Can anonymisation become disempowering? Rethinking ethics for low-risk global health research.

Anonymisation is intended to confer protection in research, yet in research where disclosure poses minimal threat, blanket anonymisation may disempower participants who explicitly seek recognition. Drawing on fieldwork examining task shifting and sharing in India, we present an example where the leadership of a non-profit questioned why they must stay anonymous, viewing research participation as a rare chance to share learnings, document impact, and build credibility; opportunities otherwise constrained by funding and capacity limitations. Looking through an epistemic injustice lens, we argue that mandatory anonymisation policies reflect global north institutional assumptions about protection rather than the preferences of participants, potentially perpetuating patterns where researchers advance their goals whilst organisations whose knowledge forms their evidence remain invisible. While anonymisation is critical for sensitive research where disclosure could do harm, we call for flexible ethical guidelines that empower participants to make informed choices regarding recognition if risks are minimal. We recommend tiered consent processes which allow participants to select their levels of identification, differentiate between organisational and individual visibility, and use context-dependent frameworks like the Global Ethical Research toolkit to move towards proportionate, context-dependent decisions that truly protect those we study.