Trust as research infrastructure: realigning research funding with the realities of rural and Indigenous health research
This paper argues that competitive health research funding models are structurally misaligned with the relationship-dependent realities of rural and Indigenous health research, and proposes treating trust as essential research infrastructure supported by specific policy reforms to ensure equitable, community-driven scholarship.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Health research is often imagined as a laboratory activity, where scientists in white coats test new ideas against strict rules to find cures for diseases. But in the real world, especially in remote villages and Indigenous communities, research looks very different. It is not a solo experiment but a collective effort built on deep, long-term relationships between doctors, community leaders, and the people they serve. For this work to succeed, there must be trust. Trust is not just a feeling of goodwill; it is the practical foundation that allows a community to share its stories, let researchers into their lives, and use the findings to improve local health. Without this trust, research cannot happen, or worse, it can cause harm by repeating past mistakes where outsiders took data without giving anything back. The question facing modern science is whether the systems designed to pay for research are built to support this kind of slow, careful relationship building, or if they are forcing researchers to rush in ways that break those bonds.
A new analysis by a team of researchers from universities and health organizations in Canada argues that the current way research money is awarded is fundamentally broken for rural and Indigenous health. The authors describe a clash between two different kinds of time. The first is "competition time," which is the rigid, fast-paced schedule set by funding agencies. These agencies announce a new grant, give researchers six weeks to assemble a team, write a detailed proposal, and get signatures from community leaders. The second is "relationship time," which is the slow, necessary pace required to build genuine trust. In remote areas, the people who would partner in research are often the same doctors and nurses working around the clock to keep clinics running, managing housing crises, or responding to public health emergencies. They do not have extra time to sit down and write grant applications. Furthermore, Indigenous communities, which have a long history of being exploited by outside researchers, require a deliberate, community-led process to decide if and how research should happen. This process cannot be rushed.
The paper finds that when funding agencies force the slow work of relationship building into the fast container of competition time, the system fails the people it claims to help. The current model assumes that research teams are already formed and that community leaders have the time to review proposals instantly. In reality, this assumption excludes the very communities with the greatest health needs. When a community is asked to sign off on a project in a few days, the agreement becomes a mere formality rather than a true partnership. This leads to "partnership fatigue," where communities become exhausted by constant requests for quick signatures that never lead to real benefits. The authors point out that this system disproportionately hurts early-career scientists who are trying to build these relationships for the first time, as well as smaller institutions that lack the administrative staff to navigate complex applications. The result is a cycle where research money flows to urban centers where partnerships are easy to assemble, leaving rural and Indigenous health issues under-studied. Data from Canada shows that rural health research received less than one percent of major health funding over two decades, despite nearly eighteen percent of the population living in rural areas. A similar pattern appears in Australia, where rural health research makes up a tiny fraction of grants despite a large rural population.
To fix this, the authors propose a major shift in how research funding is viewed and managed. They argue that trust should be treated as "research infrastructure," just like a laboratory building or a computer server. Infrastructure is something you build before you need it, maintain over time, and share across many projects. Currently, funding agencies expect researchers to arrive with trust already built, without paying for the work it takes to create it. The authors suggest four specific changes to the funding system. First, they call for money specifically set aside for the early stages of relationship building, allowing researchers to pay for travel, meetings, and dialogue before a full research project is even proposed. Second, they recommend "standing infrastructure support," which means funding permanent staff, like community liaisons, who can maintain connections between different research projects so that relationships do not have to be rebuilt from scratch every time. Third, they propose changing the application process to have multiple stages. Instead of demanding a full plan immediately, agencies could first review a simple idea and then give successful teams more time and support to develop the full partnership and proposal. Finally, the authors insist that the labor of building trust must be recognized as real work that deserves to be paid for in research budgets. This includes compensating community members and leaders for the time they spend in meetings and governance.
The paper concludes that these changes are not about lowering standards but about aligning the rules of research with the reality of how people live and heal. The authors emphasize that trust is not a preliminary step that happens before the "real" science begins; it is the core infrastructure that makes ethical and effective research possible. By continuing to ignore the time and resources needed to build trust, funding systems are systematically excluding the communities that need research the most. The solution is to invest in the relationships themselves, treating them with the same seriousness and financial support as any other scientific tool. This approach would allow research to move at a pace that respects community governance and the realities of rural life, ensuring that the knowledge generated is truly useful and that the partnerships formed are lasting and fair.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.