In the pursuit of a WILD developmental science, we must have eyes wide open for the pitfalls of the present to ensure that the aspirational values of justice and inquiry go beyond a mindset and into action. While there is much to appreciate about the WILD approach, there is heterogeneity and an imbalance of power at every level. In pursuing this aspirational vision, we must confront uncomfortable truths about why progress toward inclusivity has been so limited. When Arnett (Reference Arnett2008) first documented that over 70% of psychology’s samples came from Americans representing just 5% of the global population, the field appeared to take notice. Yet, Thalmayer and colleagues’ (Reference Thalmayer, Toscanelli and Arnett2021) follow-up revealed inconvenient realities: only marginal gains, which benefited other English-speaking and Western European countries. Change remains elusive.

The persistent lack of progress reflects assimilative inclusivity; efforts toward the Majority World conform to Western operational definitions, measures, and research designs – especially in quantitative research. Western researchers mine data from non-Western cultures to achieve academic milestones without equitable partnership with local scholars – “intellectual extractivism” (Anjum & Aziz, Reference Anjum and Aziz2024). Even collaborative and well-meaning partnerships frequently reproduce colonial patterns (Dimenstein, Reference Dimenstein, Silva, Dantas, Leite and Macedo2022). Majority World scholars receive authorship but not authority, relegated to data collection. Meanwhile, those who control research funding dictate interpretation, design decisions, measurement choices, operational definitions, and theoretical framing. Are these Majority World researchers genuine intellectual contributors, or are they performing the “grunt work” in an extractivist model that seeks replication and expansion?

For Western researchers, this means confronting how their work may perpetuate what the “epistemicide” (Chillisa & Mertens, Reference Chilisa and Mertens2021; Oppong, Reference Oppong2023), the active destruction of non-Western knowledge systems, is. Transforming these patterns requires privileged researchers to engage in what Oppong (Reference Oppong2023) calls epistemological allyship, not merely adding diverse co-authors, but genuinely sharing power over research design, theoretical framing, and resource allocation, even when such power-sharing may feel professionally risky. Majority-world researchers are often relegated to “replicating” findings or being uplifted as a curious exception.

The peer-review process exemplifies these assimilative dynamics. When Majority World researchers submit work with non-WEIRD samples, they are routinely asked to comment on Western cultural constructs or provide extensive contextual justification. Meanwhile, American scholars can describe samples simply as coming from a “private Midwestern university.” The double standard reveals how WEIRD contexts remain the unmarked norm against which all other contexts are judged (Draper et al., Reference Draper, Barnett, Cook, Cuartas, Howard, McCoy and Yousafzai2023; Roberts & Mortenson, Reference Roberts and Mortenson2023).

The double standard is evidenced in citation practice. When scholars cite only Western-based scholars from elite(ist) journals, they are perpetuating epistemic exclusion regardless of stated commitments to inclusivity. Who gets cited and uplifted is how the status quo perpetuates. To publish data from a different context should require Western-based researchers to cite scholars in that location – sociologists, anthropologists, and demographers who may not have publications in English. Citation is currency for academics. Reading and citing scholars from the Majority world is a way to address inequality.

Assimilative approaches fail because they stop at superficial inclusion without procedural transformation (e.g., authorship, citation, research design). Critical consciousness, the ability to analyze social conditions and engage in action toward that goal (Freire, Reference Freire1970/2005; Watts, Diemer, & Voight, Reference Watts, Diemer and Voight2011), offers a path forward through three interrelated components: critical reflection (analyzing how power structures limit opportunity), sociopolitical efficacy (believing one can effect change), and critical action (actual participation in transformative efforts) (Diemer et al., Reference Diemer, McWhirter, Ozer and Rapa2015). The “6 Rs” of non-extractive research are helpful to put these intentions into action: respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility, relationships, and relationality (Igwe, Madichie, & Rugara, Reference Igwe, Madichie and Rugara2022). Reconsider who sets research agendas, who benefits from findings, and whether local epistemologies are valued as legitimate knowledge forms – or even read about by the PI. Researchers move beyond acknowledging bias to a sustained commitment to tracking inequities rather than treating inclusivity as a box to check (Diemer et al., Reference Diemer, Rapa, Voight and McWhirter2016).

Calling for Majority World researchers to challenge marginalizing systems places an unfair burden on those with the least institutional power to effect change. Thus, the most challenging gap to acknowledge is this: we naively assume researchers want to leave their comfort zones. This work involves taking professional risks, shifting from research that serves the few to scholarship aligned with the urgent needs and material realities of the majority. Going WILD requires more than methodological adjustments; it demands renegotiating grant subcontracts and maturing cross-cultural partnerships before research decisions are made or grant applications are submitted. It means ensuring researchers have local research ethics accountability and that participants have access to the scientific knowledge obtained. It requires moving beyond cultural competence to cultural humility (Lee, Reference Lee and Haskins2022), shifting from an obsession with “universal” towards a global perspective.

As we pursue WILD science, we must resist creating new binaries. The WILD framework risks romanticizing non-WEIRD contexts or reinforcing notions of “cultural purity” and “exoticism.” A WEIRD/WILD binary would undermine the complexity of the unfamiliar. Billions of people grow up in contexts that are neither strictly WEIRD nor rural collectivist, in metropolises like São Paulo, Lagos, Mumbai, or Mexico City, characterized by profound inequality, digital saturation, and Western influence – a unique cultural fusion that is alive and changing. Moreover, heterogeneity and power imbalances exist at every local level. As Bard and colleagues rightly note, “country is not culture.” Just because a scholar comes from a particular location does not mean there is no racism, classism, or cultural misunderstanding in their relationship with nearby research participants. A truly WILD approach must attend to power dynamics within as well as between cultural contexts.

Going WILD represents an essential vision for developmental psychology, but achieving it requires more than expanding sample diversity or forming international collaborations. It demands developing critical consciousness about how knowledge production systems perpetuate inequity. It requires moving from assimilative practices towards transformative praxis, from extractive research to equitable partnership, and from assumptions about universality to humility about the partiality of all perspectives. Only with eyes wide open to these gaps can we ensure that the pursuit of inclusivity does not reproduce the very patterns it seeks to dismantle.