# Navigating power hierarchies in the “field”: A qualitative exploration of researcher experiences

## TL;DR

This study explores how power imbalances affect researchers in the field, especially in the Global South, and offers recommendations for more equitable research practices.

## Contribution

The paper introduces an intersectional analysis of power hierarchies in field research and provides actionable recommendations for Northern institutions.

## Key findings

- Senior researchers are less critical of power hierarchies compared to early-career researchers.
- Institutional power often limits individual efforts to shift power dynamics in research.
- Five key recommendations are proposed to address power imbalances in field research.

## 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.