Recognising the non-neutrality of knowledge creation

Author: Salma Arabi

Importance

The principle ‘Acknowledge that not everything is neutral or apolitical’ is important for all researchers as it encourages a deeper, more critical approach to our work and its wider implications. In any area of research, whether the focus is on science, technology, social sciences, or humanities, assumptions, biases, and external influences inevitably shape the research process, from funding and data collection to interpretation and dissemination. By recognising that nothing is entirely neutral, we can better understand how factors like institutional priorities, political contexts, and societal values affect research outcomes. This crucial awareness can lead to more informed, transparent, and ethical research practices, ultimately enhancing the quality and relevance of our work.

I will explore this principle from my perspective as an early career researcher (ECR). For ECRs, acknowledging that research is not apolitical allows us to explore intellectual humility. It reminds us that our work is influenced by broader historical, social, and political contexts, and that personal and professional biases (whether explicit or implicit) can shape both the questions we ask and the conclusion we draw. This awareness encourages a more reflexive approach to research, where scholars actively engage with their own assumptions and consider how their work might impact diverse stakeholders. This is particularly important when research involves marginalised or sensitive issues, where the potential for harm or exclusion is heightened if researchers do not critically consider power dynamics and representation.

This principle is also important because it promotes social responsibility in research. Acknowledging that research is never politically or socially neutral drives researchers, particularly ECRs, to consider how our work could either reinforce or challenge existing power structures, inequalities, and injustices. By being aware of these dynamics, we are better equipped to design studies that are inclusive, fair, and ethical, and to advocate for positive change within our respective fields. Understanding that research outcomes are shaped by non-neutral factors encourages researchers to strive for solutions that benefit society as a whole rather than perpetuating existing disparities.

Ultimately, this principle is important to me as it is about promoting a more critical, reflective, and ethical approach to research. For ECRs, adopting this mindset not only improves the quality and impact of our work but also helps us to navigate the complex landscape of academic, institutional, and societal influences. It encourages us to think beyond immediate research goals and consider the broader, often unseen, forces that shape our findings, contributing to the creation of research that is both impactful and socially responsible.

Scenario

In late 2023, I began conducting data analysis for a report that would explore gender diversity in the Australian specialist digital health workforce using data from a census conducted in July and August 2023. I applied the principle throughout the process of data analysis to ensure that the findings were presented with critical awareness and sensitivity. The data analysis revealed significant gender disparities, including males being paid more and having greater opportunities for career advancement when compared to females. Recognising these disparities did not arise in a vacuum, I approached the analysis with a mindset that acknowledged the broader social, political, and historical contexts that contribute to these inequities. I considered how structural issues, such as gender bias in hiring practices, unequal access to mentorship and professional development, and the overall culture of the tech, science, and healthcare industries, could be influencing the findings. My aim was to then move beyond a surface-level analysis to explore the deeper reasons for the gender inequities I was observing.

The report was launched in late 2024 (James, Zevgitis & Arabi, 2024), and myself and my colleague/mentor were asked to do a presentation as part of the launch where we explored the association between gender and education and employment within the Australian specialist digital health workforce. Rather than simply presenting the numbers, I framed the findings within a narrative that highlighted the ongoing structural challenges female individuals face in the digital health sector. I emphasised that these disparities were not due to individual shortcomings, but were the result of deeply embedded biases, unequal access to resources, and a lack of supportive institutional structures. This language reflected my awareness that gender inequalities in the sector were shaped by power dynamics, and I wanted the audience to grasp that addressing these issues would require more than surface-level interventions.

The way I delivered the presentation was also informed by this principle. I intentionally chose language that acknowledged the social, political, and historical contexts behind the data. I used an inclusive tone that sought to engage the audience in the broader conversation about gender inequity, rather than positioning the findings as a problem “over there” or solely the responsibility of the marginalised group. I aimed to create a space where the audience could reflect on their role in either perpetuating or addressing these disparities.

