The application of reflexivity for conservation science

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 The Application of Reflexivity for Conservation Science 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 KRISTEN A. RENN, Department of Educational Administration, 620 Farm Lane, Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA, [email protected] JACALYN M. BECK (corresponding author), Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Road, Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA, [email protected] KEVIN C. ELLIOTT, Lyman Briggs College, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, [email protected] CHARLIE R. BOOHER, W. A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA, [email protected] ROBERT A. MONTGOMERY, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Tubney, Oxon OX13 5QL, U.K. [email protected] Running title: Reflexivity for conservation science Submitted for consideration as a Perspective Article. Number of words in abstract: 144 Number of words in entire manuscript: 11941 Number of words in main text: 6948 Number of references: 183 Number of figures and tables: 2 Corresponding author: Jacalyn M. Beck, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Road, Room 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA, [email protected]. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9095-5465 34 ABSTRACT 35 In recent years, conservationists have been taking an increasingly holistic, interdisciplinary 36 approach to conservation science, utilizing many methodologies and techniques from the social 37 sciences. Reflexivity is one social science technique that holds great potential to aid in the 38 continued advancement of conservation science but is not yet commonly recognized or applied 39 by conservationists. Here we establish a systems-based framework for conservation science and 40 couple it with a discipline-specific definition of reflexivity to enable the integration of reflexivity 41 into future conservation projects. We outline the four major tenets of reflexivity for conservation 42 science, declaring that conservation science i) is informed by personal values, ii) requires true 43 partnership, iii) must contend with its own history, and iv) demands progress. We present 44 practical reflexive techniques that conservationists can use to adhere to these tenets and to foster 45 research-informed conservation efforts that are more collaborative, resilient, and diverse. 46 47 Keywords: Reflexivity, conservation, social science, research design, complex adaptive system 48 49 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 50 We would like to thank C. F. Hoffmann for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. This 51 work was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program 52 and Michigan State University. All authors hereby declare no direct or indirect conflicts of 53 interest. 54 55 56 Introduction 57 Conservation science is in the midst of a paradigm shift, away from purely biodiversity-centered 58 approaches towards a more culturally-conscious, socially-just, ‘human heritage-centered’ 59 discipline (Huntley 2014, Vucetich et al. 2018, Montgomery et al. 2020, Wyborn et al. 2021). 60 Although the conservation science community has traditionally leaned heavily on the natural and 61 biological sciences, recent efforts have been made to become more interdisciplinary particularly 62 via an increased use of, and engagement with, the social sciences (Mascia et al. 2003, Newing 63 2010, Matulis and Moyer 2017, Schlüter et al. 2017, Echeverri et al. 2018). Many established 64 frameworks now exist for integrating social science techniques and methodologies into 65 conservation science (Evely et al. 2008, White et al. 2009, Moon and Blackman 2014, Rust et al. 66 2017). One concept from the social sciences that has great potential to aid in the continued 67 progression of conservation science, but is yet to be widely utilized, is reflexivity (Moon et al. 68 2016, Brittain et al. 2020). Recent calls have been made to increase reflexivity in scientific 69 efforts related to community conservation (Koot et al. 2020), land restoration (Swart et al. 2018), 70 conflict management (Arpin 2019), fossil fuel extraction (Davidson 2019), environmental 71 governance (Borie et al. 2020), socio-ecological systems modeling (Iwanaga et al. 2021), and 72 conservation volunteerism (Gray et al. 2017), yet specific guiding principles for reflexive 73 practice across conservation fields are lacking (Montana et al. 2020). 74 Rooted in the disciplines of philosophy, anthropology, and sociology (Mauthner and 75 Doucet 2003), reflexivity began as a theoretical concept offering scientists various pathways for 76 structured introspection (Schwandt 2011, Berger 2015). More recently, reflexivity has been 77 adapted and integrated into the fields of human health and medicine, economics, education, and 78 law, and has made similar inroads across numerous multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary 79 research efforts (Freshwater and Rolfe 2001, Alvesson et al. 2008, Sandri 2009). Due to this 80 rapid growth, the definitions of reflexivity and the associated descriptions of reflexive techniques 81 can be ambiguous (Lynch 2000, Finlay 2002, Stronach et al. 2007). In tourism research, for 82 example, reflexivity has been described as “an acknowledgement of the agency of researchers, 83 the researched, academic audiences, students, and others. Being reflexive means… [to] recognize 84 the macro and micro forces which underpin the production of tourism knowledge, and 85 acknowledge our interaction with and responsibilities to the 'researched'” (Ateljevic et al. 2005, 86 p. 10). Conservationists, a term which we use here to be inclusive of the wide range of 87 researchers, practitioners, academics, consultants, technicians, agents of government, and others 88 working to conduct science under the broad umbrella of natural resource conservation, may find 89 that this definition fails to consider at what points reflexivity ought to be used or to what ends 90 reflexive techniques should even be undertaken. The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry 91 explains that reflexivity can “refer to the process of critical self-reflection on one's biases, 92 theoretical predispositions, preferences, and so forth… [and] can point to the fact that the 93 inquirer is part of the setting, context, and social phenomenon he or she seeks to understand. 