From Thailand to Colombia: Soundscapes of a violent past in Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s Memoria (2021)

What’s in a Term: Can Feminism Look beyond the Global North/Global South Geopolitical Paradigm?

Across the globe, climate warming is projected to lead to decreased water quality and availability. This is due to several factors, including melting glaciers, changing precipitation patterns, and increased evaporation. As a result, water resources will become scarcer and water quality will decline, which will have negative impacts on ecosystems, land use, and human health. Adaptation strategies depend on human behavior shifts and are crucial to combat the climate crisis (Climate change and human behaviour 2022). However, less effort has been made to study, research, and communicate climate change impacts on aquatic ecosystems in the Global South compared to countries in the Global North. A group of five Ph.D. students and early career researchers, connected through the Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO), joined together to discuss the challenges of communication, research, and education from climate change perspectives and develop ideas on how to foster diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice in the aquatic sciences community (Fig. 1). We briefly outline these challenges to communication, research, and education in this introductory Viewpoint, and then discuss each further in separate Viewpoints included in this issue of the L&O Bulletin. An important part of science is reproducibility and communication to the broader scientific and nonscientific community, especially when we are discussing climate change and the effects it will have on our global society. The majority of studies that make claims of global climate change impact do not incorporate regional and local issues from Global South countries (Callaghan et al. 2021), yet climate change disproportionally threatens low-income countries, including many in the Global South (Levy and Patz 2015). We believe that factors contributing to this bias include the lack of Open Access science from the Global South due to language barriers and high publication and translation costs that increase the systemic issues related to diversity and inclusion from underrepresented research groups. To overcome these challenges, we propose solutions, including citing work from scientists in the Global South, outline how international societies can better promote regional journals, and indicate how we can all use social media to better our understanding and connection between research in the Global North and South. It is critical to expand our understanding of climate change across all regions of the world, and learning from scientists in the Global South will likely support more underrepresented and underfunded researchers. To address the climate-driven challenges facing the globe—both North and South—we need research to understand the effects that are going to manifest in a future world. A promising new technology to monitor species' movement, behavior, and interactions is eDNA. The use of eDNA may be especially beneficial for studying climate change effects on aquatic ecosystems. However, the costs of eDNA monitoring can be prohibitive for underfunded researchers, especially those in the Global South, where the research budget is approximately a third of that of the Global North. For example, the research and development expenditure in Sub-Saharan Africa is only 0.5% of the Gross Domestic Product based on records from the World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS); despite the fact that Niger, Somalia, and Chad are some of the most vulnerable countries to climate change according to the Notre Dame-Global Adaptation Index (https://gain.nd.edu/our-work/country-index/rankings/). To address this knowledge gap, we propose that more funding should be allocated to the countries' most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Is climate literacy approached the same way across the world? There are many barriers in reaching students, including lack of personal connection and differing religious and cultural beliefs. To reduce these barriers, we suggest more interdisciplinary collaborations should be fostered to expand scientific knowledge and interest around the globe at all levels of education. Sharing existing resources and knowledge between the Global North and South may introduce new discussions in early stages of education and promote climate literacy. Solutions to issues in climate literacy include using university archives to create lessons and to build connections to local communities and sharing generational knowledge. Expanding climate change literacy will only improve capacity for global research. The impacts of climate change on water resources will have negative consequences globally. There is a need for improved communication, research, and education from climate change perspectives, especially to bridge the gaps between the Global North and South. In the following articles, we describe inequalities in communicating climate change impacts and propose solutions to overcome them. We introduce the importance of technology and eDNA in climate change research and how to make this promising applied science standardized and useful, especially for countries already impacted by climate warming. Finally, we discuss how to reach students in all stages of education and under different cultural and religious backgrounds to build knowledge and information in a climate changing world. The goal of our discussions is to bring attention to important social and scientific aspects of climate change consequences around the world and how to face those challenges. The authors acknowledge the ASLO through the Limnology and Oceanography Research Exchange (LOREX) Program that fostered the initiative of the writing groups, and especially the support of Brittany Schieler and Adina Paytan. The authors are grateful to Clara Mendoza-Lera and Laura Falkenberg for helpful suggestions on early versions of the pieces.

