@Nonvicks Ochieng, this one lands close to home. Most of us have participated in extractive collection without intending to. The survivor gives the story, the agency gets the line in the donor report, and the community gets a summary they may never see.
Two distinctions I want to name:
Feedback is not the same as stewardship. Presenting findings back to a community is still us deciding what the findings are. Stewardship asks a harder question: who shaped the question, who interprets the data, and who has the authority to say the interpretation is wrong?
Benefit has to be defined by the community, not by us. An agency might count a policy brief as a benefit. A survivor might count "the data did not put me at risk, and something changed in my actual circumstances" as the only benefit that counts.
Where I would want your read: is survivor-centred stewardship achievable within donor-funded research at all, or does the funding structure make extraction the default no matter how careful we are?