94 Hence, reflexivity can be a means for critically inspecting the entire research process” (Schwandt 95 2011, p. 261). While this definition provides more detail about when and how to use reflexivity, 96 it does not explain in what ways reflexivity could apply to quantitative research projects or how 97 these techniques might improve the production and application of knowledge. 98 99 In addition to the potentially confusing definitions of reflexivity, its implementation has also been hindered by its general repudiation across the natural sciences. In these fields, the 100 influence of the researcher has historically been under-recognized or even purposefully avoided 101 in pursuit of scientific objectivity. This omission has recently been labeled a ‘reflexive gap’ in 102 conservation science (Pooley et al. 2014, Pasgaard et al. 2017), one which could have extensive 103 adverse consequences for the efficacy of conservation practice. For example, research-informed 104 conservation efforts that lack reflexive techniques can inhibit conservationists’ capacity to cope 105 with complexities in the field, facilitate institutional change, drive innovation, work effectively 106 in teams, learn from past events, or benefit from the experiences of other scientists (Lawrence 107 and Molteno 2012, Cooke et al. 2015, Pasgaard et al. 2017). To avoid these pitfalls and further 108 advance new socially-conscious conservation paradigms (see Montgomery et al. 2020), 109 conservationists need a foundational, discipline-specific approach to reflexivity. 110 Here, we assert that a conservation-specific definition of reflexivity ought to: i) be 111 applicable to all research-informed conservation modalities (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, and 112 mixed methods inquires), ii) establish reflexivity as a practice that can be constantly applied and 113 continue to evolve over time, and iii) explicitly improve the practice of conservation science and 114 its impacts. Within this context, we define reflexivity for conservation science as a continuous 115 and intentional assessment of a conservationist’s influence on the scientific process and the 116 broader socio-ecological system as a means to foster transparency and collaboration, in support 117 of conservation efforts that are ethical, adaptable, and diverse. We expand on this definition by 118 presenting a conceptual framework that positions conservationists as central actors in these 119 complex systems. We describe four essential tenets of reflexivity for conservation science, and 120 explain how conservationists can pragmatically follow each with specific reflexive techniques. 121 Finally, we summarize the important benefits that the implementation of reflexive techniques 122 may bring to conservation science and the conservationists themselves. Although reflexivity is 123 most traditionally applied to projects involving human subjects, the intent of our framework is to 124 illustrate the applicability of reflexivity for all portions of conservation science, regardless of the 125 topic of focus, research methodology, or data collection techniques. Thus, while we take a 126 structured approach to its explanation, reflexivity is personal for each individual who engages in 127 it and will ultimately be expressed differently across contexts. Our hope is that the guidelines we 128 offer here can be used as ‘stepping stones’ into more habitual, personalized reflexive techniques 129 for all conservationists. 130 131 A Framework for Complexity 132 Conservation scientists have increasingly adopted the concept of complex adaptive systems 133 (CAS), from micro scales (e.g., insect colonies, immune systems) to macro scales (e.g., 134 ecosystems, coupled human and natural systems), with clear benefits for both applied and 135 theoretical research (Levin 1998, Berkes 2004, Messier et al. 2015). Complex adaptive systems 136 are comprised of many interconnected actors who learn and adapt over time, nonlinear processes, 137 and multidirectional feedback loops (Holland 1992, 2006). For example, in coupled human and 138 natural systems, the ecological and socio-cultural elements inherent to this system are intricately 139 linked with one another, and a change in one element of the system can have unexpected impacts 140 on the other (Liu et al. 2007). In a similar way, the scientific and methodological elements of 141 conservation projects cannot be separated from the personal and interpersonal elements of the 142 individuals living and working within the broader system. Thus, each conservation project can be 143 seen as a CAS which includes many distinct actors (e.g., academic, government, and non- 144 governmental organizations, funding sources, local stakeholders) and processes (e.g., ethical 145 procedures, methodological decisions, knowledge generation), all of which interact with one 146 another and with the scientific process itself. Thus, every conservation project can be 147 characterized by its own distinct, ever-evolving CAS (Preiser et al. 2018, de Vos et al. 2019). 148 One basic CAS, for instance, may include a nonlinear scientific process, networks of key actors, 149 and interactions within networks and between actors and the scientific process (Fig. 1). Viewing 150 conservation science as a CAS can help conservationists recognize the critical nature of broader 151 societal contexts and agendas in developing conservation efforts (Cairney 2019). Adopting a 152 CAS framework can also aid in some of the current shifts already taking place in conservation 153 science, such as the move away from reductionism to a systems view of the world (Berkes 2004, 154 Fabricius et al. 2006, Audouin et al. 2013). Through a systems approach, it also becomes clear 155 that the conservationist is a fundamental component of the CAS (Norberg and Cumming 2008, 156 Cilliers et al. 2013, Rogers et al. 2013). Therefore, full comprehension of the system requires 157 critical and strategic examination of the role of the conservationist within it. Via reflexive 158 techniques, conservationists can develop their ability to recognize and manage their peculiar role 159 (Finlay 2002, Berger 2015). 160 The definition and tenets we describe here present reflexivity not as an abstract concept 161 of self-awareness but as a practical and powerful tool for conservation scientists. Our four 162 discipline-specific tenets form a framework that can guide conservationists to look inward (to 163 their own values, purposes, and influences), outward (to their relationships with and 164 understandings of others), backward (to lessons from the past), and forward (to future impacts). 