| Course | PUBH 6331 Global Health and Social Justice |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Source audit brief |
| Length | About 710 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PUBH 6331 Week 9
Who Wrote the Outbreak? A Source Audit of Twenty Accounts of a Cholera Response in a Composite Coastal Country, Counting Where Authors Were Based and Whose Voices Each Source Carries
Student Name
Walden University
PUBH 6331: Global Health and Social Justice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Wrote the Outbreak? A Source Audit of Twenty Accounts of a Cholera Response in a Composite Coastal Country, Counting Where Authors Were Based and Whose Voices Each Source Carries
The Question
A term paper on the cholera response in Costa Verde, a composite coastal country in West Africa, could rest on twenty sources gathered in an afternoon. Before using them, this audit asks whether those accounts come from inside the place they describe. The question matters because the sources will shape the paper's judgment of who acted well, who failed and what should change, and accounts written by visitors can miss what residents and national staff saw.
The Pattern in the Literature
Concern about outside authorship is well documented. A review of 7,100 health research articles focused on African countries found that only 52.9% of first authors were from the country studied, falling to 23.0% when collaborators came from leading U.S. universities, and 13.5% of papers had no local coauthor at all (Hedt-Gauthier et al., 2019). Looking at trials published from 1990 to 2013, Kelaher and colleagues showed that while the number of local first authors grew after 2000, their share of first authorships fell, and local first authorship declined for research funded from high-income countries (Kelaher et al., 2016). Abimbola (2019) argues that the problem is not only who is listed as author but whom the writing is for: much global health work is written for readers outside the countries it describes, a "foreign gaze" that shapes which questions are asked.
Method
Each of the twenty sources was coded on five questions: Was the first or lead author based in Costa Verde? Was any author based there? Does the source quote residents or national frontline staff directly? Does it use national surveillance data or only data from international agencies? Was it published in a language most residents read?
Table 1
Audit Results for Twenty Sources
| Source type | Number | Lead author based in country | Any author based in country | Quotes residents or national staff | Uses national data | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peer-reviewed articles | 6 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| International NGO reports | 5 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| International news stories | 4 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | |
| Ministry of Health bulletins | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
| International agency situation reports | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |
| Total | 20 | 4 | 9 | 8 | 10 | |
Note. Costa Verde and its sources are composite, coded for this exercise.
What the Audit Shows
Only four of twenty sources were led by someone based in Costa Verde, and three of those were ministry bulletins that report counts without analysis. Among the six research articles, one had a local lead author. The voices of residents appeared mostly in news stories and NGO reports, written by visitors who chose which quotes to use. National frontline staff, the nurses and surveillance officers who ran treatment centers, were almost never quoted. Half the sources relied on national surveillance data, but only the ministry bulletins were written by the people who collected it.
The audit also found an emphasis problem. Visitor-written sources focused on the first eight weeks, when international teams were present, and said little about the year that followed. The ministry bulletins covered the whole period. A paper built mainly on the visitor-written accounts would describe the response as an international effort and the aftermath as a gap, which may say more about when outsiders were watching than about what happened.
What the Paper Will Do Differently
The paper will lead with the ministry bulletins for its timeline and case counts and treat outside accounts as one perspective among several. It will search the national university's repository and regional journals for work by Costa Verdean researchers, including theses and conference papers. Where residents are quoted in outside sources, it will note who chose the quote. It will also state the audit's results in its methods section, so readers know how far its sources reflect the country they describe.
Limits
Authors' affiliations do not show everything. A researcher based abroad may be from Costa Verde, and a local affiliation may hide a visiting scholar. Coding by affiliation is a rough measure of perspective, and the audit treats it as a starting point for reading, not a verdict on any source's quality.
