Disability Dialogues Across Borders: Power, Politics, and Partnership

To cite this work: Mishra, A. (2025). Disability Dialogues Across Borders: Power, Politics, and Partnership. Disability Dialogues. Sheffield: iHuman, University of Sheffield. 

Dr Ankita Mishra (she/her) is a Research Associate for Health Priorities for the Disability Matters project at iHuman, The University of Sheffield. She is particularly interested in participatory action research, creative and arts-based research methods that amplify multiple ways of knowing and being in marginalised communities affected by intersectional oppression. Ankita is passionate about de-scholarising the academy by transforming academic-community collaborations embodying the principle of ‘Nothing about us without us is for us’. This piece of writing reflects her ongoing research and practice on community collaboration and partnership work across transnational contexts.

The Tyranny of Participation (From Tokenistic to Meaningful Collaborations)

Participatory research methodologies have often been positioned as potential correctives to extractive research practices (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995). However, as Cooke and Kothari (2001) caution, participation can become 'the new tyranny' when it reproduces rather than challenges existing power hierarchies. In global disability research, 'collaboration' often functions as a tokenistic exercise—a performative strategy where geopolitical North researchers parachute into geopolitical South settings while maintaining control over research design, analysis, and dissemination (Mertens, 2009). In traditional tokenistic collaborations, especially in geopolitical North-South partnerships, the non-academic community is involved in a superficial way, where the voices and contributions of the geopolitical South are 'included' but limited to participation in predetermined processes that reflect the priorities and fit within the parameters set by the geopolitical North institution. What is missing from these relationships is the engagement with the deeper ethical and epistemological complexities of partnership work and a space for authentic co-production of knowledge, where the lived experiences and perspectives of the local community drive the research agenda and methodologies.

The difference between tokenistic and meaningful collaboration is in the process. Too often, the lens taken in most research papers on participatory research is centred almost always on outcomes—on the 'findings' of the study. What is rarely discussed is the work that goes into building the relationships that make this collaboration meaningful. The institutional focus on outcome-driven research often overlooks the process itself—the critical relational work that underpins participatory research. The anchor therefore needs to shift from outcomes to process—how we engage, how we listen, how we build trust, and how we co-create meaning collectively. However, the process of building meaningful, ethical partnerships in participatory research is rarely straightforward. During my recent trip to India, one of our partner sites in the Disability Matters project, I aspired to strengthen relationships with the local academics and Disabled People's Organisations. This was a deeply reflective experience that provided insights into the complexities of engaging in participatory research particularly when navigating the intricate power dynamics and structures that shape the geopolitical North-South research partnerships. These reflections not only explore the tensions I navigated through my multiple positionalities but also engage with broader epistemological, ethical, and practical considerations regarding collaboration and partnerships in participatory research in disability studies across transnational contexts.

Navigating Insider-Outsider Positionalities in Transnational Research Contexts

In the realm of participatory research, the roles of 'insider' and 'outsider' are often fluid and embedded in relational processes that shift over time, yet they carry significant weight in terms of the power dynamics, epistemological insights, and ethical considerations that arise during collaboration. For researchers like me with affiliations to geopolitical North institutions and inherent connections with geopolitical South contexts, this fluidity becomes particularly pronounced, requiring continuous navigation of multiple positionalities. As I navigated the relational spaces, I found myself occupying a liminal position—simultaneously oscillating between an insider who understands the nuances of local culture, language, and disability discourse with my own lived experience, and an outsider who comes from a western institution that holds power within global academic and research networks. On one hand, my insider status allowed me to connect with our Indian research partners through shared cultural and lived experiences and an intimate understanding of the socio-political issues and challenges disabled people face in India. However, as an 'insider', one also risks being complicit in local power structures and assumptions that might reproduce or perpetuate inequalities. On the other hand, my academic affiliations with a Western institution rendered me an 'outsider' which complicated my ability to fully embody an insider role, particularly when the power dynamics between geopolitical North and South institutions become glaringly apparent. This outsider status also has the potential to alienate community members who perceive the researcher as disconnected from their lived realities.