Recent studies on the global value chain (GVC) have highlighted the need to better integrate the value chains of developing countries of the global South with that of the global North regions, which are more highly developed. This is aimed at enhancing the economic and social sustainable upgrading of the value chains of the global South regions. The paper thus seeks to answer a critical question as to whether the existing GVC set-up pertaining to global North and South countries is equitable and whether it would yield the needed socio-economic and wider sustainable benefits, particularly to global South countries. a conceptual Global Value Chain (GVC) model is developed based on the economy-wide and system-based Multi-Regional Input–Output methodology to achieve this goal. Subsequently, this was empirically tested to measure embodied flows in capital and labour for sustainable development between global North and South regions. These are achieved using the GVC networks of the UK (from the global North) and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa (from the global South) to exemplify these developments. With implications for equitable, sustainable development, our study shows significant imbalances exist in the flows of value added activities from the global South to the global North, particularly in the primary industries, which produce low-value products in their raw state. Subsequently, this creates a disproportionate economic disadvantage for South countries. As such, if global South countries are to fully benefit from GVC, the study shows that these imbalances must be addressed, such as through structural changes in the economies of global South countries from their dependencies on the primary industries.

A challenge noted by engineering education (EE) researchers in the Global South (GS) is that literature addressing their context specific needs is primarily produced in the Global North (GN). In seeking to gain a better understanding of the literature resources available to support EE in a GS context, this study aimed to: (a) provide a broad-based quantitative overview of differences in representation between the GN and GS in education literature, and (b) to investigate the thematic differences between GN and GS publications in EE literature. A scientometric analysis of education-themed publications was firstly conducted in terms of publication volume and citations with a focus on the GN/GS divide. Secondly, a body of EE literature (consisting of >500 studies selected over a 7-year period for their relevance to the EE context in South Africa) was analysed using the Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) dimension of Specialisation to interrogate the thematic differences between GN & GS. The GS was found to be underrepresented in terms of the volume of education research and research impact. A level of relative parity between GN and GS was revealed in terms of themes studied and a general orientation towards the elite code on the LCT specialization plane. Distinct thematic differences were also observed, such as the GS focussing more explicitly on understanding the challenges at statistical and curricular levels, in contrast to the well-developed GN showcasing innovative learning practices in better-resourced contexts. The thematic comparison may be useful to educators in both the GN and GS. Identifying ‘what matters to whom’ offers the opportunity for more efficient collaboration based on strengths, so that we as a global community of practice can tackle the challenges of our time.

The disparity between the Global South and the Global North has gained prominence in classifying countries according to economic, social, and governance characteristics rather than historical links. Historically, the Global North has long been regarded as the dominant group of nations, far outperforming Global South countries; however, several Global South nations now surpass and outperform the Global North nations in multiple measures. Traditional measures like GDP per capita often overlook the intricate leadership dynamics essential for understanding developments in both regions. This study presents a novel approach to evaluating global leadership transitions, including economic performance, social mobility, and governance structures, by expanding on the Global South Leadership (GSL) Index. By averaging scores of 18 indices for 192 countries, scatter plots are created to identify relationships and trends between Global North and South countries and among the regions within. This study extrapolates why some Global South countries are overperforming and others are underperforming, and the ones that have overcome obstacles and become role models for other Global South, as well as for Global North countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated that speech-language therapists (SLTs) make a radical change to provide services to their clients safely via telepractice. For many practitioners, telepractice was an unfamiliar mode of practice that had to be implemented under emergency conditions. Limited literature on SLTs' experiences of implementing telepractice in the Global South during this time is available. To explore the experiences of South African SLTs (N = 45) who implemented telepractice services during the COVID-19 pandemic. SLTs across the country were invited via professional bodies to participate in an online qualitative survey distributed in 2021. Data were analysed using thematic analysis principles. We describe participants' reports of their current telepractices, discuss their perspectives on accessibility to telepractice for SLTs, clients and caregivers, and working with specific diagnoses, and consider the support needs of SLTs to enhance telepractice services. Most participants work in private practice or school settings with primarily paediatric caseloads. They reported telepractice as a positive experience and felt it was effective, although they judged that some clients were not well served by telepractice. SLTs felt underprepared for the rapid switch to telepractice and the flexibility required, especially given the limited availability of guidelines given the pandemic crisis. Greater preparation is required for telepractice sessions and more attention needs to be paid to supporting caregiver involvement online. Telepractice involves various barriers and facilitators, many of which seem common across Global North and South contexts. Support is required to enhance current telepractices in terms of computer literacy, technical education, different telepractice methods and caregiver coaching. Our findings have the potential to enable the development of support, training and guidelines to improve SLTs' confidence in providing telepractice whilst delivering quality services in an accessible and safe manner. What is already known on the subject Many SLTs had to transition quickly to telepractice service provision during COVID-19, with limited existing guidelines and support. Although there is some literature available on SLTs' experiences of implementing telepractice in the Global North, perspectives from the Global South during this time are limited. It is important to understand experiences, barriers and facilitators to telepractice provision to provide tailored support to practitioners. What this paper adds to existing knowledge Telepractice provides a viable alternative to in-person therapy for specific clients and contexts. Telepractice presents both benefits and barriers for effective clinical practice across Global North and South contexts. Greater preparation is required for telepractice sessions and more attention needs to be paid to enhancing caregiver involvement online, especially since many practitioners are likely to continue offering telepractice services post-pandemic. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Clinicians felt underprepared for the rapid switch from service delivery mode to telepractice. Greater support, training and guidelines for students and practitioners are required to enhance current practices and ensure practitioners are equipped to provide effective telepractice in the future. In particular, support should cover technological aspects, caregiver coaching and online assessment options, especially for paediatric clients.

