Article by Stefaan Verhulst: “The policy and research fields often express concern over data, evidence, and funding gaps. Comparatively little attention is paid to the gap that arguably comes first: who gets to ask questions and set agendas that determine what (and what types of) data and evidence get produced.
Public policy, clinical trials, and other forms of research all exist downstream from choices about what is worth asking and investigating. The ability to define agendas and ask questions is a form of power. It is also inherently political—a reflection and perpetuation of existing power asymmetries. Questions decide what is measured, who is counted, which outcomes matter, and what is an acceptable answer. In fact, by the time a funder issues a call or a researcher designs a protocol, most of the consequential choices have already been made. To understand how agendas are set and why entire dimensions of knowledge and knowledge production are neglected, we need to talk about equity and inequity in questioning. We need to examine the distribution of power to pose, frame, prioritize, and resource questions, especially among people who are most affected by the answers.
This essay focuses on the different forms of power and exclusion that are central to the questions process. In subsequent pieces, we will examine the downstream effects of power on the evidence that gets produced, and explore possible responses…(More)”.
