Bard, Keller, and Leavens propose an intervention into scholarship in developmental psychology. By placing Shared Intentionality Theory and Attachment Theory under a cross-cultural and cross-species lens, the authors call for a new approach, worldwide, in situ, local, and diverse (WILD).
Three merits stand out. First, the analysis focuses on two foundational aspects of development: shared intentionality and attachment. The authors demonstrate how specific building blocks, such as proto-conversations, joint attention, and the dyadic face-to-face engagement, are not universal in form, frequency, or function. Second, the paper insists on situated, context-sensitive claims. The argument that shared intentionality could be reconceived as triadic connectedness argues for a more inclusive operationalization of behaviors. Similarly, in the attachment, the authors point out that communal caregiving and attachment networks alter how attachments are formed and defined. Third, the authors are candid about how researcher and field-level biases narrow what we ask, who we sample, what we notice, and how we interpret.
I agree with the authors that the WILD framework is beneficial to improvements in sampling and extend their conceptualization of what is needed to accomplish the large and complex process of decolonization. In particular, I discuss the need for greater researcher diversity and inclusion. I also discuss a related issue: a need for greater cultural understanding that acknowledges the real-world complexity of culture. Last, I discuss the breadth and depth of structural reforms needed to decolonize psychological research.
A need for diversity of expertise
Any effort to diversify samples and methods in the service of decolonization will not suffice unless we also diversify who develops and frames questions, defines constructs, collects, and adjudicates evidence. The research agenda must be developed and co-led by diverse experts from the communities being sampled. Local expertise and leadership need to be centered at inception and not appended during dissemination in the form of an acknowledgment, as is so often the case. Many of the works cited in the target article, including the target article itself, do not acknowledge the limitations of an external lens on distal communities. The inclusion of local authors as sources of academic expertise is also not evident in several of the key works discussed. A culturally exclusionary research enterprise, where cultural outsiders comment on distal communities, represents the essence of a colonized science.
A need for cultural granularity
A second future direction concerns cultural complexity and descriptive granularity. The target article acknowledges that culture is dynamic, fluid, and nuanced. Yet, the field, and indeed the paper’s own classifications, still rely on binary labels, such as distal versus proximal caregiving. Cultural labels reduce dimensionality, mask intersecting characteristics, and obscure within-community variation. While the vignettes from rural Cameroon, southern Madagascar, and India illustrate variability across communities, they essentially portray cultural stereotypes that obscure a richer and more granular view of cultural variation. A genuinely decentered developmental science would treat culture as a dynamic system of routines, rituals, practices, and ethnotheories that vary within as well as between communities, and it would engage directly with cultural heterogeneity and complexity rather than masking it via overgeneralization.
A need for structural reform
Third, WILD is an excellent guide to addressing sampling issues and theoretical interpretation. However, decolonization requires so much more. At a minimum, it requires fair structures for equitable collaboration and accountability. This includes community governance of projects, shared control over research questions and measures, transparent and fair authorship, capacity building that builds expertise and knowledge within local teams, respect for data sovereignty and locally negotiated data access, returns to communities that are defined by communities themselves, and benefit-sharing that outlasts any given research program. This requires attending to the entire research enterprise to build a more inclusive architecture. It also requires constructing an iterative, evolving set of practices, built on long-term partnerships and evaluated with robust metrics that track who leads, who benefits, and how findings are used to serve the communities from which they are drawn. These structural forms exceed the proposed reforms in scope and scale.
Conclusion
The WILD framework offers one layer of course correction for developmental psychology. Its commitments to a worldwide scope, in situ observation, local research, and diverse samples have the potential to align empirical and theoretical claims with the diverse social worlds in which children develop. By reexamining shared intentionality and attachment through cross-cultural and cross-species lenses, WILD exposes how cultural assumptions creep into methods and measures, and it provides practical guidance for sampling and interpretation. These are major strengths.
At the same time, WILD faces major constraints and is an underestimation of a complex problem. Without sustained funding, research practices, and credit structures that reward long-term cross-cultural partnerships, incentives will pull researchers back to their old ways, reinforcing a colonized science. WILD is a promising starting point, but to make good on its goals of decolonization, there is much greater work to be done on rebalancing resources, a deeper connection to culture, epistemic reform, and inclusive culturally informed collaboration.
