Explore the vast range of titles available.

Parachute science (inequity in research relationships between Global North and South scientists) has known detrimental impacts on Global South researchers in conservation. Using two international datasets of English and non‐English‐language studies testing conservation interventions, we compared the continents in which studies were conducted to those in which authors were affiliated. We found that a substantial proportion of English‐language studies conducted in Global South continents were led by researchers affiliated to Global North institutions. Studies in the Global South had relatively few locally affiliated lead authors and a higher percentage of studies with no locally affiliated authors. There were similar but typically less pronounced patterns for non‐English‐language studies. We discuss the potential drivers of these problematic findings and future directions that could help avoid and eliminate unethical parachute conservation science.

Each piece reminds us that there are better ways to do science and conservation involving equitable partnerships that address on-the-ground priorities, benefit all parties involved, and result in positive research, learning and conservation outcomes. Using a case study of a program designed to increase national capacity for conservation science and practice in Lao PDR, they shift the focus toward capacity building, education and measuring long-term conservation impact. International collaborative conservation efforts need to put away the parachutes and strategically plan for building equitable scientific collaborations in support of locally driven, solutions-focused, sustainable conservation action.

African conservation scientists in the diaspora are still a largely untapped resource for conservation efforts in Africa. Institutions that harbor diaspora scientists from Africa should view their presence, motivation, and skills as an excellent opportunity to build strong bridges with the continent and undercut parachute science. Yet, parachute science is still the prominent way of doing conservation science in Africa and it can be difficult to escape, even for Africans working abroad and conducting research in their home countries. Espousing an alternative model to parachute science is possible, but it requires conscious effort and systemic changes at all scales (individual, departmental, universities). In this perspective, we describe six situations that help illuminate the layers of factors that diaspora African researchers must navigate while building cross‐continental collaborations in the absence of adequate institutional support. They include the questioning of our “local‐ness,” accusations of nepotism, over‐explaining our intentions and dealing with the demand for “ground‐breaking and globally relevant research.” We propose actions and best practices for harnessing the potential of diaspora faculty to build meaningful, equitable and long‐term research collaborations with partners in Africa.

[...]the historic legacy of differential wealth results in differences in educational backgrounds, access to funding, equipment, and expertise that leads to power disparities between parties collaborating on the ground for tasks ranging from project inception and data gathering to application of conservation strategies. Parachute science is a particular problem for conservation because we recognize the resource constraints that we have and the clear need to maximize our efficiencies in using these resources to develop an understanding of biodiversity, people, and the interactions between people and biodiversity that lead to good conservation outcomes. Adapted and condensed from de Vos ( 2022) Project planning Explicitly recognize multiple potential motivations for a study or a project Advancing science; advancing conservation knowledge, driving conservation impact, advancing one's career, building local capacity Conduct a literature review that includes local journals and/or local language publications Identify potential local partners and build the collaboration before going after funding Understand the science/conservation priorities of the place where the work will be conducted; listen Respect the local laws and policies regarding data collection, research permits, and conservation interventions Recognize that bringing funding to a new collaboration creates an inherent imbalance that requires managing; requires reparative equity sharing Recognize that working outside your home is a privilege and not a right Conduct reflexivity exercises with staff/researchers at regular intervals throughout the project to examine their influence and varied positions on the subject being studied Project structure Build truly collaborative partnerships Do not partner with local researchers simply to get permits (avoid tokenism) Do not place partners in subjugated roles Define everyone's role on the team; share leadership Coproduce the science to share the benefits Respect knowledge and advice from local partners Invest in capacity building Invest in training that can lead to jobs Ensure project is self-sufficient and can continue in your absence Provide opportunities for exchange Create opportunities for local students to participate and engage in research Recognize skills and capacity of local partners Building trust Invest time and commit long term Understand the role of key local leaders and work with them to drive policy changes Create opportunities rather than taking opportunities Be mindful about sharing benefits as well as burdens Sharing knowledge Incentivize local team members to lead publications (avoid “gift” authorship) Support non-native English speakers through the writing and publication process Make collaboration a condition of data use (e.g., open access data, existing databases) Provide training necessary to access and use data collected Publish open access whenever possible Increase access to research through social and traditional media and translate into local languages when possible Driving change Journals, editors, and reviewers Check for evidence of meaningful collaboration, inclusion of local partners, and co-authorship Require acknowledgement of research permit with relevant details Require an inclusion and diversity statement for each submission Recruit more reviewers and editors from underrepresented groups Provide mentoring for early career editors Consider publishing articles if grammar is imperfect but core message is clear Consider publishing online summaries in local languages of authors Look at alternative models for supporting open access publishing Funders Fund workshops for proposal writing with partners Fund foreign research only where local partners are meaningfully included Directly fund local institutes/organizations and support them to manage larger funds where capacity does not exist Support salary compensation and training of local teams Support open access publication Fund local researcher participation in meetings and conferences (local and international) Mandate dissemination of results particularly to communities within study areas Institutions and societies Introduce alternative metrics of success Issue best practice guidelines that ensure equal partnerships Issue best practice guidelines for volunteers accepting internships abroad Provide training on colonial histories and how their legacy impacts conservation today It is difficult to constantly consider how we are interpreted by others. For those from the Global South, how does it reflect if they accept resources (particularly funding) from the Global North, insist on particular roles in collaborative projects, or push to integrate career development of others in a collaborative project? I believe that we share a collective interest in developing conservation as a global community of science and practice.

