Authors: Lina, Agnes, Purnendu, Louie, and Annie
In September 2025, the Critical Physical Geography group at Lund University organized a 1.5 day workshop on extractivist and anti-extractivist research, funded by the Strategic Research Area Biodiversity and Ecosystems in a Changing Climate (BECC). The workshop included presentations on the theme, followed by discussions about how to reduce the extractivist elements in social-ecological research. Below is a summary of the discussions and reflections that took place during the workshop.
What is extractivist research?
The term “extractivism” commonly refers to the extraction of natural resources where valuable resources are mined, followed by the extractors moving on to the next location with no care or interest in what happens to the local community or environment post-extraction. This dynamic has increasingly been highlighted as an issue also in academic research, known also as parachute, helicopter, parasitic, or neo-colonial research.
The topic has primarily been used in the context of researchers from the Global North studying and extracting data from on the Global South, but the dynamic is not limited to the international scale; researchers have also pointed out the harms caused by ‘domestic helicopter research’. In both cases, it is an issue of the power dynamics involved in how knowledge is created and exchanged, and who benefits from the research.
Discourses around the power dynamics between the researcher and the researched have existed for several decades. An early work is Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s 1999 book Decolonising Methodologies. It has since expanded from indigenous and decolonial studies into fields such as global health, anthropology, and geosciences.
The terminology used to describe these dynamics has also changed and expanded (scholars have traced the definition and scope of extracitivism). Both the term extractive and extractivist are sometimes used. We understand the former as a narrower term relating to the act of taking something of value from a location or community, and the latter as a broader description of the system that relies on extraction to maintain an uneven distribution of knowledge, wealth, and power.
Is it possible to avoid extraction/extractivist activities in field research?
Within the geography discipline(s), and many similar disciplines, doing field research is a way to get closer to the study area, to better understand the processes going on, and to collect data to be used in research. When discussing helicopter, parachute, or extractivist research, it’s easy to get the feeling that we should just avoid doing fieldwork altogether, at least in locations far from our own backyards. During the workshop we discussed the importance of doing field work as part of research that benefits the researched communities, and whether and how we can avoid extractivist research.
“External researchers”, can document things that may not always be possible for local communities to document. In authoritarian contexts, for example, not all types of research or results may be safe to carry out, especially for local researchers. This also means that co-authoring with local researchers may not be possible, or when we do, we need to be careful how we frame our work to ensure that our publications will not put anyone in danger. Through our platform, as researchers, we can also help make communities visible. Some workshop participants had witnessed appreciation from local communities about researchers being there, ensuring their voices are heard.
There will almost always be extractive elements in field research, but these extractive elements can be countered by activities that seek to benefit the communities in the study area, through for example co-designing of research projects with stakeholders, training workshops, or translation of research results to local languages. The term anti-extractivist does therefore not fully reflect the general conclusion of the workshop, as it implies that we need to oppose extractivism at all times. Instead we suggest using the term “counter-extractivist research practices”, and acknowledge that the fear of being extractivist may hinder important research, and suggest that we balance the negative with positive actions.
How to conduct counter-extractivist research?
Below we listed some points for researchers and funding institutions to reflect on:
For researchers
Reciprocity
Reciprocity indicates co-benefit between researchers and local communities, reframing research as a collaborative, mutually beneficial process, rather than one-sided data collection. At the workshop, we discussed the following reciprocity methods for counter-extractivist research.
1. Capacity Building
In many contexts, one of the most meaningful ways researchers can contribute to local communities is through capacity building. This involves training community members in research design, data collection, or relevant technical skills, while being mindful of participants’ schedules, needs, and availability. For long term impact, capacity building should not end right after researchers leave the field, instead, it can provide sustainable support such as follow-up activities or even long term network building, ensuring that communities retain agency and benefit from the skills and knowledge developed during the research process.
2. Data Sharing and Co-creation
Research data often holds significant value for the communities from which it is derived, yet it frequently remains inaccessible to them. Therefore, researchers should make the data accessible for people who have contributed the data and negotiate co-authorship or other formal recognition for local communities’ contributions. However, as mentioned, researchers should also be sensitive to any potential harm for local communities in terms of the information they are sharing, prioritizing the safety of the contributors.
3. Translation and Research Communication
Research findings are of limited value to local communities if they cannot access or understand them. Researchers should therefore commit to translating research outputs and key findings into local languages. It can also be an option for researchers together with local communities, hold accessible workshops or open meetings, or provide policy briefs or recommendations, making the research impact beyond academia.
4. Monetary and Non-monetary Compensations
Whether research participants should be compensated for their engagement was discussed at our workshop, where some thought it was a good way to benefit the subjects while others were concerned about how that affected the relationship between researchers and research participants. This is a difficult question that is context-dependent and requires balancing different aspects. In some cases, vouchers, skill development opportunities, or support for local projects may be more appropriate than direct monetary payment, particularly where such payment is contested or could create unintended consequences. Compensation may be discussed openly at the beginning of the research project to ensure transparency and aligning expectations among researchers and the communities.
