Reframing impact documentation in African contexts: exploring ethical and culturally safe storytelling in global health research

In a capacity sharing workshop titled: “Impact Documentation for Civil Society Organisations promoting health equity across Africa” hosted by The George Institute’s Ubuntu Initiative on 6th August 2025, civil society leaders, researchers, and changemakers from across Africa came together to explore a critical question: In the face of developmental funding cuts and the ongoing need to serve our communities, how can we document our impact in ways that are effective, ethical and culturally safe?

Authored by Deepika Saluja & Kenneth Yakubu.

Setting the context

The workshop began with an acknowledgment of the Traditional Owners of the lands where we live and work. In Australia, this practice recognises the enduring connection that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have with the land, air, seas. Extending the same respect to all tribes represented at the workshop set the tone for a session grounded in respect for cultural diversity, and the need for equitable partnerships, and collaboration. Kenneth Yakubu, a Research Fellow at the George Institute, highlighted the critical role of civil society organisations (CSOs), not only in delivering health services but also in sustaining social transformation.

The workshop emerged from conversations at the NCD Alliance Forum and the Africa Health Agenda International Conference in early 2025. During these events, grassroots organisations raised concerns about declining international aid and highlighted the role that impact documentation could play in securing appropriate financial support. Yakubu stressed that impact documentation goes beyond reporting activities. It is about showing the value and change these organisations bring to their communities. Without this understanding, civil society organisations risk losing meaningful support, with negative consequences for the services they provide.

Workshop sessions

Language and framing of impact documentation

Rabia Khan, a public health researcher and storyteller, opened the first session by examining the language of impact. She invited participants to consider why deficit-based language is often used in funding applications. Most participants pointed to long-standing habits, media expectations to frame impact in a particular way, and reporting templates from funders requesting civil society organisations to emphasise problems rather than strengths.

Through an interactive activity called “Impact Language Bingo,” she encouraged participants to reflect on commonly used terms in global health such as “vulnerable,” “voiceless,” and “needy.” She challenged the group to consider how such words, while often well-intentioned, can unintentionally frame communities as passive or broken.

Shifting from a deficit to strength-based narrative

Rabia then reminded participants that “ethical storytelling means telling the truth about challenges while preserving people’s dignity and agency.” She then invited participants to make a shift from deficit to strength-based storytelling. For example, instead of saying “we supported 100 unemployed youths,” a reframed statement could be: “Within six months, 65% of participants secured jobs or started their own businesses.” This subtle yet profound change places the community’s capabilities and agency at the centre, making them the protagonists of their own transformation.

Acknowledging the reasons behind deficit-based reporting, Rabia encouraged participants to consider a dual approach: meeting funder expectations while also embedding strength-based narratives that highlight community resilience. She also outlined four guiding principles for CSOs to shift from deficit-focused to strengths-based impact documentation. These were: emphasising community agency rather than organisational heroics, presenting community needs alongside their strengths, and recognising challenges without defining people by them. She also stressed the importance of showing what has changed, not just what was done.

Rabia also introduced a practical impact statement formula:

Target group (Who?) + Positive change (What changed?) + Activity that led to the change (What did you do?) + Evidence (How do you know?)

This formula helps organisations move from reporting activities to documenting meaningful outcomes.

She explained this further in the following example:

“We provided health services to poor rural people who had no access to proper care” can be reframed using the impact statement formula as follows:

“Older adults in remote communities (who) experienced better management of chronic conditions (what changed) through regular home visits from trained health workers (how), evidenced by reduced hospital admissions and positive feedback from community health surveys (evidence).”

Rather than using labels such as “poor people,” participants were encouraged to use respectful language. They were reminded to pay attention to signs of community agency, recognising that change happens with people rather than to them. This approach prompted participants to focus on what was improved, not just what was done, and to support claims of change with credible evidence. They then practiced reframing additional impact statements using this approach.

Additional Reflections

When data doesn’t tell the whole story

Louis Ng'oma shared about the trust gap communities and CSOs often experience, due to various reasons (including fear of losing benefits from a project, political pressure or interference by local leaders), community members may be discouraged or outrightly forbidden from sharing the truth. This can potentially undermine future engagement activities with those communities and consequently the authenticity of the impact stories. These insights pointed to a critical tension: how do we ensure that what we capture is real, representative, and respectful?

Rethinking Measurement: From Metrics to Meaning

Rabia Khan invited participants to shift their focus from predetermined metrics to emerging outcomes, emphasising what changed from the perspective of those who experienced it. To get a holistic picture, she advised that multiple people and voices should be included in the evaluation process. This may include funders, service providers, and community members. Impact is not always what we expect. Sometimes, it’s what we discover.

Is research getting in the way?

Shweta Gidwani raised an important question: Has research become a barrier to real change? Pointing to the disconnect between research agendas and local realities, she observed how easy a research process can become extractive, favouring academic outputs over sustainable community change. Community voices must be at the centre of the research, and as researchers it is our responsibility to provide support, tag along with the communities in their journey of bringing change without getting in their way by leading or controlling the process.

Intersectionality: A missing link

Patience Ogolo-Dickson, reflecting on her work with women and girls with disabilities in Nigeria, highlighted the challenges key actors face in recognising and documenting the intersecting layers of marginalisation within impact reporting processes. Her reflections underscored the importance of making impact documentation not only ethical, but also equitable and representative.

This workshop was more than a training; it was a collective call to reflect on how language matters, how stories shape systems, and that communities must be at the heart of impact. It was also an invitation to tell stories that affirm dignity, build trust, and create space for the voices that matter most.

Acknowledgement: We would like to sincerely thank all the participants who participated, engaged and shared their local knowledge practices and insights, making this workshop a very enriching experience.