165 As we discuss below, these tenets are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive, but together 166 they provide a broad conceptualization of reflexivity for the field of conservation. Individual 167 conservationists could address a variety of topics through reflexivity, which will vary based on 168 their unique CAS and the actors involved. Therefore, we offer a heuristic tool for each tenet 169 (Supplementary Material 1) to help conservationists gauge and expand their capacity for 170 reflexivity, and to determine topics of significance and areas of their work where reflexivity 171 could be most advantageous. These tools and techniques are not prescriptive but rather provide 172 some key examples and offer individuals an opportunity to practice ‘doing’ reflexivity on their 173 own terms, in their own time, and with their own teams. 174 175 The Tenets of Reflexivity for Conservation Science 176 1. Looking inward: conservation is informed by personal values 177 Rooted in the functional and normative postulates of conservation science, conservation research 178 has always been an action-driven, ‘mission-oriented’ enterprise (Soulé 1985). Although the 179 guiding principles have shifted over the years (Kareiva and Marvier 2012), conservation is still 180 fundamentally motivated by certain human values surrounding the desired state of nature and 181 often uniquely personal ‘missions’ to achieve those desired states (Takacs 2020). In this way, 182 conservation research is, in theory, a type of action research, which aims to study a system and 183 also to effect change in that system (Greenwood and Levin 2007). Decades of conservation 184 scientists have now set out not only to study nature and our relationships with it, but to do 185 something with the resulting knowledge (e.g., study human behaviors to mitigate wildlife 186 conflict, study nutrient cycling to improve stream quality). A similar call for actionability has 187 recently been sounded in the social science community (Watts 2017). Given that these intended 188 actions are grounded in the particular values of the individual scientists, personal objectives and 189 assumptions are a driving force in conservation science (Moon et al. 2018). Therefore, all 190 conservation science mandates some degree of reflexivity to begin to account for the impact of 191 the individual and to ensure that does not overcome effective and ethical science. Reflexive 192 techniques assist conservationists in turning their awareness inward to the many ways they as 193 individuals conceive and shape all aspects of the scientific process. 194 Philosophers of science have recently focused a great deal of attention on the ways that 195 scientists’ values can influence their work (e.g., Longino 2002, Keeney 2004, Douglas 2009, 196 Elliott 2017, Brown 2020). They have shown that these values affect a wide array of judgments, 197 including not only topics chosen and questions asked, but also problem-framing, project design, 198 methodological and interpretive choices, evidential requirements, and terminology. In this way, 199 the conservationist’s preferences, perspectives, and ways of knowing unavoidably influence the 200 orientation of each project (sensu the observer effect). While value influences are not necessarily 201 a sign of bad science, these effects certainly have the potential to result in biases. Strictly 202 speaking, a value is defined as a quality that is desirable or worthy of pursuit (McMullin 2000) 203 whereas a bias is a systematic deviation from a standard (Danks and London 2017). Values can 204 influence science without clearly or explicitly causing research to deviate from an established 205 standard (Guillemin and Gillam 2004, Elliott and Resnik 2014). However, personal, cultural, and 206 institutional values can scale up, resulting in biases at macro levels that may skew research to the 207 point at which it no longer accurately represents the system under investigation. For example, 208 preferences to study birds and mammals, particularly those that are charismatic or 209 anthropomorphic, has resulted in research-informed conservation efforts that are inconsistent 210 with the species’ prevalence in nature and risk of extinction (Donaldson et al. 2016, Davies et al. 211 2018). This phenomenon has become widely known as ‘taxonomic bias,’ and has led to an 212 extremely small proportion of animal species being drastically over-represented in scientific 213 literature and popular writing (Wilson et al. 2007, Rosenthal et al. 2017). Similar issues exist 214 across regions and ecosystems as well, with ‘geographic bias’ favoring research in forests and 215 terrestrial landscapes in the US, UK, and Australia (Fazey et al. 2005, DiMarco et al. 2017). 216 Such large-scale biases in research can threaten the conservation of lesser-studied species and 217 impede research progress on some of the world’s greatest conservation problems, such as climate 218 change and biodiversity loss (Stroud et al. 2014, Feeley et al. 2017). By employing reflexive 219 techniques, conservationists are encouraged to identify unconscious values that could contribute 220 to such biases and devise more novel and dynamic research goals which have the potential to 221 address serious knowledge gaps. 222 When engaging in reflexivity, conservationists identify their own limitations, what they 223 as individuals bring to the table that could substantially impact their work, and how aspects of 224 their own identities uniquely shape the scientific process (Moon and Blackman 2014). This is a 225 vital component of reflexivity because a conservationist’s identity creates the foundation of their 226 scientific perspective and consequently affects the nature and strength of interactions within the 227 CAS. In turn, the research process itself affects the researcher. Reflexivity allows for the 228 examination and explanation of this important feedback loop. For example, Moon et al. (2019) 229 describe their experiences with private land conservation in Australia, highlighting how 230 reflexivity allowed them to acknowledge multiple viewpoints outside their own, shift how they 231 pusued their research questions, and enhance their understanding of the unknown (Moon et al. 232 2019). The three authors’ unique stories demonstrate the value of reflexivity and provide diverse, 233 real-world examples of the critical thinking and personal growth that reflexive techniques can 234 stimulate. As the main author explained, the “processes of reflexivity have provided me with 235 exciting opportunities to develop and evolve” (Moon et al. 2019, p. 430). 