Jeremy I. Borjon
[Opens in a new window]Jeremy I. Borjon
, 
You have
Access
Bard, Keller, and Leavens propose an intervention into scholarship in developmental psychology. By placing Shared Intentionality Theory and Attachment Theory under a cross-cultural and cross-species lens, the authors call for a new approach, worldwide, in situ, local, and diverse (WILD).
Three merits stand out. First, the analysis focuses on two foundational aspects of development: shared intentionality and attachment. The authors demonstrate how specific building blocks, such as proto-conversations, joint attention, and the dyadic face-to-face engagement, are not universal in form, frequency, or function. Second, the paper insists on situated, context-sensitive claims. The argument that shared intentionality could be reconceived as triadic connectedness argues for a more inclusive operationalization of behaviors. Similarly, in the attachment, the authors point out that communal caregiving and attachment networks alter how attachments are formed and defined. Third, the authors are candid about how researcher and field-level biases narrow what we ask, who we sample, what we notice, and how we interpret.
I agree with the authors that the WILD framework is beneficial to improvements in sampling and extend their conceptualization of what is needed to accomplish the large and complex process of decolonization. In particular, I discuss the need for greater researcher diversity and inclusion. I also discuss a related issue: a need for greater cultural understanding that acknowledges the real-world complexity of culture. Last, I discuss the breadth and depth of structural reforms needed to decolonize psychological research.
A need for diversity of expertise
Any effort to diversify samples and methods in the service of decolonization will not suffice unless we also diversify who develops and frames questions, defines constructs, collects, and adjudicates evidence. The research agenda must be developed and co-led by diverse experts from the communities being sampled. Local expertise and leadership need to be centered at inception and not appended during dissemination in the form of an acknowledgment, as is so often the case. Many of the works cited in the target article, including the target article itself, do not acknowledge the limitations of an external lens on distal communities. The inclusion of local authors as sources of academic expertise is also not evident in several of the key works discussed. A culturally exclusionary research enterprise, where cultural outsiders comment on distal communities, represents the essence of a colonized science.
A need for cultural granularity
A second future direction concerns cultural complexity and descriptive granularity. The target article acknowledges that culture is dynamic, fluid, and nuanced. Yet, the field, and indeed the paper’s own classifications, still rely on binary labels, such as distal versus proximal caregiving. Cultural labels reduce dimensionality, mask intersecting characteristics, and obscure within-community variation. While the vignettes from rural Cameroon, southern Madagascar, and India illustrate variability across communities, they essentially portray cultural stereotypes that obscure a richer and more granular view of cultural variation. A genuinely decentered developmental science would treat culture as a dynamic system of routines, rituals, practices, and ethnotheories that vary within as well as between communities, and it would engage directly with cultural heterogeneity and complexity rather than masking it via overgeneralization.
A need for structural reform
Third, WILD is an excellent guide to addressing sampling issues and theoretical interpretation. However, decolonization requires so much more. At a minimum, it requires fair structures for equitable collaboration and accountability. This includes community governance of projects, shared control over research questions and measures, transparent and fair authorship, capacity building that builds expertise and knowledge within local teams, respect for data sovereignty and locally negotiated data access, returns to communities that are defined by communities themselves, and benefit-sharing that outlasts any given research program. This requires attending to the entire research enterprise to build a more inclusive architecture. It also requires constructing an iterative, evolving set of practices, built on long-term partnerships and evaluated with robust metrics that track who leads, who benefits, and how findings are used to serve the communities from which they are drawn. These structural forms exceed the proposed reforms in scope and scale.
Conclusion
The WILD framework offers one layer of course correction for developmental psychology. Its commitments to a worldwide scope, in situ observation, local research, and diverse samples have the potential to align empirical and theoretical claims with the diverse social worlds in which children develop. By reexamining shared intentionality and attachment through cross-cultural and cross-species lenses, WILD exposes how cultural assumptions creep into methods and measures, and it provides practical guidance for sampling and interpretation. These are major strengths.
At the same time, WILD faces major constraints and is an underestimation of a complex problem. Without sustained funding, research practices, and credit structures that reward long-term cross-cultural partnerships, incentives will pull researchers back to their old ways, reinforcing a colonized science. WILD is a promising starting point, but to make good on its goals of decolonization, there is much greater work to be done on rebalancing resources, a deeper connection to culture, epistemic reform, and inclusive culturally informed collaboration.
Financial support
There is no funding to report.
Competing interests
The author has no competing interests.