This liminal space occupied by researchers with transnational identities presents unique methodological opportunities and challenges that mirrors what Chhabra (2020) describes as the 'in-betweener' experience—an epistemological tension where the researcher is neither fully embedded in the community nor fully detached. Navigating this liminal space requires a constant process of reflexivity where the researcher must recognise themselves as an 'in-betweener', engaging with multiple perspectives and critically interrogating how these manifold identities shape both the research process and its outcomes (Sharma, 2024). Reflexivity, in this case, becomes a continuous process of negotiating such tensions and critically questioning how one's position impacts not only the research but also the relationships built with non-academic partners. In doing so, I repeatedly confront questions such as: Whose ways of saying, writing, and testifying count in these dialogical relationships? How do we navigate the power imbalances inherent in these relationships without reproducing the very hierarchies we seek to dismantle? Can the insider perspective be separated from the institutional frameworks that define what 'valid' knowledge is?

As Nguyen (2020) suggests, participatory research often raises uncomfortable questions about ownership and the ethical distribution of power, especially when geopolitical North researchers are involved. While I may have shared cultural understanding, I still operated within an institution that holds a monopoly on formal academic credibility. The complexities of this power dynamic challenged my assumptions and forced me to continually question the ways in which knowledge was co-constructed. Was it truly shared, or was it an exercise in power redistribution that was still largely shaped by the norms of Western academia?

Confronting Colonial Legacies: Institutional Barriers and the Western Gaze

Another significant tension I encountered was related to institutional risk assessments. The institutional structures governing academic research often reinforce colonial assumptions and power dynamics. Risk assessment protocols, for instance, frequently position geopolitical South contexts as inherently 'risky', reflecting what Said (1978) identified as the Orientalist construction of non-Western societies as dangerous and unpredictable. These assessments are framed in a way that suggests the Southern context as an 'othered' and dangerous place, one that is fundamentally outside the purview of the familiar, safe, and 'civilised' spaces that universities and institutions in the geopolitical North occupy. The inherent racialised and hierarchical structure of these institutional processes—where the geopolitical North researcher is always presumed to be more at risk—served as a stark reminder of the persistent colonial gaze that continues to shape academic research. These institutional mechanisms fail to account for the complex positionalities of researchers with transnational identities and experiences. The challenge is particularly acute for researchers who must navigate institutional requirements designed for white Western scholars while simultaneously working to build authentic partnerships with disabled people and organisations in the geopolitical South. While participatory approaches require flexibility, I still had to navigate a bureaucratic labyrinth of risk protocols designed for a different kind of researcher. The absurdity of this became clear when I reflected on the underlying assumptions of these assessments, which treated India as a 'risky' context without considering my lived experience or understanding of the local political and social dynamics. This institutional gaze is a direct product of colonial thinking: it assumes that a white, Western researcher is inherently at risk in the geopolitical South, while those from the geopolitical South are seen as both objects of study and navigators of risk. The implicit hierarchy here is stark and troubling. It speaks volumes about who is perceived as vulnerable and who is seen as capable. The risk assessment process becomes a microcosm of broader colonial legacies that continue to shape academic research, reflecting what Perry et al. (2022) identify as the persistent inequalities in international research partnerships, despite rhetorical commitments to equity and inclusion. I, therefore, wonder: Can we ever truly co-create knowledge when the structures we engage with are inherently colonial, hierarchical, and built upon unequal access to resources?

Trust and Reciprocity: The Heart of Meaningful Relationships

Despite these structural challenges, the relational work—the deep listening, ongoing conversations, and reciprocal sharing—emerged as the true value of this trip. Building meaningful relationships with our partners in India required me to lean into practices of trust and reciprocity. These elements were crucial in ensuring that the collaboration was not a top-down transfer of knowledge but rather a co-creation of insights. Listening deeply, as Perry et al. (2022) describe, was not just about hearing the words but engaging in a reflective practice that recognised the lived experiences and expertise of our local partners. As McSweeney et al. (2022) emphasise, participatory research must be rooted in shared ownership and democratic decision-making. These were no longer abstract concepts but became tangible realities as we made decisions together, navigated challenges collectively, and learned from one another in ways that disrupted traditional knowledge hierarchies.

