ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Navigating power hierarchies in the "field": A qualitative exploration of researcher experiences.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite increasing focus on the broad topic of power hierarchies within research partnerships, scholarly analysis and guidance within global health tends to focus on partnership-building, governance structures and authorship, while the interactions occurring between researchers in settings where a project or community are located, often referred to as the "field", remains a neglected topic. This study applies an intersectional lens to explore how to tackle power hierarchies (including race, gender, age, education/expertise) during visits in the "Global South", based on a case study of an academic institution in the United Kingdom. It involves interviews with staff and research degree students, as well as research partners, and feedback workshops. The study finds that positionality influences how participants view the role of power hierarchies in shaping research dynamics. Senior staff tended to be less critical of power hierarchies, while early-career researchers were more inclined to feel power hierarchies needed to be challenged. Across multiple types of research relationships we find that seniority is a powerful dynamic that shapes interactions during visits. Institutional power is also an overarching force that often limits individual researcher efforts to shift power. Our study identifies five key recommendations for Northern-based institutions in particular: 1) challenge extractive practices and assumptions associated with research in the "field"; 2) advocate for more equitable institutional policies and practices on contracting and budgeting in Northern institutions that constrain efforts to shift power; 3) build in time for ongoing reflection on power and positionality within research teams; 4) ensure visits to "the field" are planned with Global South partners; 5) conduct further research on power hierarchies to tackle specific dimensions of power.
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.