms near or where power resides, but this falls short of expectations of decolonizing global health advocates. Whether governments, organizations, and communities will sufficiently invest in public health to achieve decolonization remains unknown and will determine the future of the call for decolonization and global health practice at large.
近期对全球卫生去殖民化的呼吁表明,解决全球卫生问题可能需要的不仅仅是“提升国家话语权”。我们对两种话语的诊断、预后和动机框架进行了框架分析,并分析了这些框架的趋同或分歧对全球卫生实践和学术研究的影响。我们使用了两个主要数据来源——文献综述以及对全球卫生实践中的行动者和围绕提升国家话语权与全球卫生去殖民化的话语塑造者进行的深入访谈。使用NVivo 12,以诊断、预后和动机框架为主题,对文献和访谈记录采用了演绎分析方法。我们发现,提升国家话语权的呼吁将全球卫生议程设定中被压制的低收入和中等收入国家(LMIC)的声音以及卫生倡议缺乏国家自主权视为主要问题;将提高LMIC在决策职位上的代表性以及发展倡议的地方自主权作为解决方案。行动的理由是更大的援助影响力。相比之下,全球卫生去殖民化的呼吁将殖民性视为问题。其预后框架虽然仍处于形成阶段,但包括更广泛地接受知识创造和卫生系统方法的多样性,以及全球卫生治理的结构转型。其动机框架是正义。从概念和可能的结果来看,这些话语背后的框架有所不同。行动者的出身以及参与全球卫生工作的性质是他们所认同框架的标志。为响应提升国家话语权的呼吁,在LMIC开展工作的全球卫生机构可能会优先考虑在权力中心附近或所在的场所中体现国家代表性,但这未达到全球卫生去殖民化倡导者的期望。政府、组织和社区是否会充分投资于公共卫生以实现去殖民化尚不清楚,这将决定去殖民化呼吁和整个全球卫生实践的未来。