Helicopter research is bad but there are other extractive and unethical practices that can harm researched communities

By guest contributor Bethlehem Tekola

“Although most researchers would believe sincerely that they wish to improve the conditions of their research participants, this has not always happened …Years of research have frequently failed to improve the conditions of the people who are researched.”

Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies

When writing and talking about unethical research practices in relation to international research collaborations, there is a tendency among academics to mainly focus on “helicopter” (or “parachute”) research. That is, on when researchers from high-income countries (HICs) arrive in a low and middle-income country (LMIC), conduct a study with little or no involvement from local researchers and leave. Helicopter research is often discussed in relation to “unfair” practices such as in “authorship allocation” and “resource allocation”. Although “helicopter research” is a common problem in global health, including in Africa, there are other extractive and unethical practices within international health collaborations that can harm researched communities.

In my experience and observation, there is a tendency among some scholars from the Global North to centre their interests and needs in deciding to conduct research in Africa. For instance, in explaining how and why they came to conduct research in Africa, some researchers may indicate how they did not like what they were doing before, and why they needed something exciting. However, it is never a good idea to centre researchers’ interests and needs when deciding to engage in research that involves and impacts marginalised communities. Although this is true for any researcher, this becomes even more relevant if researchers are not part of the community they are studying. Researchers’ needs and priorities may not align with the needs and priorities of researched communities. Thus, research conducted without centering marginalised communities’ priorities and needs is more likely to bring more harm than good for the communities.

Before engaging in any research, researchers need to first ask ourselves questions like: “Who am I?  What right do I have to be doing this research?” “Am I the one who should be doing this research?” “For whose sake I am doing this research?” as asking these questions might be the most responsible and beneficial thing we can do for the community or the country we hoped to help. For instance, just because one is able to secure research funding and “no research has been done” in that particular area does not mean that one is the right person to do that research. No research is better than extractive research or research that brings more harm than good to research participants and their community. Corntassel and Gaudry remind us that “Research is considered extractive when it becomes clear how the researchers benefit from the project – publications, funding, tenure, respect as a knowledgeable person- while the community’s gains remain elusive”.

Having commitment, responsibility and accountability to the participants and their community should be taken into account when deciding to engage in research to ensure that research is not extractive. For instance, a commitment and responsibility to research participants’ well-being and happiness and to preserve the dignity and integrity of the information and knowledge collected from participants/the community. Without having or building relationships it is difficult to have commitment, or a sense of responsibility and accountability to participants and their community. Hence, no research should be conducted without building “authentic relationships” with those who are being researched.

The fact that Global North academics have involved some African researchers in their research projects does not necessarily say anything about Global North academics’ accountability, commitment and responsibility to the participants and communities they study. It does not also say anything about the kind of relationship that exists among researchers and between researchers and research participants/communities within these research projects. For example, it does not say anything about the power difference between Global North academics and African researchers which makes it difficult for the latter to express their concerns about questionable research practices, challenge Global North academics or disagree with them openly or how power differences are being addressed within these research projects.

Saying I reflect on my role “as a white researcher conducting research in Africa” is also not enough, as action that attests accountability and responsibility to participants and their community is needed. Self-reflection and any other learning and self-education should also happen before engaging in research. For instance, before engaging in research, we researchers need to be clear about our motivations by asking questions like: “why am I choosing to engage in research in Africa as a non-African?” and “who is benefiting from my research?”. Of course, learning can happen during research and self-reflection is an ongoing process, but the main point is that learning should not be achieved at the expense of research participants and researched communities. This is also a point discussed by Gani and Khan (2024) in their critique of “performative declarations of positionality” (p.2). Specifically, how positionality can become another process through which the researcher centres themselves “foregrounding their own unease” (p.6) and how it can make participants and researched communities “an instrument in the process of self-knowing”.

Conclusion

Alongside attention to helicopter research, powerful actors within international health research collaborations i.e. funders, universities and we (researchers) have responsibility to end extractive research of all kinds and ensure that research is both ethical and beneficial to researched communities, especially marginalised communities. Indigenous researchers and scholars have written extensively not only about how research can be harmful to researched communities but also about how to stop or avoid extractive research and research exploitation in communities. We have extensive information about the “why” and “how”. What is needed is action. As Potts and Brown rightly pointed out, good intentions are never enough on their own to bring about change.

About the author:

Disclaimer: Views expressed by contributors are solely those of individual contributors, and not necessarily those of PLOS.

The post Helicopter research is bad but there are other extractive and unethical practices that can harm researched communities appeared first on Speaking of Medicine and Health.