Can everyone hear me? Reflections on the use of global online workshops for promoting inclusive knowledge generation.

Online research methods have risen in popularity over recent decades, particularly in the wake of COVID-19. We conducted five online workshops capturing the experiences of participatory health researchers in relation to power, as part of a collaborative project to develop global knowledge systems on power in participatory health research. These workshops included predominantly academic researchers working in 24 countries across Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Here, we reflect on the opportunities, limitations, and key considerations of using online workshops for knowledge generation and shared learning. The online workshop approach offers the potential for cross-continental knowledge exchange and for the amplification of global South voices. However, this study highlights the need for deeper exploration of power dynamics exposed by online platform use, particularly the 'digital divide' between academic partners and community co-researchers. Further research is needed to better understand the role of online platforms in generating more inclusive knowledge systems.

'You want to deal with power while riding on power': global perspectives on power in participatory health research and co-production approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Power relations permeate research partnerships and compromise the ability of participatory research approaches to bring about transformational and sustainable change. This study aimed to explore how participatory health researchers engaged in co-production research perceive and experience 'power', and how it is discussed and addressed within the context of research partnerships. METHODS: Five online workshops were carried out with participatory health researchers working in different global contexts. Transcripts of the workshops were analysed thematically against the 'Social Ecology of Power' framework and mapped at the micro (individual), meso (interpersonal) or macro (structural) level. RESULTS: A total of 59 participants, with participatory experience in 24 different countries, attended the workshops. At the micro level, key findings included the rarity of explicit discussions on the meaning and impact of power, the use of reflexivity for examining assumptions and power differentials, and the perceived importance of strengthening co-researcher capacity to shift power. At the meso level, participants emphasised the need to manage co-researcher expectations, create spaces for trusted dialogue, and consider the potential risks faced by empowered community partners. Participants were divided over whether gatekeeper engagement aided the research process or acted to exclude marginalised groups from participating. At the macro level, colonial and 'traditional' research legacies were acknowledged to have generated and maintained power inequities within research partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: The 'Social Ecology of Power' framework is a useful tool for engaging with power inequities that cut across the social ecology, highlighting how they can operate at the micro, meso and macro level. This study reiterates that power is pervasive, and that while many researchers are intentional about engaging with power, actions and available tools must be used more systematically to identify and address power imbalances in participatory research partnerships, in order to contribute to improved equity and social justice outcomes.