Roadmaps and toward decolonize thought Sticks

EXTRA NOTES
More points about reading: Will global health survive its decolonization?
Purpose that is the center of the argument is to provide ways to move from the rhetoric to the
reform
Like talking about decolonize
Is related to ideal situations or ideal way of imagining global health
So how can we move beyond that?
How can we acknowledge the need of to decolonize the discipline and how can we start to do
that?
Different aspect/arguments in this reading so wrapping critiques beyond reformative roadmaps
and toward decolonize thought
Sticks with colonial approaches to the discipline, it doesn’t put at the center the deeper
transformation of the discipline in itself which is the reformation that might be related to certain
stages biut not a radical change of the discipline its something that can little by little be
changed/improved but there is a clear effort that is criticized to provide some suggestions to
start but the other one is criticizing the suggestion and giving us more conceptual and
theoretical approaches to continue thinking and understanding better what decolonizing really
mean and what does it imply if we take it as a task or vision to move towards global health
Third one is that the title is a question, all of them is the perspective and opinion of its authors
And it develops an interesting qn- will global health survive its decolonization, can we still
imagine global health as a discipline if we are thinking of decolonize it, cuz the roots of the
disciplines are colonial approaches
As said in past session within the discipline, anthropology, there has been lots and still many
debates that we couldn’t practice the discipline and we need to transform the way we approach
studies or the way we generate knowledge within the discipline in order to dismantle colonial
approaches to understand our societies, our cultures and culture in itself-> so if we rly want to
decolonize global heath we should rly think about other disciplines
Specific points:
First:
How to move from rhetoric to practice or decolonizing global health is first acknowledging that
there are supporters and opponents of decolnization; so those who are leading decolonizing
global health movements are academics or global health practitioners that are from high income
countries. So there is a deep interest of transforming and creating a revolution within the
discipline other voices will take a place here. Most voices are from high income countries or well
known unit where global health programs are based so we can look with careful which are the
perspectives/approaches around decolonizing global health
Author acknowledging there are supporters because sone of the supporters have real interest in
transforming the discipline in order to pursue equity and justice around globe but they are also
our opponents because may be redistribution of power or might to move the privilege status in
actors and others in global health field and to be open to other perspectives that has been
undermined in the discipline.
Decentralizing actors* who’s taking the leadership role in global health
Which are the institutions that give a greater influence in the direction that the discipline takes
which are the knowledges that are structuring the main points of discipline, the power relations
that institutions and actors er organizations have the funds to develop the discipline and
continue expanding the discipline and to shape the approaches of the discipline so
decentralizing this would imply big, deeper changes so authors are providing suggestions to
start on that.
The 3 diff relations can provide connections/correlations to global health but not putting at the
center of discussion to who would need/starts to do this, who should take this role and identify
specific way in which organizations act to in global health play in interlink roles in perpetuating
inequity or if anyone takes this role it would be same result if the perspectives could vary so
status in actors involved in this have diff status or privilege so similar ways in which
organizations can interlink – diff perspective of ppl from diff areas(global north or south) so we
need to acknowledge that they are multiple ways of identifying specific ways in how
organizations are actively perpetuating inequity. So we need to see how the discipling in
reproducing inequity.
Ways global health practitioners relate with their community or develop interventions/ programs
are in some ways perpetuating inequity because they are mainly keeping this role of being the
“providers” or being the one that has the knowledge expecting to be the one that transforms the
conditions without developing relationships of equality with their interaction with community so it
goes with identifying how the global health discipline is still perpetuating inequity- this is
example of global health practitioner
In away how global health is understood so our ideas we bring to the approach when trying to
understand global health issues which is a knowledge that is valid to help us intervene health
problems
Past lesson Like sometimes knowledge within discipling is maintain colonial perspectives and
understanding over the others
Like how ebola epidemic was understood with explanation that help specialist to why it was hard
to target/tackle the epidemic blaming on community
So it has to do with identifying how the discipline in itself is perpetuating inequity so what is
embedded in our knowledge, our practices, the way we relate with others when developing
intervention with global health
What sections should be included in assignment section
What sections for intro ductings, summarize reading in short manner
Identifying main argument
All aspects in reading
The central
Analysis at the end the conclusion
Identify the summary From your perspective
Main idea sustained
Covered from the beginning
Main purpose is to have summary
Main argument
Analysis
Critical response
critical response to all arguments on author developing but focus main and develop if u agree or
not agree
So this part is where u can add other reference
Maybe bring up perspectives
Find identify which contribution to the field
Identify its limitations
Since the readings are short:
Identify the limitations the readings might have
Try to sustain perspectives
Mix between evaluating work and connecting with our own perspectives
Think about examples that could fit or not fit
Deep analysis
Intro very short brief paragraph
Summary of the reading
Reader and I have read that- cuz we all already read- so dont need to detailed of intro
Find the central argument
^the summary
Use this to develop critical response
Then bring some ideas from the authors that may not be mentions in the summary
The structure of the article for the critical response:
● Sometime the author develops paper that is easy to comprehend so the state an
objective at the beginning so we expect them to accomplish that objective along the
reading but sometimes they do not but the develoment of the article goes into a different
direction so that can be the format that is stated that if the objective is structure
● So examples that author provides that will make it easier for us readers to grasp
their objectives- we are thinking about that if they state a manner that is well to
understand or are they providing in their content enough to prove if the objective
is met as well/
So after summary we are expected to elaborate critical response
We can criticize something based on other debates/ideas learnt from other authors.
So if we want to take another take to challenge the author to take sources out of syllabus to
compare
Use all knowledge we have