Not sure what to make of that. Please elaborate?
In the context of the article they're pretty clear about their sources and what they mean by global north and south.
In the context of the article they're pretty clear about their sources and what they mean by global north and south.
For instance if we're addressing the amount of research on the autism spectrum or depression, I don't expect Russia or Australia to be significantly ahead of China or Brazil.
The same way putting Portugal and Brazil in different groups, but the UK and Australia in the same doesn't feel helpful.
There are many points in the article looking at colonization and Anglophony, these historical or cultural distinctions could be a better split perhaps IMHO. Or just embrace the complexity and not reuse any specific concept to group the countries they want to focus on.
How can a neurodiversity paradigm represent the people whose data it appropriates: colonizes?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South
It's a global heatmap style chart of autism research.
Http://prevalence.spectrumnews.org/