Koot Stasja, Anyango-van Zwieten Nowella, Sullivan Sian, Dressler Wolfram, Spierenburg Marja, Trogisch Lisa, Marijnen Esther, Fletcher Robert, Rakhmani Inaya, Abdulwahab Afiff Suraya, Benjaminsen Tor A, Milne Sarah, Svarstad Hanne, Büscher Bram, Dutta Anwesha, Lowe Celia, Rai Nitin D
Sociology of Development and Change, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Conserv Biol. 2025 Apr;39(2):e14454. doi: 10.1111/cobi.14454.
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.
我们调查了针对保护社会科学家的恐吓行为，这种行为仍在持续，旨在压制或诋毁研究结果。尽管社会科学家与保护生物学家一样，都渴望理解并应对生物多样性危机，但他们对保护领域中结构权力关系和矛盾的分析有时并不被认可。恐吓可能发生在实地考察之前和期间、出版过程中以及在学术和公共领域发表之后。我们审视了自己所经历的各种恐吓，包括法律威胁、人身攻击、身体威胁、工作排斥以及学术自由的限制。包括国家研究资助机构、国际政策制定者、捐赠者、伦理机构以及保护生物学家和组织在内的不同行为主体，可能会针对与其政治、经济、财政和意识形态利益不符的研究。我们将压制或改变不受欢迎的观点或研究结果的恐吓行为称为认识论暴力。认识论暴力的策略涉及结构、系统、象征、话语和物质暴力，对理解和改善长期保护具有重大影响。认识论暴力会阻碍保护工作的进展、成效和社会公正性，并压制对运作良好的学术界至关重要的批判性或不同观点。恐吓妨碍了各学科之间以及与社会伙伴的关键合作。认识论暴力对受影响的个人、更广泛的保护界、生活在保护区内或附近的人们以及保护成果都有不利影响。
