Moreau Marie-Annick, Woodhouse Emily
Department of Anthropology, University College London, London, UK.
Conserv Biol. 2025 Apr;39(2):e70003. doi: 10.1111/cobi.70003.
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.
认识到跨自然科学和社会科学视角的多学科研究的价值,促使保护科学家批判性地反思知识生产及其应用中所涉及的潜在假设和权力关系。我们认为,提高保护社会科学的透明度——围绕研究人员的立场、研究局限性和实地工作挑战——对于增强反思性至关重要且依赖于增强反思性,并且能够让读者评估研究质量、促进符合伦理的研究,并支持保护科学各子学科之间的建设性对话与合作。基于对2010年至2022年在12种保护期刊上发表的39篇关于保护区社会影响的论文的深入审查,我们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;方法和手段;数据收集;更广泛的社会政治背景的影响;潜在的局限性和挑战;以及与证据相关的建议,来评估这些出版物的透明度。作者一致报告了研究目的、预期方法和抽样策略,但提供的关于他们背景的信息有限;作者、实地团队和参与者之间的关系;以及实地地点。差距包括未报告谁收集了数据(43%的论文缺失)、数据收集者是否会说参与者的语言(46%)、参与者招募策略(56%)、样本中女性的代表性(41%)以及在实地花费的时间(28%)。基于我们的研究结果,我们设计了一个与实地研究相关的反思工具,并就编写立场声明提供建议,供研究人员、审稿人和期刊编辑使用。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告内容的期望,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,以更清晰地展现他们在研究过程中的角色和责任。