236 One practical technique that conservationists can use to stimulate critical awareness of 237 their values, preferences, motivations, and limitations, is via the practice of writing initial 238 position statements. Kept as personal logs before starting new projects, initial position statements 239 outline critical aspects of the conservationist’s experience and the ‘fore understandings’ with 240 which they approach their work (Andrews et al. 1996, Cutcliffe 2003). Initial position statements 241 provide an opportunity for conservationists to think about their current influences and any 242 presuppositions they may have regarding a particular project. By doing this, conservationists can 243 become explicitly aware of their motives for pursuing that project and assess their expectations 244 and concerns. Additionally, these statements can act as benchmarks to measure change over 245 time. Looking back over their logs, conservationists can see if their work had the impacts they 246 initially hoped (i.e., if they achieved their conservation missions) or if they experienced any 247 personal changes during the scientific process that may influence future conservation projects. 248 This may be a particularly useful technique for conservationists engaging with the varied, and 249 sometimes conflicting, values represented on multi-disciplinary teams (Pooley et al. 2014) and 250 within the broader socio-ecological systems they study (Jones et al. 2016, Takacs 2020). 251 252 2. Looking outward: conservation requires true partnerships 253 Conservation science has a variety of ecological and social dimensions requiring collaboration 254 across many disciplines (Mascia et al. 2003, Ban et al. 2013, Robinson et al. 2019b). It can be a 255 multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or even transdisciplinary endeavor, drawing on theories and 256 methods and collaborating with experts from the fields of ecology, psychology, forestry, 257 sociology, geography, history, political science, and, most recently, fine arts, media, 258 communications, and humanities (Soulé 1985, Dieleman 2008, Pooley et al. 2016, Bennett et al. 259 2017, Brennan 2018). Nevertheless, discipline-specific science remains the norm (Fox et al. 260 2006, Brook and McLachlan 2008, Pooley et al. 2014, Montgomery et al. 2018a), and 261 conservation science should continue to become more holistic and inclusive not only 262 disciplinarily, but demographically, institutionally, philosophically, and epistemologically. In 263 recent years, calls have been made to diversify the conservation science community (Tallis and 264 Lubchenco 2014, Green et al. 2015) and to embrace varied, if even conflicting, viewpoints 265 (Matulis and Moyer 2017). To make this ambition a reality, conservationists should put in the 266 hard work to establish, strengthen, and maintain partnerships with those unlike themselves both 267 professionally and personally. Consequently, the second tenet of reflexivity for conservation 268 science encourages conservationists to look outwards, towards their interactions and 269 relationships with all actors in the CAS, and to work to appreciate the many unique perspectives 270 and worldviews. 271 Collaborative partnerships are imperative to effective conservation outcomes. Many 272 conservation problems today are known to be ‘wicked,’ in that they are extremely uncertain and 273 complex, difficult to manage, have no single solution, and frequently involve a variety of 274 stakeholders with often conflicting views of the situation (Game et al. 2014). One of the most 275 reliable and effective methods to confront wicked problems is through the coproduction of 276 knowledge, whereby scientists work together with non-scientist stakeholders and decision- 277 makers before, during, and after the scientific process to create knowledge and solutions 278 applicable to their unique situations (Cash et al. 2003, Nel et al. 2016, Beier et al. 2017). 279 Coproducing knowledge requires that conservationists hone their ability to understand and 280 engage with diverse stakeholders, including community members, natural resource managers, 281 government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations, and to establish partnerships that are 282 immersive and rooted in mutual trust and respect (Young et al. 2016, Domínguez and Luoma 283 2020). ‘Fly-by’ research in foreign nations (i.e. that without coproduction or other lasting in- 284 country collaborations; known as parachute science) puts trust-building at risk and can lead to 285 many lasting negative outcomes such as reduced research capacity and dependency on external 286 funding (Barber et al. 2014, Woodall et al. 2021). Parachute science has recently been detected 287 in research on socio-ecological systems (de Vos et al. 2019), marine systems (Stefanoudis et al. 288 2021), wildlife conservation (Bauer et al. 2019), geoscience (North et al. 2020), plant sciences 289 (Culley et al. 2021), and other environmental fields (Roldan-Hernandez et al. 2020). 290 Conservationists from any area of expertise can learn to avoid these practices through reflexivity 291 that enhances their empathy and collaborative skills. 292 Authentic, reflexive partnerships also increase the likelihood that conservationists will 293 achieve their project goals and produce information relevant to solving wicked conservation 294 problems (Balmford and Cowling 2006, Gray et al. 2019). Taking the time to understand other 295 actors’ distinct missions, values, philosophies, expectations, and assumptions through reflexive 296 techniques prepares conservationists to build more trusting, effective, fruitful, and equitable 297 partnerships. For example, Coreau (2016) describes how ecological researchers and 298 environmental NGOs collaborating on Mediterranean biodiversity conservation implemented a 299 unique ‘reflexive strategic action’ framework (including a combination of techniques such as 300 stakeholder interviews, document analysis, and collaborative workshops) to ease tensions and 301 operational difficulties among partners (Coreau 2016). Through the use of reflexive techniques, 302 the diverse actors were able to establish a shared vocabulary, engage in open discussions about 303 research methods and future opportunities, and to identify the potential risks that could threaten 304 the partnership. This led to mutual understandings between organizations, the lack of which had 305 previously hindered their ability to successfully achieve their joint conservation objectives 306 (Coreau 2016). 