Community hub
Recent from talks
Contribute something to knowledge base
Content stats: 0 posts, 0 articles, 0 media, 0 notes
Members stats: 0 subscribers, 0 contributors, 0 moderators, 0 supporters
Subscribers
Supporters
Contributors
Moderators
Hub AI
Neo-colonial science AI simulator
(@Neo-colonial science_simulator)
Hub AI
Neo-colonial science AI simulator
(@Neo-colonial science_simulator)
Neo-colonial science
Neo-colonial research or neo-colonial science, frequently described as helicopter research, parachute science or research, parasitic research, or safari study, is when researchers from wealthier countries go to a developing country, collect information, travel back to their country, analyze the data and samples, and publish the results with no or little involvement of local researchers. A 2003 study by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences found that 70% of articles in a random sample of publications about least-developed countries did not include a local research co-author.
Frequently, during this kind of research, the local colleagues might be used to provide logistics support as fixers but are not engaged for their expertise or given credit for their participation in the research. Scientific publications resulting from parachute science frequently only contribute to the career of the scientists from rich countries, thus limiting the development of local science capacity (such as funded research centers) and the careers of local scientists. This form of "colonial" science has reverberations of 19th century scientific practices of treating non-Western participants as "others" in order to advance colonialism—and critics call for the end of these extractivist practices in order to decolonize knowledge.
This kind of research approach reduces the quality of research because international researchers may not ask the right questions or draw connections to local issues. The result of this approach is that local communities are unable to leverage the research to their own advantage. Ultimately, especially for fields dealing with global issues like conservation biology which rely on local communities to implement solutions, neo-colonial science prevents institutionalization of the findings in local communities in order to address issues being studied by scientists.
The use of helicopter research has also led to a stigma of research within minority groups; some going so far as to deny research within their communities. Such safari studies lead to long-term negative effects for the scientific community and researchers, as distrust develops within peripheral communities.
Funds for research in developing countries are often provided by bilateral and international academic and research programmes for sustainable development. Through 'donor robbery' a large proportion of such international funds may end up in the wealthier countries via consultancy fees, laboratory costs in rich universities, overhead or purchase of expensive equipment, hiring expatriates and running "enclave" research institutes, depending on international conglomerates.
The current tendency of freely availing research datasets may lead to exploitation of, and rapid publication of results based on data pertaining to developing countries by rich and well-equipped research institutes, without any further involvement and/or benefit to local communities; similarly to the historical open access to tropical forests that has led to the disappropriation ("Global Pillage") of plant genetic resources from developing countries.
In certain fields of research, such as global public health, both the journals and professionals creating the field have defined much of their work under colonial structures and assumptions. This in turn prevents participation in the field from early in the process, even before authorship or credit is given during the publishing representation of editorial boards of journals publishing in environmental sciences and public health, with a vast majority of editors based in high-income countries despite the global scope of the journals' fields.
Some journals and publishers are implementing policies that should mitigate the impact of parachute science. One of the conditions for publication set by the journal Global Health Action is that, "Articles reporting research involving primary data collection will normally include researchers and institutions from the countries concerned as authors, and include in-country ethical approval." Similarly The Lancet Global Health placed restriction encouraged submissions to review their practices for including local participants. Similarly in 2021, PLOS announced a policy that required changes in reporting for researchers working in other countries.
Neo-colonial science
Neo-colonial research or neo-colonial science, frequently described as helicopter research, parachute science or research, parasitic research, or safari study, is when researchers from wealthier countries go to a developing country, collect information, travel back to their country, analyze the data and samples, and publish the results with no or little involvement of local researchers. A 2003 study by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences found that 70% of articles in a random sample of publications about least-developed countries did not include a local research co-author.
Frequently, during this kind of research, the local colleagues might be used to provide logistics support as fixers but are not engaged for their expertise or given credit for their participation in the research. Scientific publications resulting from parachute science frequently only contribute to the career of the scientists from rich countries, thus limiting the development of local science capacity (such as funded research centers) and the careers of local scientists. This form of "colonial" science has reverberations of 19th century scientific practices of treating non-Western participants as "others" in order to advance colonialism—and critics call for the end of these extractivist practices in order to decolonize knowledge.
This kind of research approach reduces the quality of research because international researchers may not ask the right questions or draw connections to local issues. The result of this approach is that local communities are unable to leverage the research to their own advantage. Ultimately, especially for fields dealing with global issues like conservation biology which rely on local communities to implement solutions, neo-colonial science prevents institutionalization of the findings in local communities in order to address issues being studied by scientists.
The use of helicopter research has also led to a stigma of research within minority groups; some going so far as to deny research within their communities. Such safari studies lead to long-term negative effects for the scientific community and researchers, as distrust develops within peripheral communities.
Funds for research in developing countries are often provided by bilateral and international academic and research programmes for sustainable development. Through 'donor robbery' a large proportion of such international funds may end up in the wealthier countries via consultancy fees, laboratory costs in rich universities, overhead or purchase of expensive equipment, hiring expatriates and running "enclave" research institutes, depending on international conglomerates.
The current tendency of freely availing research datasets may lead to exploitation of, and rapid publication of results based on data pertaining to developing countries by rich and well-equipped research institutes, without any further involvement and/or benefit to local communities; similarly to the historical open access to tropical forests that has led to the disappropriation ("Global Pillage") of plant genetic resources from developing countries.
In certain fields of research, such as global public health, both the journals and professionals creating the field have defined much of their work under colonial structures and assumptions. This in turn prevents participation in the field from early in the process, even before authorship or credit is given during the publishing representation of editorial boards of journals publishing in environmental sciences and public health, with a vast majority of editors based in high-income countries despite the global scope of the journals' fields.
Some journals and publishers are implementing policies that should mitigate the impact of parachute science. One of the conditions for publication set by the journal Global Health Action is that, "Articles reporting research involving primary data collection will normally include researchers and institutions from the countries concerned as authors, and include in-country ethical approval." Similarly The Lancet Global Health placed restriction encouraged submissions to review their practices for including local participants. Similarly in 2021, PLOS announced a policy that required changes in reporting for researchers working in other countries.