Paper short abstract:

I explore tensions that have emerged whilst negotiating relations with policy-makers as part of a research collaboration in a particular ‘global health forum’ in South Africa. I reflect upon trade-offs and the implications for ethnographic work within an interdisciplinary funding environment.

Paper long abstract:

In the 'field' of 'global health', funders often specify that research should have 'policy relevance' and achieve 'identifiable health outcomes'. I will discuss an example of collaboration in a research project in South Africa that focuses on an issue high on the UNAIDS agenda , namely 'retention in care' of people with HIV. This problem is framed as one of keeping people with a lifelong condition adherent to medication, and attending to regimes of self-care and appointments for disease monitoring. Furthermore, it is an issue seen as relevant to policy for other chronic progressive illnesses: the 'integration' of care for all chronic diseases and equity of care has become a key policy priority in the 'local' context of South Africa.

The research project in question has involved an interdisciplinary team and explicit engagement with policy makers in the state health sector. For the researchers, the conditions of funding dictate such engagement; for the policy makers, pressure to identify new 'innovations' for solving 'retention' and achieving 'integration', creates a situation where collaboration has mutual benefit. However, tensions are evident, particularly around agenda-setting and the framing of research questions. I will reflect upon negotiating trade-offs, and raise questions about the implications for ethnographic work within such collaborative projects. Might it be possible to open up space in such collaborations to offer critique of the big agendas of global health, and the solutions proposed, whilst balancing ongoing engagement with the diverse publics and disciplines that constitute these assemblages?