307 Partnerships can be strengthened using techniques for collaborative reflexivity. 308 Conservationists should take responsibility for generating open discussions within their teams 309 and with other actors across the CAS. Many tools and frameworks exist for helping to facilitate 310 these sometimes difficult discussions (see O’Rourke and Crowley 2013, Cheruvelil et al. 2014). 311 Conservationists can also use the tools provided here (Supplementary Materials 1) within a 312 group setting to spark collaborative brainstorming sessions. Collaborative reflexive techniques 313 can solidify team comprehension not only of personal values, ethical standings, and research 314 philosophies, but also important concepts in the scientific process such as interpersonal 315 expectations, communication norms, and academic vocabulary (Eigenbrode et al. 2007). This, in 316 turn, allows the team to establish a common vision of success, minimize potential conflicts, and 317 mutually learn from any trials they experience (Norris et al. 2016). Using techniques like these to 318 foster a positive team climate has been shown to promote greater satisfaction among the 319 members of environmental science teams (Settles et al. 2019). Another technique that 320 conservationists can use to stimulate reflexivity is to create a visual representation of their own 321 scientific CAS (see Fig. 1). Determining the major stages of their unique scientific process and 322 identifying specific actors involved can help conservationists think strategically about their 323 relationship with and impact on each. Taking the time to depict the CAS may also offer clarity 324 about where and when they should plan to use other reflexive techniques in their conservation 325 efforts. 326 327 3. Looking back: conservation must contend with its own history 328 History and context play critical roles in the functioning of every CAS (Holland 1992). 329 Conservation science has a long and complex history which varies across countries and regions, 330 but which often stems from colonial occupation and the theft and capitalization of land and 331 natural resources (MacKenzie 1988, Singh and Van Houtum 2002, Barrett et al. 2013, Ross 332 2017a, Domínguez and Luoma 2020). Because of this, conservation policies and public attitudes 333 toward protected areas and biodiversity are often implicitly rooted in histories of violence, 334 extraction, and the exclusion of local communities from their native lands (West et al. 2006, 335 Randeria 2007, Mkumbukwa 2008, Dowie 2011). Relationships between conservationists and 336 other actors in the CAS also exist within these historical and political contexts. Conservationists 337 should think critically about how the histories of these actors may influence current 338 collaborations or research expectations. For example, many large environmental organizations 339 that fund conservation research have also normalized and institutionalized unjust practices such 340 as fortress conservation and green militarization (Duffy et al. 2019, Montgomery et al. 2020). 341 Past events and the treatment, governance, and cultural perspectives of local community 342 members cannot be separated from the influences conservationists hope to have with their work. 343 Reflexivity can assist conservationists in recognizing and attempting to rectify historical 344 inequities and power imbalances (Pasgaard et al. 2017, Trisos et al. 2021) and to ultimately 345 devise more humane and socially-just conservation practices and research protocols. Reflexive 346 techniques help conservationists to look backwards in time, towards the histories of the field and 347 the hard truths of the past, in order to learn lessons needed to conduct high-quality, impactful 348 science with honesty and humility. 349 Conservation science is often conducted by foreign research institutions (Wilson et al. 350 2016, Montgomery et al. 2018a, Gray et al. 2019, also see parachute science, above, in Tenet 2). 351 Therefore, conservationists may frequently be considered ‘outsiders’ in the communities where 352 they work, not only in terms of race and nationality, but also religion, culture, and language. By 353 being reflexive about important differences between themselves and other critical actors in the 354 CAS, conservationists not only acknowledge that differences exist but also that those differences 355 can have direct effects on their work. For example, a ‘Western’ scientific perspective may differ 356 greatly from a diverse range of Indigenous perspectives in regards to values of nature and how 357 human-environment relationships should be maintained (Peterson et al. 2010, Lynch et al. 2016, 358 Milstein et al. 2019). Relationships between conservationists and community members can be 359 challenging to navigate but inattention to the importance of these dialogues creates barriers to 360 success and research implementation. Negative interactions may lead to research fatigue, 361 feelings of abuse or exploitation (Tapela et al. 2007, Cochran et al. 2008), or even physical or 362 economic harm (Clark 2008). The results of such interactions may subsequently devalue the 363 potential impact of conservation science and adversely affect conservation efforts far into the 364 future (Lynch 2017). This is particularly important when conservation projects involve human 365 subjects (Brittain et al. 2020). By applying the tenets of reflexivity, conservationists recognize 366 the impacts of institutional imbalances, become aware of the power dynamics between 367 themselves and others, and rectify these power differences whenever possible (Drury et al. 2011, 368 Muhammad et al. 2015, Trisos et al. 2021). When reflexive conservationists share the lessons 369 they’ve learned over time, they can help to guide others through these sometimes tricky 370 scenarios. For example, Mishra et al. (2017) provide a reflexive account of 20 years of 371 community conservation experience with suggestions for improved practice (Mishra et al. 2017). 