Empowering Decolonial Activism in Academia: How Supporting Structures for Health-Harming Industry Researchers Enhance Public and Global Health Efforts

I had the privilege and opportunity to read this journal article titled "Developing structures to support researchers studying health-harming industries". This study is by Hannah Pitt , Samantha Thomas , Simone McCarthy , May CI van Schalkwyk , Mark Petticrew, Melanie Randle and Mark Daube.

One of the main reason I am highlight this particular study, its subject, then the design it uses and the data collection method is because of how well it has executed ethical empowering.

This study respects the voices and experiences of participants, empowering them to share their stories and contribute to the development of solutions. It aligns with ethical principles by prioritising the well-being and autonomy of participants, ensuring that their experiences are accurately represented and used to inform meaningful changes.        

Why Studies on Topics such as These are Integral to Our Work, Particularly for those of us based in the Global Majority (popularly known as the Global South):

1. Highlighting Industry Tactics: These studies reveal the various methods health-harming industries use to interfere with and discredit research, which is crucial for developing strategies to counteract such tactics and protect public health.
2. Supporting Researchers: Understanding the challenges faced by researchers can lead to better support systems within universities and other institutions, helping to protect the mental health and well-being of those conducting vital public health research.
3. Informing Policy and Advocacy: The insights gained can inform policies and advocacy efforts to strengthen protections for researchers, ensuring that they can conduct their work without undue influence or harassment.
4. Promoting Transparency: These studies shed light on the covert strategies used by industries, promoting greater transparency and accountability, which is essential for maintaining the integrity of public health research.
5. Encouraging Safe Academic Environments: By recognising and addressing the risks and stressors faced by researchers, institutions can create safer and more supportive academic environments, encouraging more researchers to engage in critical public health work.

I encourage you to please read the study after my perspective has helped you figure out why and how it could be of value to each of us to do these studies moving forward and come together with our findings, collectively.        

It's an interpretivist qualitative study. Let's discuss what that is and why/how it is useful for us based on this study:

Interpretivist Study Overview:

1. Subjectivity: The study explores researchers' personal experiences with industry interference. By focusing on individual narratives, it captures the nuances of their subjective experiences, which quantitative data or qualitative data interpretation in another manner could overlook.
2. Contextual Understanding: The research delves into the specific context of health-harming industries and academic environments in Australia and the UK (Developed countries). Since the study was done online, it can help provide us with an example of how understanding different environments and cultures shape these experiences. This study provides us with a great start for us to develop our own using our decolonial lenses, moving forward.
3. Rich Descriptions: Detailed accounts of interference tactics, such as social media trolling and dis-creditation, provide a comprehensive view of the challenges faced by researchers. This richness adds depth to the understanding of the problem, which is so rare to see in studies nowadays.

I think the study design is especially well-suited for the topic of developing support structures for researchers - such as those who took part in this research - that want to study health-harming industries for several key reasons.

Particularly if we qualitative researcher types want to do this work in Developing Countries so we can come together across our respective Regions to share our Contextual Findings.

How can we collaborate across the Global South (Global Majority) by conducting our own qualitative interpretivist studies to build a unified movement?        

1. Deep Understanding of Personal Experiences:

So firstly, interpretivist studies allow researchers like you and me to delve into the nuanced experiences of individuals which, as you know, are key to decoloniality. So by focusing on the personal narratives of researchers who face industry interference, this approach can provide rich, detailed insights into the specific challenges and emotional impacts such researchers encounter. As we already are aware, when it comes to our contexts, having depth of understanding is crucial for identifying the real-world issues that need to be addressed as well.

2. Contextual Relevance:

Like I said, this study design places a strong emphasis on the context in which experiences occur. In the case of researchers studying health-harming industries, the context includes the specific tactics used by these industries, the cultural and institutional environment, and the personal and professional risks involved. Understanding these contextual factors is vital for developing targeted support structures that are effective in addressing the unique challenges faced by these researchers.

3. Capturing Diverse Perspectives:

An interpretivist approach is flexible and open-ended, allowing researchers to capture a wide range of perspectives. This is particularly important for understanding how different groups, such as qualitative women, non-binary researchers particularly those in low- and middle-income countries, experience industry interference and what specific types of support they need. By capturing these diverse experiences, the study can develop more inclusive and tailored support structures.

4. Informing Practical Solutions:

By exploring the specific tactics and impacts of industry interference, interpretivist studies such as this can provide concrete examples of where support structures are lacking and what improvements are necessary. For instance, the study highlights the need for legal support, mental health resources, and clearer institutional policies. These practical insights can guide the development of comprehensive support mechanisms that address both immediate and long-term needs.

5. Reflexive and Adaptive Approach:

Interpretivist research also involves reflexivity, where researchers continuously reflect on their own role and influence on the research process, which we know is very decolonial as plurality of being is. This reflexive approach ensures that the study remains adaptive and responsive to the evolving needs and feedback of participants. It allows for ongoing adjustments to the research design and support structures based on the lived experiences of researchers.

Benefits of Utilizing Online Data Collection:

1. Access to Diverse Populations: In developing countries, online platforms can help reach researchers who might be dispersed across vast geographical areas, the way we are across the Global Majority. For instance, researchers studying similar interference tactics in various health-related fields can share their experiences through online surveys, focus groups or interviews.
2. Rich Data Sources: Social media platforms, forums, and digital communication tools offer a wealth of naturally occurring data that we can use too. Researchers like ourselves can analyze online interactions to understand the tactics used by industries to interfere with public health research as well.
3. Anonymity: Online environments can give us a chance to provide a level of anonymity, encouraging participants to share sensitive experiences more openly too. This is particularly valuable in Global Majority countries' where political and social pressures actively discourage open discussions.
4. Flexibility in Data Collection: Online tools like Zoom, Google Forms, and social media analytics allow researchers like ourselves to gather data flexibly and in real-time. This can be especially useful in our countries where face-to-face data collection is expensive and simply challenging to do due to lack of infrastructure.
5. Ethical Considerations: In online settings, such as those in this study, ethical issues such as informed consent and privacy can be managed effectively as well based on local ways of doing things. Researchers like us can ensure participants understand how their data will be used and protected, which is crucial in diverse cultural contexts like our own especially in such sensitive study topics.

Particular Benefits for Developing Countries in such Research:

1. Resource Efficiency: Online data collection is often more cost-effective and time-efficient, which is beneficial in resource-constrained settings (I mentioned this already but yeah).
2. Building Networks: Online platforms can help researchers in developing countries connect with global peers, share resources, and develop collaborative support networks to counter industry interference. We can analyze the similarities and differences between the industry interference to figure our next steps forward strategically.
3. Localized Insights: By using interpretivist methods, researchers like ourselves can gather insights that are highly relevant to our local context, addressing specific challenges and needs unique to suit our environment. This is particularly useful in the longer term for such work to build a vocabulary for sustainable work and changes to be possible.
4. Empowering Vulnerable Groups: Online platforms can give a voice to researchers who might otherwise be marginalized or silenced, allowing for a more inclusive and representative understanding of the issues at hand.

Now give this awesome sauce study a read and let me know what you think about the how I suggested we can this case study through my perspective this week!

Thank you for your time and attention.