between different groups within countries, and between different geographical, economic, or social contexts. Assuming that a technologically determinist approach—like a “magic bullet” or hypodermic needle—can be followed across these regions would therefore be a mistake. 4.3 TOWARDS A FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA This study provides a first mapping of organizations working to combat information disorder in the Global South, and much work remains to be done. A research agenda for the future is suggested by the following recommendations. The first priority, given the lack of geographical diversity in the field, is to encourage more research on information disorder in the Global South. Such research must move beyond replicating existing empirical studies for the sake of “diversity” and must avoid merely applying theoretical models developed in the North to the South. Instead, research on information disorder in the Global South should take the deep social, media, political, and geopolitical contexts into account, focus on specificity while seeking comparisons, and avoid treating the South as a monolith. This means that more attention should be paid to differences and similarities within Southern contexts, and that South–South collaborative and comparative research should be encouraged, while trends—and, potentially, solutions—that are similar in the Global North and South should be identified. As this study has shown, a variety of actors in the Global South are working to combat information disorder. These include academics, journalists, NGOs, and a variety of civil society actors. Further research into ways in which information disorder can be combated in the Global South would therefore benefit from a critical praxis approach, in which academic scholarship and practical action research can inform each other in ways that are mutually beneficial. Such a critical praxis can continue to explore holistic, integrated, and interlinked responses to information disorder that flow from specific contextual imperatives, lived experiences, and local knowledge. This also implies that research would move beyond the study of online communities and digital platforms to include more ethnographic work on disconnected or poorly connected communities, how information disorder spreads through oral networks, and how information disorder manifests in everyday life. I N FO R M ATI O N D I SO R D ER IN THE GLOBA L SOUTH Finally, while combating information disorder is a pressing political and social project, the urgency of this work should not lead researchers to revert to superficial or uncritical views which disregard the well-established history of research into issues such as the role of journalism in relations of power, the political economy of media ownership, and critiques of positivist epistemologies that reduce complex understandings of truth and power to a reassertion of journalistic “objectivity.” Journalism should be supported as a public good to combat information disorder, while media development efforts should be coupled with continued work on ensuring ethical, trustworthy, and quality journalistic content. 4.4 THE ROAD AHEAD Information disorder is a complex problem that calls for complex understandings of the relationship between economy, society, political life, and everyday lived experiences. Such a multilevelled phenomenon therefore also requires multidisciplinary collaborations across regions. This study has identified a number of key interlinked areas in which organizations in particular regions are already working to combat information disorder. Future work that builds on this mapping study should therefore focus on ways in which more collaborations can be established between organizations within and across regions. Such collaborations would be best envisaged in terms of topics and trends rather than geographical locations, in order to facilitate the sharing of best practices across different locations and to draw on the expertise of organizations working in particular focus areas. An initial workshop and follow-up collaborative meetings would provide an opportunity for researchers to present their work to a wider audience, as well as to meet and exchange ideas with their counterparts in other regions. During this meeting, focus areas for future collaborations can be identified and developed further. The second phase of future work in this area would entail the building of networks of solidarity between researchers and activists across geographical contexts. Such collaborations between academics, activists, and practitioners would follow the approach of a critical praxis in which theory and practice inform each other. Because of the interlinking of various imperatives found in this Introduction – 2 1