INTRODUCTION:
Calls to decolonise Global Health have increasingly drawn attention to epistemic injustices in knowledge production, including the marginalisation of Global South expertise and unequal authority in research processes. While these debates often focus on institutions and senior actors, the positionality of Global North early-career researchers (GN-ECRs) has received comparatively little attention. GN-ECRs frequently enter the field with strong equity commitments, yet operate within academic systems that both enable and constrain their capacity to influence epistemic practices.

METHODS:
This contribution takes the form of a reflexive and conceptual perspective. Drawing on positionality theory, decolonial scholarship, and systems thinking, the authors critically reflect on their own experiences as GN-ECRs working within Global Health research. The perspective is structured around iterative phases of awareness, deliberation, and action, which are used as an organising framework from previous literature (1) to examine how everyday research practices, institutional norms, and ethical orientations shape epistemic outcomes.

RESULTS:
Rather than reporting empirical findings, this perspective articulates key tensions that characterise GN-ECR engagement with epistemic injustice. These include navigating the intersection of privilege and limited formal power, reconciling good intentions with the consequences of research practices, and identifying constrained but meaningful spaces for action within existing academic structures. The perspective highlights how epistemic injustice is often reproduced through routine decisions around framing, authorship, and collaboration, even in equity-oriented research.

CONCLUSIONS:
This perspective argues that GN-ECRs occupy a distinctive and ethically complex position within Global Health. By adopting a consequentialist positionality lens, GN-ECRs can move beyond reflexive awareness toward context-sensitive actions that prioritise epistemic equity and research relevance. Making such reflexive and situated contributions more visible may support broader efforts to advance more inclusive and effective Global Health knowledge production.