372 Conservationists who practice reflexivity take steps to learn about and incorporate 373 aspects of history and culture into their work. For many, this requires engagement with 374 decolonial practices that holistically center the needs and desires of local communities in 375 conservation efforts (see Rodríguez and Inturias 2018, Gould et al. 2019, Larocco et al. 2019). 376 Coloniality refers to enduring patterns of inequity “that emerged as a result of colonialism, but 377 that define culture, labor, intersubjective relations, and knowledge production well beyond the 378 strict limits of colonial administrations… [which] is maintained alive in books, [and] in the 379 criteria for academic performance" (Maldonado-Torres 2007, p. 243). Decolonial practice can be 380 an ‘unsettling process’ in which individuals work to consciously disrupt the patterns of 381 coloniality found in modern, apolitical, and ahistorical research paradigms (Adams et al. 2018, 382 Singh et al. 2018), and to expose and eliminate enduring colonial mindsets and white supremacy 383 (Garland 2008, Chaudhury and Colla 2021). Ross (2017b) provides an example of a decolonial 384 conservation narrative in their analysis of the wilderness ideology perpetuated by 385 conservationists in modern Tasmania. The author explains that incorporating reflexive 386 techniques in their writing, “let me express my own humanity… and ultimately allowed me take 387 a stance against the racism and oppression I encountered in Tasmania” (Ross 2017b, p. 8). 388 Conservationists can begin to engage with Tenet 4, and the broader notion of 389 decoloniality, by identifying their own research philosophies and the research paradigms to 390 which they subscribe. One practical technique to do this is the creation of positionality 391 statements that clearly explain how personal aspects of the individual’s education, background, 392 and identity may have impacted the scientific process and the resulting data (Milner 2007, 393 Syracuse 2016, Larocco et al. 2019). Positionality statements should be included in academic 394 publications and conservation journals should encourage these statements or offer space for them 395 as supplemental documents (for the authors’ own example, see Supplementary Materials 2). 396 Land acknowledgement statements should also be considered when appropriate, with the proper 397 time and respect to ensure such acknowledgements are not performative (Robinson et al. 2019a, 398 Wark 2021). Finally, conservationists should read the works of scholars from different 399 backgrounds and with varying worldviews than themselves, and encourage their students to do 400 the same. These include the works of Indigenous, feminist, neo-colonial, participatory action, 401 and critical research scholars both within and outside of the field of conservation. Reading 402 diverse work can aid conservationists in seeing different histories through multiple cultural 403 lenses and more effectively collaborate with scholars and professionals with varying histories. 404 These types of collaborations can even enhance individual success, as scientists who train under 405 mentors with disparate expertise achieve more successful academic careers than those whose 406 work closely aligns with that of their mentors (Liénard et al. 2018). 407 408 4. Looking forward: conservation demands progress 409 Conservation science has been criticized for failing to directly contribute to applied outcomes 410 where they are needed and for using valuable resources for study rather than direct action 411 (Knight et al. 2008, Laurance et al. 2012). This issue is prevalent and is often referred to as the 412 ‘knowing-doing gap,’ or the ‘research-implementation gap’ (Knight et al. 2008, Gossa et al. 413 2015, Toomey et al. 2017, Gray et al. 2019). Conservation researchers, for example, may be 414 wary of becoming advocates for a particular cause out of fear of biasing the research effort 415 (Horton et al. 2016, Gray et al. 2019). In an evaluation of conservation biology however, Noss 416 (1999) explains, “whenever one recommends, however cautiously or conservatively, one 417 advocates” (Noss 1999, p. 117). Thus, conservationists are inherently advocates within the 418 context of policymaking and management, even if they do not seek out or fully accept their role 419 as brokers of information (Pielke Jr. 2007). This can lead to disconnects between 420 conservationists and practitioners and a lack of research-informed conservation action on the 421 ground (Arlettaz et al. 2010). Reflexive techniques help conservationists to consider the 422 implications and feasibility of the messages they send and the recommendations they make, and 423 are thus useful in attempts to reduce the research-implementation gap. Reflexivity is not simply a 424 retrospective assessment of past choices and circumstances, but also an opportunity to think 425 critically about how current choices and circumstances bring about future ones. Practicing 426 reflexivity encourages conservationists to look forward towards the positive impacts they wish to 427 have and take the appropriate actions to explicitly link those impacts with the scientific process. 428 Improving the impact of conservation science may require some shifts in the way 429 conservationists view data analysis, the knowledge they generate from those analytics, and the 430 way they share the resultant information. First, conservationists should keep in mind that the 431 outcomes of their conservation efforts are directly influenced by ontological and epistemological 432 assumptions rooted in the particular methods of analysis they choose to use (Mauthner and 433 Doucet 2003, Moon et al. 2018). Additionally, because conservation is a policy-relevant field, 434 conservationists cannot avoid making choices that affect whether their results are more favorable 435 to some social or political priorities as opposed to others. For example, methods of modeling 436 animal observational data at an aggregate level might encourage different conservation or 437 management decisions than if the data were assessed at an individual animal level (Montgomery 438 et al. 2018b). It is important to make these decisions thoughtfully, to be transparent about them, 439 and to gather input about them from other scientists and potentially affected communities (Elliott 440 2017). Finally, conservationists have a responsibility to appropriately guide their findings, 441 including critically assessing the ways in which they frame their research, present their results, 442 and to whom they make findings available (Guillemin and Gillam 2004, Audouin et al. 2013). 