CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: helicopter research

  • Equity and inclusion in authorship and the scholarly record

    Authorship is supposed to be a record of who did the research. In practice it is also a record of power. Whose name appears, in what position, and on what terms is shaped not only by who contributed but by seniority, geography, language, discipline and the structure of the global research economy. The result is a scholarly record that systematically under-represents some contributors and over-represents others, in ways that compound across careers. Addressing this is the concern of knowledge equity: making the authorship and the scholarly record a fairer, more inclusive account of who actually produces research. This article examines equity and inclusion in authorship, drawing on the knowledge equity domain of the CASRAI Dictionary.

    How authorship reflects power, not just contribution

    The inequities show up in patterns that are by now well documented in the research literature on the subject. Seniority can crowd out the people who did the bench work, with junior researchers’ contributions absorbed into a supervisor’s standing. Authorship position — which carries enormous weight in evaluation — is often negotiated through influence rather than assigned by contribution. And at the global scale, researchers from the global south who collect data, provide local expertise and enable studies in their own contexts are frequently relegated to junior positions or omitted entirely, a pattern sometimes called ‘helicopter’ or parachute research, in which outside researchers extract data and depart, taking the credit with them. None of these patterns is consistent with the principle that authorship should track real intellectual contribution. They reflect, instead, who holds power in the research relationship.

    Why this matters for the whole record

    These are not only individual injustices, serious as those are. When authorship systematically misrepresents who did research, the scholarly record itself becomes distorted. It overstates the role of established centres and understates that of contributors at the margins, which in turn shapes who gets funded, hired and promoted — reinforcing the very imbalances it reflects. A record that does not accurately represent its contributors cannot support fair evaluation, and it gives a misleading picture of where knowledge actually comes from. Equity in authorship is therefore a matter of the record’s accuracy and usefulness, not only of fairness to individuals.

    Contribution transparency as an equity tool

    One of the most practical levers for fairer authorship is making contribution explicit. When a paper records what each person actually did — rather than leaving it to be inferred from author order — several of the mechanisms that disadvantage less powerful contributors lose their grip. A junior researcher’s substantial work becomes visible as a stated contribution rather than being absorbed into a senior name; a local collaborator’s essential role in data collection and contextual expertise is named rather than erased; and disputes about position matter less when the substance of each contribution is on the record. The CRediT taxonomy — whose full set of contribution types is described in our overview of the CRediT roles — is a direct equity instrument in this sense: by making who-did-what explicit and machine-readable, it counteracts the tendency of author order to reward status over contribution. Transparency does not by itself dismantle power imbalances, but it makes them harder to hide and easier to challenge.

    Inclusion across the research relationship

    Equitable authorship is part of a broader practice of inclusion that runs through the whole research relationship, not just the byline. Several principles recur in efforts to make research collaborations fairer:

    • Recognise local and community contributions. The people who enable research in a particular setting — through local expertise, data collection, access and contextual knowledge — should be named as the contributors they are, not treated as facilitators.
    • Share authorship and leadership equitably. Collaborations, especially across resource boundaries, should plan authorship and leadership roles fairly from the outset rather than defaulting to the more powerful partner.
    • Address language barriers. The dominance of a single publication language disadvantages researchers who work in others, and inclusive practice means valuing and supporting research communicated in multiple languages.
    • Discuss credit early. Many inequities and disputes arise because authorship is settled late, under pressure. Agreeing principles for contribution and authorship at the start of a collaboration prevents much later unfairness.

    Bibliodiversity and a plural scholarly record

    Equity in the scholarly record extends beyond individual authorship to the diversity of the record itself — what is sometimes called bibliodiversity. A scholarly system dominated by a narrow set of languages, publishers, formats and regions is less equitable and, ultimately, less rich. Bibliodiversity values a plurality of publishing venues and models, supports research published in many languages and in regional and community contexts, and resists the homogenisation that concentrates the record in a few dominant channels. A more diverse scholarly ecosystem gives a fuller and fairer picture of global knowledge — one in which the contributions of the global south and of smaller research communities are part of the record on their own terms, not only when filtered through dominant centres.

    A consistent vocabulary for a fairer record

    Many of the practical principles discussed here — recognising contribution, agreeing authorship fairly and early, naming local collaborators — are reflected in our broader guidance on authorship. For these principles to make the record genuinely fairer, the way contribution and authorship are described must mean the same thing across the diverse systems, languages and institutions that make up global research. That consistency is what the CASRAI Dictionary provides: a shared vocabulary so that a contribution made anywhere, by anyone, can be described and recognised the same way everywhere. Equity in authorship is, in the end, about making the scholarly record tell the truth about who does research — and a common, well-defined language is part of how that truth is kept.