The Global North and South discourse has become established to imply power inequalities between countries in the Global North and those in the South. As argued by Comaroff and Comaroff (2012), the South continues to be the suppressed underside of the North which always presents the South in the shadow of the North. Although this is conceived in terms of different regional countries, the Global North and South power dynamics are still present internally within the various Global South contexts themselves even without the Global North presence. Internally, within countries classified as the Global South, the Global North/South power dynamics may be seen between ethnic minority groups and the dominant ethnic groups who usually take the role of the Global North. The ethnic minority groups such as the San in Botswana are usually depicted from the Global South perspective whereby they are always presented as tracking behind in development and having to be playing catch up. Using the post-colonial theory, this chapter uses the Global South/North discourse to explore the tensions within development ontologies for the San in Botswana.

This paper primarily aims to provide a citation-based method for exploring the scholarly network of artificial intelligence (AI)-related research in the information science (IS) domain, especially from Global North (GN) and Global South (GS) perspectives. Three research objectives were addressed, namely (1) the publication patterns in the field, (2) the most influential articles and researched keywords in the field, and (3) the visualization of the scholarly network between GN and GS researchers between the years 2010 and 2020. On the basis of the PRISMA statement, longitudinal research data were retrieved from the Web of Science and analyzed. Thirty-two AI-related keywords were used to retrieve relevant quality articles. Finally, 149 articles accompanying the follow-up 8838 citing articles were identified as eligible sources. A co-citation network analysis was adopted to scientifically visualize the intellectual structure of AI research in GN and GS networks. The results revealed that the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom are the most productive GN countries; by contrast, China and India are the most productive GS countries. Next, the 10 most frequently co-cited AI research articles in the IS domain were identified. Third, the scholarly networks of AI research in the GN and GS areas were visualized. Between 2010 and 2015, GN researchers in the IS domain focused on applied research involving intelligent systems (e.g., decision support systems); between 2016 and 2020, GS researchers focused on big data applications (e.g., geospatial big data research). Both GN and GS researchers focused on technology adoption research (e.g., AI-related products and services) throughout the investigated period. Overall, this paper reveals the intellectual structure of the scholarly network on AI research and several applications in the IS literature. The findings provide research-based evidence for expanding global AI research.

There is an extensive body of work on global work and cross-cultural collaboration. However, there is reason to believe that unique dynamics emerge when work occurs across and between the Global North and Global South, a phenomenon which has been understudied in management scholarship. The research in this symposium seeks to explore those dynamics. When considering dynamics between the Global South and Global North, management research has often focused on the mechanisms by which status hierarchies between the Global South and Global North are maintained. This symposium moves scholarship on collaboration between the Global South and Global North beyond the status hierarchies that have importantly been examined to consider a more scope of questions and uncover dynamic processes. For example: How do the Global North and South influence one another as individuals and organizations in each seek to build capacity? How do the Global South and Global North shape one another’s imaginations, work identities and sense of the meaning of their work? In what ways do work interactions and collaborations challenge and frustrate respective parties, and in what ways do these interactions empower and enrich participants?