443 As illustrated in Fig. 1, conservationists disseminate their results to various actors, which 444 may include academic peers, professionals from other fields, practitioners within conservation 445 NGOs, or even a broader global audience and it is important for conservationists to consider the 446 identities of these various actors. For example, many individuals may find academic jargon 447 difficult to interpret and put into action (Pullin et al. 2004), potentially engendering distrust in or 448 disengagement with academic institutions. Conservationists can use reflexivity to gain a deeper 449 awareness of personal aspects of their audiences, such as native language, formal education, 450 ontology, and professional standing. By taking these factors into consideration when writing up 451 and presenting their results, conservationists show empathy and effort, which can increase the 452 likelihood that their recommendations are implemented by policy makers (Reed et al. 2014). 453 Continuing to engaging in reflexivity following knowledge dissemination is also important. An 454 excellent example of reflecting on the results and success of a collaborative conservation 455 planning project can be found via a study of regional and national South African freshwater 456 ecosystems. In this study, Nel et al. (2016) were able to identify and present a critical missing 457 link. As the authors explained, “in hindsight, the project would have benefited from explicit 458 representation of local government… from the outset” (Nel et al. 2016, p. 185). Rather than 459 simply recommending in their publication that future conservation initiatives include local 460 representation, the team took responsibility for the unforeseen exclusion of local stakeholders, a 461 decision which subsequently stimulated enhanced cooperation. This application of reflexivity 462 also increased the usability of their data, built capacity for multi-scale implementation beyond 463 the initial project boundaries, and provided practical guidance for other conservationists seeking 464 to increase the uptake of their own science (Nel et al. 2016). 465 One specific technique that conservationists can use to help increase the impact of their 466 work is reflexive journaling. This technique consists of daily or weekly notes about project 467 management, methodological decisions and rationale, and personal contemplation. It provides a 468 place for conservationists to engage actively and personally in self-monitoring, to articulate in 469 their own words how they interact with the data and the scientific process. This practice can 470 improve decision making and may help conservationists to understand and interpret results by 471 adding context to the findings, in both quantitative and qualitative projects (Finlay 1998, Haas 472 and Hoebbel 2018). A reflexive journal can even become data of its own (Schwandt 2011), 473 providing conservationists with valuable new insights that have unique academic and practical 474 value from which others may benefit. Additionally, making the data collection and analysis 475 processes more transparent and accessible may open up opportunities to strategically scrutinize 476 and improve these processes and may reveal new uncertainties and knowledge gaps. This could 477 illuminate productive paths for future research-informed conservation work and potentially 478 increase the actionability of that work (Ban et al. 2013, Pasgaard et al. 2017). Conservationists 479 can also become more reflexive about the potential outcomes of their conservation efforts 480 through experiences working with those who apply research findings. For example, the 481 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) offers Science and Technology 482 Policy Fellowships which provide opportunities to collaborate with lawmakers, federal agencies, 483 and environmental NGOs to see how, when, and why policy makers draw on scientific 484 information (Jenkins et al. 2012). For those unable to pursue such intensive experiences, training 485 programs and workshops may also be helpful. For example, the European Union offers a virtual 486 workshop series aimed at creating links between scientists and policy makers at international 487 scales (Commission 2020). 488 489 Integrating Reflexivity into Conservation Practice 490 Solving conservation problems requires integrated and innovative approaches because of the 491 complex interconnectedness of the socio-ecological systems in which these problems persist. 492 Consequently, conservationists need tools to holistically understand and evaluate complex 493 systems (Berkes and Turner 2006). The CAS framework paired with reflexivity for conservation 494 science, as defined and outlined above, fill this need by offering a structured approach for 495 addressing critical issues relating to: i) conservationists’ value judgements and positionality, ii) 496 partnerships and trust building, iii) history and culture, and iv) decisions that lead to conservation 497 impacts. The four tenets of reflexivity and their accompanying techniques are neither exhaustive 498 nor discrete, and considering where their major themes intersect in practical settings can be a 499 valuable reflexive technique of its own (see Fig. 2). Importantly, by linking and integrating the 500 CAS framework and the four tenets of reflexivity for conservation science into their work, 501 conservationists can practice in more ethical, adaptable, and diverse ways. We now describe how 502 conservationists can productively blend and apply the four tenets in support of these aims and 503 why this type of work is necessary for the betterment of conservation practice. 504 First, two major types of ethics in conservation science are procedural ethics and ‘ethics 505 in practice.’ The former involves acquiring approval from relevant ethics committees and clearly 506 stating how the research-informed conservation efforts intend to be conducted ethically. 