  • Equitable global research partnerships: avoiding helicopter research

    A persistent and uncomfortable pattern runs through the history of global research. Researchers from wealthy, well-resourced institutions travel to lower-income settings, gather data or samples, return home, publish, and build careers — while the communities and local researchers who made the work possible are left with little: no lasting benefit, no recognition, sometimes not even a copy of the findings. This pattern has acquired several names — helicopter research, parachute research, safari science, extractive research — all capturing the same dynamic of outsiders descending, taking what they need, and departing. It is unjust to the people involved, and it is bad for research, because it squanders local knowledge, breeds mistrust, and produces work poorly grounded in the context it claims to describe. This article examines the movement towards genuinely equitable partnerships, drawing on the knowledge-equity domain of the CASRAI Dictionary.

    What extractive research looks like

    The injustice of helicopter research is not always dramatic; often it is a series of ordinary asymmetries that add up. Local collaborators who arrange access, recruit participants, navigate language and culture, and contribute essential knowledge may be relegated to acknowledgements rather than authorship, or omitted altogether. Data and samples may be removed without clear agreement about ownership, future use or benefit-sharing. Research questions may be set entirely by the visiting team, reflecting their priorities rather than local needs. Findings may be published in venues the local community cannot access, and never returned to the people they concern. Each step may seem minor in isolation, but the cumulative effect is a relationship in which one side gives and the other takes — and in which the imbalance of power between well-funded and under-resourced partners is exploited rather than redressed.

    The TRUST Code

    The most prominent response to this problem is the Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings, commonly known through the TRUST initiative that produced it. The code is built around four values, each a corrective to a typical failing of extractive research:

    • Fairness. Partners should be treated fairly throughout — in setting the agenda, in conducting the work, in sharing benefits, and in receiving recognition.
    • Respect. Local communities, their dignity, their cultures and their knowledge should be respected, and their meaningful agreement sought.
    • Care. Researchers should take care to avoid harm and to be sensitive to vulnerability and to the realities of resource-poor contexts.
    • Honesty. Partners should communicate openly and honestly, including about intentions, methods, data use and the sharing of results.

    The code translates these values into practical expectations covering the whole research relationship, from how a project is conceived to how its outputs and benefits are shared. Its explicit aim is to prevent the export of practices to lower-income settings that would not be acceptable at home, and to make equitable partnership the standard rather than the exception.

    The Cape Town Statement

    Complementing the TRUST Code, the Cape Town Statement addresses fairness and equity in research collaborations through the lens of research integrity. Its insight is that integrity and equity are inseparable: a collaboration riddled with the inequities of helicopter research is not merely unfair but compromised in its integrity. The statement sets out recommendations for fostering fairness in international partnerships — concerning how partners are involved, how contributions are recognised, how authorship and credit are handled, and how capacity is built — and it frames inequitable practice as an integrity failing, not just an ethical lapse to be regretted. By doing so it raises the stakes: treating partners unfairly is positioned as a violation of the standards research is supposed to uphold, which gives the call for equity the weight of an integrity obligation.

    Equitable authorship and capacity strengthening

    Two practical commitments recur across these frameworks and deserve emphasis. The first is equitable authorship: ensuring that local researchers who make genuine intellectual contributions are recognised as authors, in appropriate positions, rather than being written out or buried. This is among the most visible and consequential forms of credit, with direct effects on careers, and getting it right is central to fair partnership. The second is capacity strengthening: structuring collaborations so that they build lasting research capability in the partner setting — through training, shared infrastructure, co-leadership and the transfer of skills — rather than merely consuming local resources and leaving nothing behind. Together these turn a partnership from a one-off extraction into a relationship that leaves the partner setting stronger, better able to lead its own research in future.

    Why fair credit matters most

    At the heart of equitable partnership lies the fair distribution of credit, because credit is what converts contribution into recognition, careers and standing. The mechanisms that make credit explicit are therefore powerful tools for equity. A structured account of who did what makes it far harder to render a local collaborator invisible: when contributions are stated rather than assumed, the person who recruited participants, contributed local knowledge or led data collection is documented as having done so. This is exactly what the CRediT taxonomy enables, through its full set of contribution roles, and it connects directly to the wider practice of authorship and contributorship. For such recognition to hold across countries, institutions and publishers, the terms used to describe contributions and roles must mean the same thing everywhere; that consistency is what the CASRAI Dictionary provides. Equitable global research is, finally, a matter of justice: of doing research with people rather than on them, and of ensuring that those who contribute share in the recognition and benefit their work creates.