Why I Won't Write White Papers
Decolonizing Knowledge Production in Health Equity
When organizations ask me to produce a "white paper," I decline. Not because I won't write rigorous analysis—NHEC regularly publishes position papers, thought pieces, and implementation frameworks that combine theoretical depth with practical application. I refuse specifically because the term "white paper" carries colonial baggage that undermines the very health equity work I'm committed to advancing.
This isn't semantic politics. Language shapes reality, and the terminology we use in knowledge production either reinforces or challenges existing power structures.
The Colonial Origins of "White Papers"
The term "white paper" originated in early 20th century British colonial administration, distinguishing official government policy documents (bound in white covers) from less formal "blue books" or "green papers." These white papers were instruments of colonial governance—authoritative documents that presented imperial policy as objective truth, often without meaningful input from colonized peoples whose lives they would fundamentally alter.
The format became a tool of colonial authority: experts (typically white, male, educated in imperial centres) would analyze situations in colonized territories and produce recommendations for governance. The white paper's authority came not from community validation or lived experience, but from its official status and academic presentation.
This colonial legacy isn't just historical curiosity—it's embedded in how white papers function today. They maintain the same power dynamic: external experts analyzing communities and situations, presenting findings in authoritative formats that privilege certain types of knowledge while marginalizing others.
The Continued Colonial Function
In contemporary healthcare and social policy, white papers continue to function as tools of colonial knowledge production, particularly when addressing Indigenous health, Northern communities, and marginalized populations.
Consider the typical white paper process: a southern organization commissions external consultants to analyze health challenges in Northern Ontario or Indigenous communities. These consultants conduct "stakeholder engagement" (often a few focus groups or surveys), review academic literature (mostly written by non-Indigenous researchers), and produce recommendations presented as objective analysis.
The white paper format legitimizes this extractive process. The professional presentation, extensive citations, and neutral tone create an appearance of objectivity that masks whose voices are centred and whose are marginalized. Communities become subjects of study rather than authorities on their own experiences.
The Language We Use Matters
In health equity work, particularly with Indigenous communities, the terminology of "white papers" carries additional harm. The word "white" in this context isn't just about paper colour—it signals whose knowledge counts as authoritative, whose perspectives are centred, and whose voices are privileged in policy development.
When we ask Indigenous communities or racialized populations to engage with "white papers" about their own health needs, we're asking them to participate in a format that historically excluded their knowledge systems and continues to privilege colonial ways of knowing.
This is why NHEC uses different terminology: position papers, thought pieces, policy analyses, implementation frameworks. These terms don't carry the same colonial baggage, and they better reflect what the documents actually do—present positions, explore ideas, analyze policies, provide practical tools.
What We Create Instead
NHEC produces rigorous analysis that combines theoretical depth with practical application, but we frame this work as capacity-building tools rather than expert pronouncements:
Position Papers present NHEC's stance on health equity issues, grounded in research but explicit about our perspective and values. We don't claim false objectivity—we acknowledge that all analysis is positioned and that our commitment to health equity shapes how we interpret evidence. These papers are designed to help organizations develop their own positions, not to adopt ours wholesale.
Thought Pieces explore emerging concepts and challenge conventional approaches, like our analysis of the "magic potion fallacy" in healthcare innovation. These pieces contribute to conceptual development while providing frameworks that organizations can adapt to their own contexts.
Implementation Frameworks provide practical tools organizations can use immediately, but they're designed to build internal capacity rather than create consultant dependency. Each framework includes training components so organizations can eventually facilitate their own processes.
Policy Analyses examine existing policies and propose alternatives, but they centre the voices and experiences of affected communities rather than privileging expert opinion over lived experience. We teach organizations how to conduct their own policy analysis using community-centred approaches.
Decolonizing Knowledge Production
Rejecting white papers is part of a broader commitment to decolonizing knowledge production in health equity work. This means:
Acknowledging whose knowledge counts. Instead of privileging academic expertise over community wisdom, we create space for different ways of knowing and different forms of evidence.
Being explicit about perspective. Rather than claiming false objectivity, we acknowledge our commitments, values, and limitations. All knowledge is situated; pretending otherwise serves existing power structures.
Centring affected communities. Instead of writing about communities, we write with them, supporting their self-determination rather than imposing external analysis.
Using accessible formats. Rather than hiding insights behind academic jargon, we present analysis in ways that communities and frontline workers can engage with and use.
Building relationships, not just documents. Instead of producing reports that organizations can file away, we create ongoing relationships that support sustained change.
The Northern Ontario Context
In Northern Ontario, the white paper tradition has particular colonial resonance. Countless studies have been produced about northern health challenges, Indigenous health needs, and rural service delivery—almost all written by southern consultants using colonial frameworks that position northern and Indigenous communities as problems to be solved rather than as authorities on their own needs.
These white papers follow predictable patterns: they document disparities everyone already knows exist, review literature that confirms what community members experience daily, and make recommendations that require "further study" or "stakeholder engagement." Meanwhile, the fundamental causes—colonialism, racism, geographic discrimination—remain unaddressed.
NHEC's approach is different. Our policy analyses and implementation frameworks start from the premise that northern and Indigenous communities are the experts on their own needs. Our role is to support their self-determination, not to analyze them for southern audiences.
Beyond Terminology: Structural Change
Rejecting white papers isn't just about language—it's about changing how knowledge gets produced and whose voices get heard in policy development. This requires structural changes in how organizations approach analysis and consultation.
Instead of commissioning white papers, organizations committed to decolonizing their approach might:
Support community-led research and analysis
Compensate community members as co-researchers, not just "stakeholders"
Use Indigenous research methodologies like community-based participatory research
Present findings in formats that serve communities, not just organizational needs
Build long-term relationships rather than extractive consultation processes
What This Means for Organizations
Organizations genuinely committed to health equity need to examine not just what they're analyzing, but how they're analyzing it and whose knowledge they're privileging in the process.
This doesn't mean abandoning rigorous analysis—it means being honest about the limitations of traditional approaches and creating space for different ways of knowing. It means acknowledging that the most sophisticated analysis is worthless if it doesn't serve the communities most affected by the issues.
At NHEC, we're committed to producing analysis that is both rigorous and decolonized, both theoretically grounded and practically useful. We just won't call it a white paper.
Northern Health Equity Consulting produces position papers, thought pieces, and implementation frameworks that combine theoretical depth with practical application while centring the voices of affected communities. Contact us to discuss how rigorous analysis can support community-led change.