We should do more in social science to recognise enumerators
Naming supporting staff in publications should be the standard.
I love working in natural and social sciences - but there is something we could do better in social sciences for representation.
The image above is a typical farmer interview scene from my last month in Uganda. The farm visits usually brought some unplanned participants 🐤
The person on the left is Joshua Balungira, Director of The Field Lab Uganda.
Working with Joshua is amazing. He’s fluent in five languages. He trains and manages large teams at the drop of a hat. He jumps effortlessly from quantitative to qualitative work. He’s careful to find the best informants - and not just those who are most easily accessible(!).
And Joshua has brought my research to life. Sure, I’ve designed the plan and will do the analysis, writing etc., but without Joshua I’d be in a difficult place.
So I should credit him - except this doesn’t always happen…
There are many professionals like Joshua behind great research who don’t appear in social science publications. They were integral in the work, but invisible in its publication.
Some might say, “well perhaps they weren’t involved in the writing / analysis / etc. of the paper” but I think this is unfair.
In natural sciences, there are often people on papers who have conducted the data collection/etc. In fact, it’s how many students get their first publication - something which can be critical for their career.
But in social science, this seems to happen less and we could do better for representation. ‘Joshua’ should be on the paper.
Sure, publication isn’t everything but it costs nothing to include an additional author. It is part of how we recognise individuals. It’s a metric an individual can draw on.
So let’s do more to represent these professionals in the literature. Let’s signpost others to these experts in the field.