Literature reviews have become increasingly prominent in scientific discourse; however, few have critically examined the geographic distribution of research, particularly in the field of biometeorology, where studies remain disproportionately concentrated in the Global North. Building on previous regional reviews and special issues, this paper critically examines geographic disparities in publication trends, authorship, and methodological approaches to aid in identifying challenges and opportunities for equitable and justified future research. Using a PRISMA-style framework, 591 empirical studies conducted across 147 Global South countries were identified from a total of 3,046 publications in the International Journal of Biometeorology (IJBM) between 2000 and 2024. The review reveals a steady increase in contributions from the Global South over time, but highlights persistent gaps in representation, especially in author affiliation and research leadership. Thematic and methodological analyses highlight the diversity and innovation present in Global South contexts, while also revealing structural barriers to equitable participation in the field. This work advocates for more inclusive research practices and enhanced institutional support to bridge the divide between the Global North and South, fostering a more representative and collaborative future for biometeorology.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00484-026-03213-5.

Global impacts of climate change have been investigated around the world; however, the discussion in academic literature has generally focused on the work of scientists in the Global North (Corbera et al. 2016). We suggest that this focus may be due in part to adversity faced by scientists in the Global South when attempting to publish in high-impact, Open Access (OA) journals. Language and financial barriers can limit the options of scientists in the Global South, resulting in them publishing in their native language journals, or in journals with lower publication costs. If these journals have a lower impact score, paywalls, or are published in a language other than English, the work of these researchers may not be thoroughly disseminated. This limited dissemination is a major concern when researching climate change, as this is a global issue. To better understand climate change, other global issues, and recognize the work of underrepresented scientists, we call on the whole aquatic science community to increase awareness and support of research conducted in the Global South. The phrase “publish or perish” is used to describe the pressure scientists face to publish their research—employment, promotion, tenure, grants or other funding opportunities can often be contingent on the number of articles published in high impact journals. However, trying to publish in high impact journals can be expensive due to article processing charges. The recent push for OA science, now a requirement for federally funded research in the United States, makes science more accessible to the public, but comes at expense to the researcher, with some journals charging fees over US$4000 (Audrey et al. 2022). Such publication costs may prove challenging to scientists in the Global South where research programs may not be as well funded. For perspective, US$69.6 billion was spent on basic research in the United States in 2017 (https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19321/overview.htm), compared to US$898 million in Brazil (Angelo 2017). A similar trend exists for many countries in the Global South where funds for research and development (as a function of percent gross domestic product; GDP) is much lower relative to countries in the Global North (Fig. 1). Beyond North America, there are some countries like the Republic of Korea and Israel with a research and development expenditure of 4.81% and 5.44% of GDP respectively, driving up the global average. In areas where science is often under-funded, it becomes difficult for research groups to afford publishing their results in high impact, OA journals. The exorbitant costs of publishing alone are likely part of the reason we do not have a fuller picture of climate change impacts around the globe. Scientists in the Global South may encounter another barrier: publishing in English. Most high impact journals are published in English, yet less than 17% of the world's population are native English speakers. English is often learned as a second language, a feat impressive in itself, but writing a manuscript that meets the standards of an English-based journal may prove challenging. Many research groups may find themselves needing to hire a translator, adding yet another major expense to publishing. Resources like AuthorAID (https://www.authoraid.info/) can provide free or affordable support for researchers in low- and middle-income countries to help with checking and improving the quality of their writing in English, but that will not always be enough to overcome such ingrained barriers. We can increase inclusivity in the scientific community by supporting, searching for, citing, and promoting science conducted by researchers from the Global South. Increasing awareness of these publications will have the dual benefits of providing a better understanding of the impacts of global issues like climate change and amplifying the work of underrepresented scientists from the Global South that may otherwise go unnoticed. With many scientists in the Global South working in regions with limited financial support for their research or being non-native English speakers, they face extraordinary challenges to publish their work in high impact, OA journals. In our push toward inclusivity and bettering our understanding of global issues, we must work to eliminate these financial and language barriers. Only with a united understanding between the Global North and South can we effectively understand the future of aquatic ecosystems under a changing climate.