Parachute science is the problematic and extractive practice of non-local researchers taking data, knowledge and information from communities of which they are not members, failing to engage the local community and local scientists, marginalizing them in most aspects of the research, and using the results to their own benefit. Perpetuated by colonialism and unequal access to resources such as funding, education and data, it is harmful to local scientists and undervalues the contributions of the community as a whole. Ultimately, it erodes trust within the scientific community and, more broadly, builds dependence on foreign researchers and makes science less global and collaborative. Increasing international and cross-cultural collaborations while being careful to avoid parachute science can help minimize these impacts. Here, we offer our perspectives on parachute science and suggestions on how to avoid it, based on our experiences conducting research internationally with diverse scientists and communities, including both academics and non-academics. Instead of a parachute, we suggest opening the scientific “umbrella” to incorporate diverse perspectives and local contributions in generating relevant and impactful scientific insight. La ciencia de paracaídas es la práctica problemática y extractiva de investigadores no locales que toman datos, conocimientos e información de comunidades de las que no son miembros, no logran involucrar a la comunidad local y a los científicos locales, los marginan en la mayoría de los aspectos de la investigación y utilizan los resultados para su propio beneficio. Perpetuado por el colonialismo y el acceso desigual a recursos como la financiación, la educación y los datos, es perjudicial para los científicos locales y subestima las contribuciones de la comunidad en su conjunto. En última instancia, erosiona la confianza dentro de la comunidad científica y, en términos más generales, genera dependencia de los investigadores extranjeros y hace que la ciencia sea menos global y colaborativa. Aumentar las colaboraciones internacionales e interculturales, al tiempo que se tiene cuidado de evitar la ciencia de paracaídas, puede ayudar a minimizar estos impactos. Aquí, ofrecemos nuestras perspectivas sobre la ciencia de paracaídas y sugerencias sobre cómo evitarlo, basándonos en nuestras experiencias realizando investigaciones a nivel internacional con diversos científicos y comunidades, incluidos académicos y no académicos. En lugar de un paracaídas, sugerimos abrir el “paraguas” científico para incorporar diversas perspectivas y contribuciones locales en la generación de conocimientos científicos relevantes e impactantes.

Scientific colonialism (sensu Galtung, 1967) has grown in interest for the last decades in all scientific disciplines, including Palaeontology. In particular, Raja et al. (2022) showed that the Paleobiology Database (PBDB) was mostly based on research investigations from and/or in higher-income countries (i.e., the Global North). This scientific practice, better known as “parachute science”, often implies a transfer of material from their country of origin (in the Global South) to another country of collection (in the Global North). We show that this global pattern can also be observed at a lower taxonomic scale by focusing on Stylophora, an extinct class of echinoderms. Based on a database gathering the 129 stylophoran holotypes including information of their year of description, country of origin, country of collection and author affiliation, we show comparable results to those of Raja et al. (2022). Indeed, 85% of stylophoran species originated from the Global North. Transferred material represents 17% of the holotypes and none of the corresponding publications included local collaboration. We detail the most highlighting example of parachute science, the duo Morocco-France, to understand the consequences of the colonial history between these two countries in the scientific practice of French researchers in Morocco, as well as the solution brought by Moroccan researchers and government. These results, while not surprising, mean that scientific colonialism is indeed observed not only in global databases, but also in our daily work. Researchers from the Global North then can act to decolonize their problematic practice to rebalance knowledge producing to build a true Global Research Community.

We reflect on the challenges researchers face when working in multi‐national collaborations in conservation science, whereby the researchers' countries are unequal in terms of financial and institutional support or other factors that contribute to a power imbalance. Based on our personal experiences and challenges, we outline four key aspects of the research cycle that provide opportunities to build or strengthen more equitable research partnerships: defining the shared research agenda, obtaining funding, publication, and the connecting thread of effective communication. We give recommendations for both the visiting scientist and the local scientist hosting international collaborators, as well as for institutions involved in conservation science. We hope that our perspectives can help other conservation scientists achieve productive and mutually beneficial collaborations that can lead to positive conservation outcomes. There is considerable variation in how land sha