保护科学中的反身性实践入门指南

IF 7.7 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Nicole Kaechele, Rachelle Beveridge, Megan Adams, Paul Boyce, Kyle Artelle
{"title":"保护科学中的反身性实践入门指南","authors":"Nicole Kaechele,&nbsp;Rachelle Beveridge,&nbsp;Megan Adams,&nbsp;Paul Boyce,&nbsp;Kyle Artelle","doi":"10.1111/conl.13047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Rigorous scientific practice relies on the tenet of transparency. However, despite regular transparency in areas such as data availability and methodological practice, the influence of personal and professional values in research design and dissemination is often not disclosed or discussed in conservation science. Conservation scientists are increasingly driven to work in collaboration with communities where their work takes place, which raises important questions about the research process, especially as the field remains largely represented by a Western scientific worldview. The process of reflexivity, and the creation of positionality statements as one form of a reflexive practice, is an important component of transparency, rigor, and best practice in contemporary conservation science. In our own professional practices, however, we have found that guidance on how to produce positionality statements and maintain reflexivity throughout the lifecycle of research is too often lacking. In response, we build on existing literature and our own experience to offer a primer as a starting point to the practice of reflexivity. Rather than being prescriptive, we seek to demonstrate flexible approaches that researchers may consider when communicating reflexive practice to enhance research transparency. We explore the challenges and potential pitfalls in a reflexive practice and offer considerations and advice based on our collective professional experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13047","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A primer for the practice of reflexivity in conservation science\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Kaechele,&nbsp;Rachelle Beveridge,&nbsp;Megan Adams,&nbsp;Paul Boyce,&nbsp;Kyle Artelle\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/conl.13047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Rigorous scientific practice relies on the tenet of transparency. However, despite regular transparency in areas such as data availability and methodological practice, the influence of personal and professional values in research design and dissemination is often not disclosed or discussed in conservation science. Conservation scientists are increasingly driven to work in collaboration with communities where their work takes place, which raises important questions about the research process, especially as the field remains largely represented by a Western scientific worldview. The process of reflexivity, and the creation of positionality statements as one form of a reflexive practice, is an important component of transparency, rigor, and best practice in contemporary conservation science. In our own professional practices, however, we have found that guidance on how to produce positionality statements and maintain reflexivity throughout the lifecycle of research is too often lacking. In response, we build on existing literature and our own experience to offer a primer as a starting point to the practice of reflexivity. Rather than being prescriptive, we seek to demonstrate flexible approaches that researchers may consider when communicating reflexive practice to enhance research transparency. We explore the challenges and potential pitfalls in a reflexive practice and offer considerations and advice based on our collective professional experience.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conservation Letters\",\"volume\":\"17 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13047\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conservation Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.13047\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Letters","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.13047","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

摘要

严谨的科学实践依赖于透明的原则。然而,尽管在数据可用性和方法实践等领域经常保持透明,但在自然保护科学中,个人和专业价值观对研究设计和传播的影响往往没有披露或讨论。自然保护科学家越来越多地与工作所在地的社区合作,这就对研究过程提出了重要问题,尤其是在该领域仍然主要代表西方科学世界观的情况下。作为反思实践的一种形式,反思过程和立场声明的创建是当代自然保护科学透明度、严谨性和最佳实践的重要组成部分。然而,在我们自己的专业实践中,我们发现往往缺乏关于如何在研究的整个生命周期中制作立场声明和保持反思性的指导。为此,我们以现有文献和自身经验为基础,提供了一份入门指南,作为反思实践的起点。我们并不刻意规定,而是试图展示研究人员在交流反思性实践时可以考虑的灵活方法,以提高研究的透明度。我们探讨了反思性实践中的挑战和潜在隐患,并根据我们的集体专业经验提出了考虑因素和建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A primer for the practice of reflexivity in conservation science

A primer for the practice of reflexivity in conservation science

Rigorous scientific practice relies on the tenet of transparency. However, despite regular transparency in areas such as data availability and methodological practice, the influence of personal and professional values in research design and dissemination is often not disclosed or discussed in conservation science. Conservation scientists are increasingly driven to work in collaboration with communities where their work takes place, which raises important questions about the research process, especially as the field remains largely represented by a Western scientific worldview. The process of reflexivity, and the creation of positionality statements as one form of a reflexive practice, is an important component of transparency, rigor, and best practice in contemporary conservation science. In our own professional practices, however, we have found that guidance on how to produce positionality statements and maintain reflexivity throughout the lifecycle of research is too often lacking. In response, we build on existing literature and our own experience to offer a primer as a starting point to the practice of reflexivity. Rather than being prescriptive, we seek to demonstrate flexible approaches that researchers may consider when communicating reflexive practice to enhance research transparency. We explore the challenges and potential pitfalls in a reflexive practice and offer considerations and advice based on our collective professional experience.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Letters
Conservation Letters BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Conservation Letters is a reputable scientific journal that is devoted to the publication of both empirical and theoretical research that has important implications for the conservation of biological diversity. The journal warmly invites submissions from various disciplines within the biological and social sciences, with a particular interest in interdisciplinary work. The primary aim is to advance both pragmatic conservation objectives and scientific knowledge. Manuscripts are subject to a rapid communication schedule, therefore they should address current and relevant topics. Research articles should effectively communicate the significance of their findings in relation to conservation policy and practice.
×
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