The concept of Global North and Global South (or North–South divide in a global context) is used to describe a grouping of countries along the lines of socio-economic and political characteristics. The Global South is a term generally used to identify countries in the regions of Latin America, Africa, Asia and Oceania. Most, though not all of the countries in the Global South are characterized by low-income, dense population, poor infrastructure, often political or cultural marginalization,[1] and are on one side of the divide; while on the other side is the Global North (comprising the United States, Canada, all European countries, Russia, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and few others depending on context).[2][3][4] As such, the terms Global North and Global South do not refer to the directional North-south as many of the Global South countries are geographically located in the Northern Hemisphere. Countries that are developed are considered as Global North countries, while those developing are considered as Global South countries.[6][1] The term as used by governmental and developmental organizations was first introduced as a more open and value-free alternative to "Third World"[7] and similarly potentially "valuing" terms like developing countries. Countries of the Global South have been described as newly industrialized or are in the process of industrializing, and are frequently current or former subjects of colonialism.[8] The Global North generally correlates with the Western world—with the notable exceptions of Israel, Japan, and South Korea—while the South largely corresponds with the developing countries and the Eastern world. The two groups are often defined in terms of their differing levels of wealth, economic development, income inequality, democracy, and political and economic freedom, as defined by freedom indices. States that are generally seen as part of the Global North tend to be wealthier and less unequal; they are developed countries, which export technologically advanced manufactured products. Southern states are generally poorer developing countries with younger, more fragile democracies heavily dependent on primary sector exports, and they frequently share a history of past colonialism by Northern states.[8] Nevertheless, the divide between the North and the South is often challenged.[9] South-South cooperation has increased to "challenge the political and economic dominance of the North."[10][11][12] This cooperation has become a popular political and economic concept following geographical migrations of manufacturing and production activity from the North to the Global South[12] and the diplomatic action of several states, like China.[12] These contemporary economic trends have "enhanced the historical potential of economic growth and industrialization in the Global South," which has renewed targeted SSC efforts that "loosen the strictures imposed during the colonial era and transcend the boundaries of postwar political and economic geography."[13] Used in several books and American Literature special issue, the term Global South, recently became prominent for U.S. literature.[14]

This paper examines the growth of global non-state and multilateral actors in the ‘global south’ and the creation of frontier markets in the higher education sector. These developments are part of market-making changes in higher education as the sector is opened to new actors, logics, and innovative services, aimed at ‘the global south’. Yet making a higher education market that brings in new investors, providers, and consumers from within and across the global north and south is a complex process that requires imagining and materialising through new social devices, norms, and institutions so that the higher education sector works like a capitalist market based on competition, credit, commodification, and creativity. The paper examines these processes through three entry points: recruiters of international students; for-profit providers of HE; and financial agents providing new forms of credit. We argue that these developments both play off, and reinforce, older and newer asymmetries of power between individuals, social groups, and nations, within and between the global north and south, creating an even greater learning divide.

This paper examines the growth of global non-state and multilateral actors in the 'global south' and the creation of frontier markets in the higher education sector. These developments are part of market-making changes in higher education as the sector is opened to new actors, logics, and innovative services, aimed at 'the global south'. Yet making a higher education market that brings in new investors, providers, and consumers from within and across the global north and south is a complex process that requires imagining and materialising through new social devices, norms, and institutions so that the higher education sector works like a capitalist market based on competition, credit, commodification, and creativity. The paper examines these processes through three entry points: recruiters of international students; for-profit providers of HE; and financial agents providing new forms of credit. We argue that these developments both play off, and reinforce, older and newer asymmetries of power between individuals, social groups, and nations, within and between the global north and south, creating an even greater learning divide.

This chapter highlights how gender perspectives on peace education are not monolithic and have evolved differently in the global north and south. They are marked by both dialogue and dissidence. While feminist peace education scholars, both in the global north and south, acknowledge the need to pay attention to banal, everyday violence, feminists in the global south do not necessarily use the language of peace education that is scripted in the global north, as they believe such language does not reflect their world/consciousness which is mediated by experiences of coloniality/postcoloniality and intersectionality. This chapter proceeds in two parts. The first part discusses the trajectory of the field of gender and peace education, and how it evolved differently in global north and south. The second part explains what is critical peace education, and how it converges with feminist thinking in the global south. It provides insights from the South Asian region to elucidate why the frames of postcoloniality, intersectionality, power, and agency are significant from a global south perspective on gender and peace education.