The impact of this approach was twofold. First, by applying a critical, context-aware perspective to the data, I helped ensure that the presentation, and the accompanying report, was not just a collection of statistics but a compelling narrative that resonated with the diverse stakeholders in attendance, including industry leaders and academics. It encouraged an open dialogue about the structural challenges that women face in digital health, while also highlighting practical solutions such as policy changes, mentorship programs, and more inclusive hiring practices.

Second, the exchange of ideas and experiences created a sense of shared responsibility. After the presentation, several attendees approached me with questions that demonstrated a deep understanding of the complexities surrounding gender disparity in the digital health workforce. These were not just inquiries about the data itself, but reflections on the broader systemic issues that the report highlighted. As we engaged in dialogue, I was able to share my own experiences of working within the digital health sector and the challenges I had personally encountered related to gender, mentorship, and career advancement. This personal connection helped to humanise the data and allowed for a more relatable conversation about the real-world impact of these disparities. In turn, several attendees shared their own stories of facing similar challenges, further reinforcing the idea that gender inequality in digital health is not an isolated issue, but one deeply embedded in the structures and culture of the sector.

Reflection

Looking back on my experience, I can see how the principle “Acknowledge that not everything is neutral or apolitical” fundamentally shaped my approach to both the data analysis and presentation. By recognising that research—especially research on sensitive issues like gender disparity—is shaped by broader social, political, and historical forces, I was able to reflect more critically on the data and the power dynamics that influence the workforce. Rather than accepting the raw data at face value, I sought to understand the structural and systemic factors that might explain the gender disparities, such as gender bias, unequal access to opportunities, and ingrained cultural norms within the digital health sector.

However, in reflecting on my application of this principle, I see that there are areas where I could have gone even further in acknowledging the non-neutral nature of the research. While I considered structural factors, I could have more explicitly questioned the assumptions behind the data collection process itself. For example, were there limitations in how gender was categorised? Did the data fully capture the experiences of non-binary individuals or other marginalised gender identities within the workforce? Acknowledging potential gaps or biases in the data would have deepened the critical awareness of the research process and added an additional layer of transparency.

In terms of how I will incorporate these learnings into future work, I plan to address issues of gender more intentionally within the curriculum I develop. For instance, I will ensure that gender-related case studies do not reinforce traditional gender stereotypes, such as the common portrayal of a male leader. Instead, I will strive to represent diversity, providing examples where women, non-binary, and gender-diverse individuals take on traditional ‘masculine’ positions and where men are depicted in caregiving or support roles. This shift will not only challenge conventional gender expectations but will also highlight and normalise the broad spectrum of contributions that individuals of all genders make in the health workforce.

These experiences have cemented my belief in constantly questioning any underlying assumptions that may be present in all aspects of our work, whether in data collection, curriculum design, or dissemination. This is and will continue to be a key part of my ongoing commitment to critical pedagogy and to fostering a more equitable and inclusive learning environment.

Advice

1. Always remember that your research does not exist in a vacuum. When presenting your results, think beyond the raw data. Consider the larger societal contexts that could be influencing the outcomes. For example, in the case presented above, it was essential to acknowledge not just the numbers, but the structures that reinforced these disparities.
2. The way you present your findings shapes how they are received. When discussing sensitive issues, use inclusive and non-blaming language that encourages conversation and reflection. Avoid framing disparities as problems solely located in marginalised groups; instead, invite everyone to reflect on their role in these inequities.
3. Recognising that research is not neutral encourages intellectual humility, an essential trait for any researcher. Acknowledging your own biases and limitations allows you to approach your work with openness and willingness to learn.
4. When developing curriculum, consider how you present your information, particularly in case studies, to ensure you are not reinforcing stereotypes.

Reference

James, C., Zevgitis, L., & Arabi, S. (2024). Gender diversity in Australia’s digital health workforce: Special report (2nd ed.). https://digitalhealthcrc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Gender-Diversity-in-Australias-Digital-Health-Workforce-Report-2024_Final.pdf