ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Soft money, hard power: Mapping the material contingencies of change in global health academic structures.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Embrace the tension: a decolonial reframing of Implementation Science.BMJ global health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the proliferating conversations about decolonizing Global Health, a basic assumption has been that global South actors should be the conceptualizers, leaders, and makers of change with global North counterparts thought of as allies or accomplices. This article complicates assumptions about whose responsibility it is to "decolonize" Global Health and how different actors should go about it. We do this through a qualitative anthropological investigation on resource structures and material flows and the ways that global North actors relate to and make sense of them. By outlining the financial structuring at a major American school of public health and faculty experiences within this system, we show how the "soft money" structure reproduces colonial relations, elite dominance, and capture of popularized words connoting change. While acknowledging the necessity of promoting knowledge and discourses from the South, we demonstrate how Global Health academics in this powerful institution hide or overlook their structurally advantageous positions to create change by deploying discourses such as "following the South" or "centering Southern voices." Grappling with how needed material changes fundamentally go against institutional and personal interests of powerful global North institutions and actors, we introduce "ruinous solidarity" as a paradigm of praxis. Ruinous Solidarity is elite actors thinking and acting in ways that embraces the possibilities that emerge in loss of resources and prestige. Ruinous solidarity seeks to move elite actors subjected to funding structures such as those described in this article away from passivity and obscuring the material bases of the imbalance of power in Global Health. Pushing for long term, ethical transfers of wealth and responsibility, ruinous solidarity explicitly reorients the political commitments of those who affiliate with Global Health in imperial cores, and thus offers important considerations in the wake of Trump Administration attacks on the field.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.