Deconstructing and remaking power dynamics in WASH

The calls for "decolonizing" research and practice on water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) are relatively new [1], following scholarship in global health [2,3], humanitarian assistance [4,5], and more recently in climate change adaptation and disaster management [6].Drawing on a rich body of epistemological critical theory, development practitioners have generally understood decolonization as a recognition and positive deconstruction of unjust practices and institutions of colonization, slavery and racism, and a rebuilding based on a respect for all the rights of human beings [1].In the WASH sector, there is growing acknowledgement that income, race and geography still determine access to safe and affordable water and sanitation services, even in high income countries.The legacy of racism is evident from urban Flint, Michigan to rural Alabama, where African American communities have dealt with lead in their water and sewage overflows in their backyards.Native American populations are 19 times more likely to lack access to indoor plumbing as white households [7].In Canada, boilwater advisories that indicate that water is unsafe for consumption have persisted in First Nations communities, sometimes for over two decades, despite government commitments and programs [8].While globally, income continues to correlate with access, intersectional issues of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender clearly compound disparities.The recent call for deconstructing power dynamics reflects an acknowledgement that inequities within the WASH sector may themselves be roadblocks for confronting persistent inequalities in access to safe and affordable water and sanitation services.This opinion piece is inspired by a plenary discussion on "Dismantling Unhelpful Power Dynamics in WASH" at the Water Meets Health Conference, hosted by the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill in October 2023.It is an attempt to unpack how researchers, program implementers, NGOs, funders in the sector mirror historic legacies and inequities, and what we can do, individually and collectively, to become more equitable and just in our practice.Dominated by engineers, public health experts and economists, many trained by elite institutions, the WASH sector has focused narrowly on solving technical and financial challenges to ensuring access to safe and affordable water and sanitation.Even international and multidisciplinary research teams are incentivized to use similar methods of enquiry, excluding the possibility that there are other credible ways of seeing and solving problems beyond what has been institutionalized at universities.Decolonization scholars sometimes refer to this as epistemic injustice or the "wrong done to somebody specifically in their capacity as a knower" [9].In addition to devaluing local knowledge, they rely on short-term qualitative and quantitative studies and projects that extract data from low-income populations, often proposing a linear path between their research findings and development impact [10].But without confronting