5. Ethical Reflexivity & Power Dynamics
Counter-extractivist research involves ongoing ethical reflexivity. This includes researchers articulating their positionality and consider the potential impacts of their presence and activities on community dynamics. The practice of reflexivity is not common in all disciplines. In natural sciences it may be seen as a subjective to include a reflexivity statement in publication, however, some argue for more reflexivity in the natural sciences. Reflexivity should not be a one-time exercise but and ongoing proccess throughout the research cycle, including project proposal, research conduct, publication and communication.
For institutions and funding agencies
- Flexible Research Policies with inclusion of reciprocity
Although there were no participants from funding agencies or administrative offices at our workshop, we still want to advocate the importance of counter-extractivist research in all aspects of the research cycle. Institutions and funding agencies can enable counter-extractivist research by adapting their policies to reflect the realities of co-created, iterative research. For funding agencies, it is important to embed reciprocity into the financial structure of research projects, such as providing dedicated funds for translation, workshops, community events, and/or local engagement activities, recognizing that meaningful relationships and community benefit cannot be built within the constraints of short-term projects. Finally, policies should encourage flexible, context-specific approaches to compensation and community benefit.
- Evaluation and Impact Criteria
Traditional evaluation criteria for e.g. research projects and promotion tend to privilege academic outputs such as publications and citations, often overlooking the broader social and ethical dimensions of research. Institutions and funding agencies should move this evaluation model towards evaluating research impact holistically, considering capacity-building, community benefit, and ethical conduct alongside conventional metrics. This shift also requires creating space for critical reflection, allowing researchers to report negative or unintended impacts and propose remedial actions without penalty. Such transparency fosters a culture of learning and accountability, ultimately strengthening the integrity and relevance of research practice.
Balancing influence of local participants with research integrity
Conducting research often involves a delicate balancing act between local participants’ perspectives and academic rigor. During our workshop, we identified two questions: First, what are the local communities’ perspectives and how do we include local communities’ perspectives ethically? This involved determining whose voices are representative, how many individuals are needed to capture the necessary breadth of views, and what protocols should guide the researcher when the opinions within the community or across different communities do not align.
Secondly, how should researchers proceed if community opinions diverge from the research objectives, or if conflicts within the community arise? It is a difficult question to navigate, as research goals might not necessarily meet communities’ expectations. We concluded that maintaining an open mindset is crucial, especially upon first entering the study area. This flexibility allows us to navigate communities’ input rather than imposing rigid assumptions. Furthermore, it is important to evaluate the potential impacts and tangible consequences that research findings will have on the involved communities, and consider the communities’ needs. We think this could help build trust between researchers and the community and avoid potential conflicts while maintaining research integrity.
The role of the overall system
The responsibility of avoid extractivist research practices should not be placed solely on individual researchers. The overall system in which we work, with the publish-or-perish mentality, the short research projects, and the high workloads makes counter-extractivist research difficult. A first step is to start talking about the need for counter-extractivist research and ensure that anyone carrying out fieldwork understands that their research activities might impact local communities in different ways, and that there are ways to counter these dynamics. Awareness about the problems of extractivist research could enable changes to the overall system. For example, funders being explicit about the ability to include reciprocity related activities in the budgets of research projects would likely encourage such activties. The so common three-year research project is also an obstacle to counter-extractivist research, as there simply is not enough time for e.g. establishing trust, co-creation of research design, and reciprocity activities.
Conclusion
This workshop brought together PIs, PhD students, and master’s students from different disciplinary backgrounds, reflecting on the challenges and possibilities of conducting ethical, reciprocal field research in social-ecological contexts. A central insight was to acknowledge the process of knowledge production and recognize the extractive elements in field research. Rather than using the workshop name “anti-extractivist research” , we propose the term “conter-extractivist research practices” to acknowledge the extractive dimensions of research while actively working to balance them through meaningful reciprocity, capacity building, and genuine partnership with local communities.
Our discussions emphasize that counter-extractivist research is not solely the responsibility of individual researchers. While researchers must cultivate reflexivity, prioritize community benefit, and navigate power dynamics with care, lasting change requires transformation at the institutional and systemic levels. Universities, ethic boards, and funding agencies must understand the importance of conducting counter-extractvist research practices, by supporting researchers : longer project timelines, flexible ethics frameworks, explicit budget lines for reciprocity activities, and evaluation criteria that value community impact alongside academic outputs.
We also recognized the importance of maintaining research integrity while remaining open to community perspectives—a balance that requires humility, flexibility, and ongoing dialogue. Researchers entering the field must be prepared to adapt their approaches in response to local contexts, needs, and feedback, while remaining attentive to the tangible consequences their work may have on the communities involved.
At the end, we beleive that counter-extractivist research is not a fixed destination but a continuous process of reflection, negotiation, and improvement. By raising awareness of these dynamics, fostering institutional support, and including reciprocity into the fabric of research practice, we can move toward a model of knowledge production that is more equitable.
