Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critically analyzes the narratives surrounding multilingual and low-resource NLP research, particularly focusing on the rhetoric used in published papers that claim to address inequality and support local communities. The authors propose a framework for evaluating these narratives and reveal that many assertions regarding community benefits are poorly substantiated, often prioritizing resource creation over genuine structural change. By highlighting these issues, the study calls for more accountable and equitable practices in NLP research involving underserved communities.
Assertions of community benefit in multilingual NLP research often lack solid evidence, revealing a gap between intention and impact.
Building language technologies and conducting NLP research for low-resource languages---particularly when led by native speakers or involving participatory research practices---are often framed as means of addressing inequality, serving local communities, and, at times, contributing to *decolonisation*. In this paper, we examine recently published NLP and ML papers, focusing on the narratives used to characterise multilinguality, low-resource languages, and underrepresented cultures. We propose a framework for analysing research framings and identify recurring rhetorical patterns that may hinder accountability and constrain equitable knowledge production for---and by---underserved communities. We further assess the evidential basis of assertions regarding community benefit and find that such statements are often weakly supported or left unsubstantiated. Although community ownership and participation are frequently presented as key objectives, our analysis, supported by statistics from the ACL Anthology, suggests that research outputs more often prioritise resource creation and benchmarking---important but distinct goals---over evidence of broader structural change. We conclude by offering practical recommendations to help authors, reviewers, and readers critically assess these assertions and avoid potentially misleading framings.