Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

This paper examines how transdisciplinary approaches can operationalise community agency in pandemic preparedness, challenging dominant technical-biomedical frameworks. Drawing on participatory research, it demonstrates how communities exercise epistemic power in co-producing knowledge and systems.

Paper long abstract

Global pandemic preparedness systems remain dominated by technical-biomedical approaches that marginalise community knowledge and agency, despite rhetoric emphasising community engagement. This paper interrogates power relations embedded in epidemic and pandemic response systems across sub-Saharan Africa, examining how transdisciplinary methodologies can operationalise meaningful community agency rather than tokenistic participation.

Drawing on research across 6 sub-Saharan African countries (2012-2023), this paper presents a critical analysis of social science contributions to epidemic preparedness and response. It demonstrates how communities exercise epistemic agency when genuine transdisciplinary approaches create space for co-production of knowledge, challenging extractive research practices and donor-driven priorities that perpetuate inequities.

The paper positions communities as knowledge producers rather than data sources. Through examining case studies (e.g. Ebola response in Sierra Leone and zoonotic disease surveillance in Zambia), it reveals how communities innovate protection mechanisms and navigate structural constraints that formal health systems fail to address.

This analysis foregrounds three critical dimensions: First, how power asymmetries between global health actors and communities are reproduced through research and intervention designs; second, how transdisciplinarity can disrupt these dynamics by centering local epistemologies; and third, how community-led innovations challenge narrow efficiency frameworks in health systems strengthening.

By reimagining transdisciplinarity beyond methodological pluralism toward genuine epistemological equity, this paper contributes to panel debates about whose interests shape health systems. It demonstrates that equitable, resilient health systems require fundamental restructuring of power relations in knowledge production, not merely technical fixes or increased financing within existing structures.