Intimidation as epistemological violence against social science conservation research

IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Stasja Koot, Nowella Anyango-van Zwieten, Sian Sullivan, Wolfram Dressler, Marja Spierenburg, Lisa Trogisch, Esther Marijnen, Robert Fletcher, Inaya Rakhmani, Suraya Abdulwahab Afiff, Tor A. Benjaminsen, Sarah Milne, Hanne Svarstad, Bram Büscher, Anwesha Dutta, Celia Lowe, Nitin D. Rai
{"title":"Intimidation as epistemological violence against social science conservation research","authors":"Stasja Koot,&nbsp;Nowella Anyango-van Zwieten,&nbsp;Sian Sullivan,&nbsp;Wolfram Dressler,&nbsp;Marja Spierenburg,&nbsp;Lisa Trogisch,&nbsp;Esther Marijnen,&nbsp;Robert Fletcher,&nbsp;Inaya Rakhmani,&nbsp;Suraya Abdulwahab Afiff,&nbsp;Tor A. Benjaminsen,&nbsp;Sarah Milne,&nbsp;Hanne Svarstad,&nbsp;Bram Büscher,&nbsp;Anwesha Dutta,&nbsp;Celia Lowe,&nbsp;Nitin D. Rai","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We investigated intimidation of conservation social scientists, which is ongoing and aimed at silencing or discrediting research findings. Although social scientists share with conservation biologists the desire to understand and address the biodiversity crisis, their analysis of structural power relations and contradictions in conservation is sometimes not appreciated. Intimidation can take place before and during fieldwork, during the publication process, and after publication in academic and public spheres. We examined our diverse experiences of intimidation, including legal threats, character assassination, physical threats, job exclusion, and curtailment of academic freedom. Diverse actors, including national research granting bodies, international policy makers, donors, ethics bodies, and conservation biologists and organizations, may target research that does not align with their political, economic, financial, and ideological interests. We refer to intimidating practices to suppress or alter unwelcome perspectives or research findings as <i>epistemological violence</i>. Tactics of epistemological violence relate to structural, systemic, symbolic, discursive, and material violence and have significant implications for understanding and improving long-term conservation. Epistemological violence can impede the progress, effectiveness, and social justness of conservation and suppress critical or differently informed perspectives crucial for a well-functioning academia. Intimidation hampers crucial collaborations among disciplines and with societal partners. Epistemological violence has detrimental consequences for affected individuals, the broader conservation community, people living in or near conservation areas, and conservation achievements.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14454","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We investigated intimidation of conservation social scientists, which is ongoing and aimed at silencing or discrediting research findings. Although social scientists share with conservation biologists the desire to understand and address the biodiversity crisis, their analysis of structural power relations and contradictions in conservation is sometimes not appreciated. Intimidation can take place before and during fieldwork, during the publication process, and after publication in academic and public spheres. We examined our diverse experiences of intimidation, including legal threats, character assassination, physical threats, job exclusion, and curtailment of academic freedom. Diverse actors, including national research granting bodies, international policy makers, donors, ethics bodies, and conservation biologists and organizations, may target research that does not align with their political, economic, financial, and ideological interests. We refer to intimidating practices to suppress or alter unwelcome perspectives or research findings as epistemological violence. Tactics of epistemological violence relate to structural, systemic, symbolic, discursive, and material violence and have significant implications for understanding and improving long-term conservation. Epistemological violence can impede the progress, effectiveness, and social justness of conservation and suppress critical or differently informed perspectives crucial for a well-functioning academia. Intimidation hampers crucial collaborations among disciplines and with societal partners. Epistemological violence has detrimental consequences for affected individuals, the broader conservation community, people living in or near conservation areas, and conservation achievements.

恫吓是社会科学保护研究的认识论暴力
我们调查了对保护社会科学家的恐吓,这种恐吓正在进行,旨在使研究结果沉默或不可信。虽然社会科学家和保护生物学家都有理解和解决生物多样性危机的愿望,但他们对保护中的结构性权力关系和矛盾的分析有时并不受欢迎。在学术和公共领域,恐吓可以发生在实地考察之前和期间、出版过程中以及出版之后。我们研究了各种各样的恐吓经历,包括法律威胁、人格暗杀、人身威胁、工作排斥和限制学术自由。不同的参与者,包括国家研究资助机构、国际政策制定者、捐助者、伦理机构、保护生物学家和组织,可能会针对与他们的政治、经济、金融和意识形态利益不一致的研究。我们将压制或改变不受欢迎的观点或研究结果的恐吓做法称为认识论暴力。认识论暴力策略涉及结构暴力、系统暴力、符号暴力、话语暴力和物质暴力,对理解和改善长期保护具有重要意义。认识论暴力会阻碍保护的进展、有效性和社会公正性,并压制对一个运转良好的学术界至关重要的批判性或不同的知情观点。恐吓阻碍了学科之间以及与社会伙伴之间的重要合作。认识论暴力对受影响的个人、更广泛的保护社区、生活在保护区内或附近的人以及保护成果都有不利的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Conservation Biology
Conservation Biology 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.20%
发文量
175
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Conservation Biology welcomes submissions that address the science and practice of conserving Earth's biological diversity. We encourage submissions that emphasize issues germane to any of Earth''s ecosystems or geographic regions and that apply diverse approaches to analyses and problem solving. Nevertheless, manuscripts with relevance to conservation that transcend the particular ecosystem, species, or situation described will be prioritized for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信