References
Abimbola, S. (2019). The foreign gaze: Authorship in academic global health. BMJ Global Health, 4(5), Article e002068. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002068
Hedt-Gauthier, B. L., Jeufack, H. M., Neufeld, N. H., Alem, A., Sauer, S., Odhiambo, J., Boum, Y., Shuchman, M., & Volmink, J. (2019). Stuck in the middle: A systematic review of authorship in collaborative health research in Africa, 2014-2016. BMJ Global Health, 4(5), Article e001853. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001853
Kelaher, M., Ng, L., Knight, K., & Rahadi, A. (2016). Equity in global health research in the new millennium: Trends in first-authorship for randomized controlled trials among low- and middle-income country researchers 1990-2013. International Journal of Epidemiology, 45(6), 2174-2183. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw313
What the PUBH 6331 Week 9 instructions ask for
Source audit assignments ask students to examine the sources behind a planned paper for whose perspective they represent. Prompts often require coding a set number of sources on criteria such as author location, funding, voices included and data used, then interpreting the pattern and explaining how it will change the paper. Some instructors ask students to connect findings to research on authorship equity in global health. Two or three pages around a single results table is the usual shape. Instructors reward audits with clear criteria, honest reporting and practical changes to the paper. They also value awareness of the audit's limits, such as what affiliation can and cannot reveal. Some prompts specify a minimum number of sources, often fifteen to twenty.
How the PUBH 6331 Week 9 example is put together
The brief states the question and why it matters for the paper. A section summarizes research on authorship in global health, including first-author shares and the argument about whom writing is for. The method lists five coding questions. A results table counts sources by type and criterion. A section interprets the results, noting both who led sources and a pattern of emphasis on the period when outsiders were present. The brief lists changes to the paper, including leading with ministry data and searching regional repositories, and closes with limits on coding by affiliation. The method could be reused for any reading list in the course.
Where the marks sit in the PUBH 6331 Week 9 rubric
Graders look for clear coding criteria, accurate results and thoughtful interpretation. Credit is given for connecting the audit to research on authorship and perspective. The most important criterion is usually what the student will change as a result; an audit that finds imbalance but changes nothing scores lower. Recognizing limits, such as affiliation not equaling identity, shows careful thinking. Accurate counts in the table, and full citations for the authorship studies, settle the remaining marks. Audits that code only a handful of sources, or use vague criteria, tend to lose points on method. Audits that look at timing, such as when outside accounts were written, often uncover a pattern that authorship counts alone would miss. A short methods note in the final paper reporting the audit is a strong sign the findings were taken seriously.
PUBH 6331 Week 9 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often audit only author nationality, which can be misleading. Use several criteria, including whose voices are quoted and whose data are used. Code every source the same way and keep a record. Look at timing as well as authorship, since outside accounts may cluster around periods of outside attention. Plan concrete changes, such as adding regional sources. State the limits of your coding honestly. A source audit of your own reading list can be carried out to your instructor's criteria. Search national university repositories and regional journals before concluding that local work does not exist. Note who selected any quotes from residents in outside sources.
Get a PUBH 6331 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Send your reference list or the assigned topic, plus the Week 9 prompt and rubric, and a coded audit, supplementary search included, returns in 24-48h, first one free. Authors appear by affiliation and position only; no individual researcher's record is characterized beyond what a publication states.
More PUBH 6331 papers and MPH samples
- PUBH 6331 Week 1: Discussion Post
- PUBH 6331 Week 2: Burden Profile
- PUBH 6331 Week 3: Standard Memo
- PUBH 6331 Week 4: Actor Map
- PUBH 6331 Week 5: Two-Country Comparison
- PUBH 6331 Week 6: Transfer Analysis
- PUBH 6331 Week 7: Peer Critique
- PUBH 6331 Week 8: Distribution Analysis
- PUBH 6331 Week 10: Remedy Proposal
- PUBH 6331 Week 11: Position Paper
- PUBH 6333 Week 9: Correction Memo
- PUBH 6213 Week 9: Attachments and Letters
- PUBH 6036 Week 9: Qualitative Design
- PUBH 6005 Week 9: Determinants Discussion
PUBH 6331 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PUBH 6331 Week 9 sample paper?
The full Week 9 audit is shown above, coding twenty sources on a composite cholera response for authorship and voice.
What is the foreign gaze in global health?
An argument that much global health writing is produced for audiences outside the countries it describes.
How often are African health studies led by local authors?
One review of 7,100 articles found 52.9% of first authors were from the country studied, far fewer with top U.S. collaborators.
What did the audit find?
Only four of twenty sources were led by someone based in the country, and three of those were ministry bulletins.
Does author affiliation show perspective reliably?
Not fully; affiliation is a rough measure and a starting point for closer reading.