Thomas et al. (2020) stress the need to centre relational processes such as trust-building, mutual learning, and shared decision-making. These elements are not merely procedural; they are foundational to the ethics and effectiveness of participatory research. In my case, the insights from the local DPOs and community members were not only included but were central in shaping the direction of the research. This is one of the hallmarks of participatory research: it is not about imposing an agenda but about exploring new possibilities together. Shared decision-making and flexibility were key to ensuring that the research process remained adaptable to the local context. The goal was not to follow a preordained script but to co-create knowledge through the mutual dialogue of disability. Trust was not automatically granted but earned over time through moments of shared understanding and iterative honest conversations where I listened deeply to the concerns and aspirations of our local partners and responded authentically. These were not one-off meetings, but ongoing, evolving discussions that shaped both the direction of the research and nurtured a sense of connection in our relationship. Flexibility and adaptability were essential—our research proposal was not associated with rigid parameters but one that evolved organically based on the insights that emerged through reciprocal knowledge exchange. This approach aligns with what Chaudhry (2017) describes as "knowing through tripping"—a performative praxis for co-constructing knowledge that acknowledges the embodied, situated nature of the research process. This process was messy, uncomfortable, and often challenging. It required vulnerability on all sides, a willingness to acknowledge power differentials, and a commitment to working through tensions rather than avoiding them. As Huang et al. (2024) argue in their reflections on community-based participatory research, the co-production of accessible knowledge requires methodological flexibility and continuous negotiation of researcher positionality.

Conclusion: Meaningful Partnerships as Sites of Resistance

The experience of navigating geopolitical North-South research collaborations through multiple positionalities has been a journey of reflexive unlearning. As Pillow (2003) argues, reflexivity is not merely about acknowledging one's subjectivity but about "uncomfortable reflexivity—a reflexivity that seeks to know while at the same time situates this knowing as tenuous" (p. 188). My experiences in India exemplify this uncomfortable reflexivity, pushing me to question familiar frameworks in building meaningful partnerships. While structural challenges persisted, this experience affirmed that participatory research, when approached dialogically, offers possibilities for transformation in disability studies scholarship. The tensions and frictions that emerge in this work are not obstacles to be overcome but essential elements of a dialogical approach to disability studies. Following Perry et al. (2022), we highlight the transformative potential of engaging in meaningful partnerships in transnational disability spaces as sites where structural inequalities can be exposed and disrupted. The question is whether we are willing to engage in difficult conversations, and to collectively reimagine research practices that challenge rather than reinforce existing power structures.

If we are truly committed to the ethos and praxis of participatory research, we must ask ourselves these difficult questions:

• Who is truly invited into research partnerships, and who remains excluded in disability studies scholarship? Are we creating genuinely inclusive research spaces, or are we reproducing familiar hierarchies of knowledge in transnational contexts?
• How do we navigate the deeply embedded power structures in research that continue to reinforce geopolitical North hegemony in critical disability studies? What concrete strategies can we employ to dismantle these structures?
• How do we challenge the colonial gaze embedded in institutional practices like risk assessments and ethics protocols? What responsibility do we have in confronting and shifting these practices within our own institutions?
• In what ways can we move beyond co-opted notions of 'co-production' towards genuinely collaborative, intersectional, and ethical research practices that centre the experiences of disabled people in the geopolitical South?

These questions have no easy answers, but it is in the asking—and in the collective dialogue that follows—that the future of disability studies scholarship in transnational contexts through participatory research will be shaped. 

References

Chaudhry, V. (2017). Knowing through tripping: A performative praxis for co-constructing knowledge as a disabled halfie. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(1), 70-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417728961

Chhabra, G. (2020). Insider, outsider or an in-betweener? Epistemological reflections of a legally blind researcher on conducting cross-national disability research. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 22(1). http://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.696

Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? Zed Books.

Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine, 41(12), 1667-1676. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-S

Huang, S., He, J., & Jiang, Z. (2024). Co-producing access(ible) knowledge: Methodological reflections on a community-based participatory research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241257947

McSweeney, M., Otte, J., Eyul, P., Hayhurst, L. M. C., & Parytci, D. T. (2022). Conducting collaborative research across global North-South contexts: Benefits, challenges and implications of working with visual and digital participatory research approaches. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 15(2), 264–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2022.2048059

Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. Guilford Press.

Nguyen, X. T. (2020). Decolonizing knowledge in global disability and poverty studies. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 9(1), 70-94.

Perry, M., Sharp, J., Aanyu, K., Robinson, J., Duclos, V., & Ferdous, R. (2022). Research partnerships across international contexts: A practice of unity or plurality? Development in Practice, 32(5), 635–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2022.2056579

Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.

Sharma, D. (2024). "But our worlds are different!": Reflexivity as a tool to negotiate insider–outsider dilemmas. Qualitative Research Journal.

Thomas, S. N., Weber, S., & Bradbury-Jones, C. (2020). Using participatory and creative methods to research gender-based violence in the Global South and with indigenous communities: Findings from a scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(2), 342-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020925775