Improving transparency in conservation social science research to enhance quality, equity, and collaboration

IF 5.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Marie-Annick Moreau, Emily Woodhouse
{"title":"Improving transparency in conservation social science research to enhance quality, equity, and collaboration","authors":"Marie-Annick Moreau,&nbsp;Emily Woodhouse","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recognition of the value of multidisciplinary research that bridges natural and social science perspectives has come with calls for conservation scientists to reflect critically on underlying assumptions and power relations involved in the production of knowledge and its application. We propose that improving transparency in conservation social science—around researchers’ positionality, study limitations, and fieldwork challenges—is essential to and depends on enhanced reflexivity and can allow readers to assess research quality, foster ethical research, and support constructive dialogue and collaboration across subdisciplines of conservation science. We assessed gaps and opportunities for enhanced transparency based on an in-depth review of 39 papers on the social impacts of protected areas published in 12 conservation journals from 2010 to 2022. We evaluated transparency in these publications based on whether authors reported on their collaborations, values, and identity; methodology and methods; data collection; influence of the wider sociopolitical context; potential limitations and challenges; and linked recommendations to evidence. Authors reported consistently on research aims, intended methods, and sampling strategy but provided limited information on their backgrounds; relationships between authors, field teams, and participants; and field site. Gaps included not reporting who collected the data (lacking from 43% of papers), whether data collectors spoke participants’ language (46%), participant recruitment strategy (56%), women's representation in samples (41%), and time spent in the field (28%). Based on our findings, we devised a reflexive tool relevant to field-based studies and advice on preparing positionality statements for use by researchers, reviewers, and journal editors. We recommend conservation social scientists shift their expectations of what is reflected on and reported in publications, develop positionality statements, engage with other available reflexive tools, and adopt the first person in their writing to make more visible their role and responsibilities in the research process.</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":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cobi.70003","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.70003","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

Recognition of the value of multidisciplinary research that bridges natural and social science perspectives has come with calls for conservation scientists to reflect critically on underlying assumptions and power relations involved in the production of knowledge and its application. We propose that improving transparency in conservation social science—around researchers’ positionality, study limitations, and fieldwork challenges—is essential to and depends on enhanced reflexivity and can allow readers to assess research quality, foster ethical research, and support constructive dialogue and collaboration across subdisciplines of conservation science. We assessed gaps and opportunities for enhanced transparency based on an in-depth review of 39 papers on the social impacts of protected areas published in 12 conservation journals from 2010 to 2022. We evaluated transparency in these publications based on whether authors reported on their collaborations, values, and identity; methodology and methods; data collection; influence of the wider sociopolitical context; potential limitations and challenges; and linked recommendations to evidence. Authors reported consistently on research aims, intended methods, and sampling strategy but provided limited information on their backgrounds; relationships between authors, field teams, and participants; and field site. Gaps included not reporting who collected the data (lacking from 43% of papers), whether data collectors spoke participants’ language (46%), participant recruitment strategy (56%), women's representation in samples (41%), and time spent in the field (28%). Based on our findings, we devised a reflexive tool relevant to field-based studies and advice on preparing positionality statements for use by researchers, reviewers, and journal editors. We recommend conservation social scientists shift their expectations of what is reflected on and reported in publications, develop positionality statements, engage with other available reflexive tools, and adopt the first person in their writing to make more visible their role and responsibilities in the research process.

Abstract Image

提高自然保护社会科学研究的透明度,提高质量、公平性和协作性
认识到连接自然科学和社会科学观点的多学科研究的价值,保护科学家们呼吁对涉及知识生产及其应用的潜在假设和权力关系进行批判性反思。我们建议,提高保护社会科学的透明度——围绕研究人员的立场、研究的局限性和实地工作的挑战——对于增强反思性至关重要,也取决于这一点,这可以让读者评估研究质量,促进伦理研究,并支持保护科学各分支学科之间的建设性对话和合作。我们对2010年至2022年间发表在12种自然保护期刊上的39篇关于保护区社会影响的论文进行了深入分析,评估了提高透明度的差距和机会。我们根据作者是否报告了他们的合作、价值观和身份来评估这些出版物的透明度;方法论和方法;数据收集;更广泛社会政治背景的影响;潜在的限制和挑战;并将建议与证据联系起来。作者一致地报告了研究目的、预期方法和抽样策略,但提供的背景信息有限;作者、实地团队和参与者之间的关系;和现场。差距包括没有报告谁收集了数据(43%的论文缺乏),数据收集者是否说参与者的语言(46%),参与者招聘策略(56%),女性在样本中的代表性(41%)以及在现场花费的时间(28%)。基于我们的发现,我们设计了一个与实地研究相关的反思工具,并为研究人员、审稿人和期刊编辑提供了准备立场声明的建议。我们建议保护社会科学家改变他们对出版物中所反映和报道的内容的期望,制定立场声明,使用其他可用的反思工具,并在写作中采用第一人称,以使他们在研究过程中的角色和责任更加明显。
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