AO: Crane looks at how African HIV scientists navigate assertions of same-ness and difference in discussing research design and practice.
AO: Crane notes that African names on funding proposals are “in vogue” because they indicate “true partnership” which is viewed favorably by funders. This echoes my own experiences with tech and tech collaborations between Kenyan groups and global North funding.
AO: Crane writes: “African collaborators are increasingly in demand among Northern investigators and institutions. With intentional irony, one American HIV researcher told me that ‘Africa is in vogue now’, and described how the NIH looks favorably upon grant applications that list African names among the co-investigators, even though it is difficult for African investigators to get the ‘principal investigator’ status that would accord them control over how the money is spent. Presumably, the presence of African names on a grant application serves as an indicator of collaboration, a self-proclaimed goal of ‘global health’, and thus as a form of authentication in the eyes of Northern funders.” (852)
AO: Crane also notes the invocation of “African” identity by the scientists as a way to justify their good intention. She also notes that the identity category of “African” flattens many of the fault lines within it.
She notes:“this recourse to African identity as proof of good intentions obscures the many fault lines (class, gender, culture, ethnicity, and so on) that exist within the category of ‘African’ or even of ‘Ugandan’. (In Uganda, as elsewhere, class divisions and ethnic categories often overlap, meaning that physician-researchers may often be both wealthier and from ethnically more dominant groups than their patients and research subjects.” (853)
