Bonnie Young, PhD, MPH
Research Scientist II
Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences, Colorado State University

Have you heard of helicopter research? It basically means researchers from wealthy countries conduct studies in lower-income countries, collect samples, analyze and publish findings with minimal involvement from local experts, and offer no benefits or report-back information for communities.1 This is also called neocolonial, parachute, or parasitic research and can be found across scientific disciplines.2 As a multi-disciplinary researcher in Epidemiology and Anthropology, I cringe to write this. It is familiar both within my own experiences and what I know from colleagues. 

The good news is that this type of approach is being called out and there is a shift toward meaningful collaborations.3 Funders are requiring greater involvement from local partnerships, meaning local researchers and organizations have more agency in decision-making, data analysis, authorship, and follow-up. This has important impacts for local capacity building, such as increasing knowledge and skills in the latest techniques and methods, and advancing people’s careers outside of those from wealthy nations. Collaborations also provide the western scientist with crucial navigation of their study site- politically, logistically, and culturally.   

From 2014-2018, I helped lead a cookstove intervention in rural Honduras among 230 women. This study relied heavily on close partnerships with Trees, Water and People and the Tegucigalpa-based organization, AHDESA. Decisions were carefully made together, such as where to conduct the study, how to receive permissions from local community leaders, which stove to install, how to recruit participants, and how to share findings with participants and other stakeholders. From start to finish, we held regular meetings with local leaders and communities and discussed ongoing challenges, preliminary findings, and next steps for families in the study and in the region. 

The study came full circle for me when I returned recently to share our results with a range of stakeholders, including experts in the cookstove industry, local politicians, community leaders, and most importantly, the participants themselves. We shared what we found: household air pollution measures reduced and health symptoms improved after women switched from using their traditional cookstoves to the Justa cookstove. We discussed findings that blood sugar (a marker of diabetes risk) might improve with the Justa cookstove, even though it did not seem that blood pressure was impacted. We also talked about some action steps to address key factors that impacted their household air pollution, such as fresh air ventilation in kitchens when cooking and reducing the use of kerosene for light. At every community meeting, people asked questions, shared their experiences cooking with the Justa stove, and offered insights into what we could improve in the future. 

It was a humbling experience. I got to see children that had been only babies when we started. I met two babies lovingly named, “Gloribel,” after our study coordinator. I was told of women’s health that had improved because of our stove intervention and family members who later bought the stove after seeing its benefits. One community had some ideas for follow-up research related to water quality and air pollution. 

This “report-back” process is one step to help end the blight of helicopter research. It shares information with local stakeholders and allows people to discuss their experiences and ideas for next steps. It helps foster trust and continuity with the communities and shows respect for the time and energy that participants gave to the study. It also reminds western scientists, like me, of the real motivation for why we became researchers in the first place. 

References

1. Minasny B, Fiantis D, Mulyanto B, Sulaeman Y, Widyatmanti W. Global soil science research collaboration in the 21st century: Time to end helicopter research. Geoderma. 2020;373:114299. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114299

2. Health TLG. Closing the door on parachutes and parasites. The Lancet Global Health. 2018;6(6):e593. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30239-0

3. Beran D, Byass P, Gbakima A, et al. Research capacity building—obligations for global health partners. The Lancet Global Health. 2017;5(6):e567-e568. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30180-8