507 Conservation science has, at times, been unsuccessful in establishing or adhering to appropriate 508 procedural ethics (Law et al. 2017). For example, nearly half of all conservation studies that 509 involve human subjects do not include necessary ethics information regarding the treatment of 510 those subjects (Ibbett and Brittain 2019). The second main type of ethics, refers to ‘everyday 511 ethical issues’ that arise while in the field (Guillemin and Gillam 2004) which involve certain 512 responsibilities on the part of the scientist, to act humanely, and to not exploit other actors in the 513 CAS. While these types of ethics are challenging to quantify, there is evidence that conservation 514 science may be among the fields guilty of harmful, invasive, and exploitive projects in the past 515 (Schroeder et al. 2018). Recently, the establishment of new procedures to prevent unethical 516 research have become more prevalent (see for example, the South African San Institute’s Code 517 of Ethics for researchers (Schroeder et al. 2019) and the Climate and Traditional Knowledges 518 Workgroup’s guidelines for scientists and policy makers (Climate and Traditional Knowledges 519 Workgroup 2014)). However, such procedures for ethics in practice are still relatively rare and 520 conservationists should encourage community stakeholders to develop their own ethics codes or 521 work to devise these codes collaboratively. Ultimately, the success of conservation efforts results 522 from inclusion, equity, and the long-term development of trust with various stakeholders 523 (Peterson et al. 2010, Young et al. 2016). Engaging with tenet 3 can help conservationists more 524 fully understand and address issues relating to the treatment of community stakeholders and 525 integrating tenets 2 and 4 can offer guidance for conservationists to build the type of fair and 526 trusting relationships that enhance the credibility of their work. As the trustworthiness of science 527 is increasingly being questioned, conservationists should operate under a high standard of ethical 528 conduct to sustain the integrity of the conservation field into the future (Horton et al. 2016, Hopf 529 et al. 2019). 530 Second, change is ever-present in the socio-ecological systems where conservation 531 science is applied, as well as in each unique scientific CAS. To contend with uncertainty and 532 change in the field, conservationists are increasingly utilizing collaborative learning-based 533 methods, such as coproduction (described in tenet 2), co-management, adaptive management, 534 and participatory action research (Olsson et al. 2004, Bacon et al. 2005, Knight et al. 2019). 535 These approaches are seen as long-term, iterative, and circuitous processes rather than linear 536 progressions of cause and effect (Redpath et al. 2013). And while they may hold a lot of promise, 537 adaptive methods can be extremely difficult to implement in practice (Game et al. 2014). 538 Additionally, to successfully participate in adaptive research and decision making, a thorough 539 and accurate understanding of stakeholder values is required, an ability that conservationists may 540 not traditionally be trained to develop (Robinson et al. 2019b). Conceptualizing the scientific 541 process as a CAS and adhering to the tenets of reflexivity for conservation science can foster the 542 critical thinking, experiential learning, and social awareness needed to participate successfully in 543 adaptive conservation efforts. It can also assist conservationists in managing uncertaintly within 544 their own systems (Quarshie et al. 2019), supporting the continued functioning and 545 reorganization of the CAS during times of change (e.g., loss of funding, data collection failures, 546 communication issues, new stakeholders). Specifically, tenet 4 can assist conservationists in 547 explicitly addressing both success and failures and learning how to change course when 548 necessary to achieve their goals. Blending tenets 1 and 2 in practice can support conservationists 549 in recognizing their own values and those of others, and to hone important social skills that are 550 often overlooked in natural science trainings. As conservationists increase their ability to 551 anticipate changes and become more resilient to stressors, they also increase the potential for 552 multifaceted, adaptive conservation strategies to be successful. 553 Finally, across various fields of science, teams are becoming larger and more diverse 554 (Wuchty et al. 2007, National Science Foundation 2019). Some forms of diversity on teams can 555 promote positive team climates and enable team members to solve complex problems more 556 successfully (Whitfield 2008, Woolley et al. 2010). Engaging with diverse team members can 557 also help conservationists recognize their own values and become more thoughtful about their 558 choices (Longino 2002, Schuurbiers and Fisher 2009). However, a lack of understanding 559 between diverse team members is a major challenge for interdisciplinary teams (Lélé and 560 Norgaard 2005, Miller et al. 2008) and individuals who contribute disciplinary and demographic 561 diversity to teams may have more negative experiences than their peers (Settles et al. 2019). 562 Additionally, while interdisciplinarity in natural and social sciences has been encouraged for 563 decades (MacMynowski 2007), methods and concepts from the social sciences are still not being 564 as productively integrated into conservation science as they might be (Bennett et al. 2016). 565 Reflexive techniques can be combined with all other research methods and may offer 566 conservationists accessible approaches to assess the functioning of their teams and to alleviate 567 some of the challenges of working in disciplinarily- and demographically-diverse groups. For 568 example, adhering to tenet 2 can help conservationists to establish deeper epistemological 569 awareness and bolster communication between scientists from dissimilar backgrounds while the 570 integration of tenets 1 and 3 may provide much-needed structure to understand themselves 571 through the eyes of others. Ultimately, fostering an inclusive and diverse community will help 572 conservationists to increase their collaborative impact and devise conservation efforts that are 573 themselves more diverse, with the novelty and innovation needed to solve today’s wicked 574 environmental problems (Game et al. 2014, Green et al. 2015). 575 To achieve future conservation outcomes that are ethical, adaptable, and diverse, 576 instruction in reflexive techniques should be added to course curricula at the graduate and 577 undergraduate level of higher education institutions providing instruction in conservation 578 science. The tenets and guidelines presented here can be adapted for use as training materials in 579 conservation methods or environmental ethics workshops for both students and professionals. By 580 learning to be reflexive throughout the scientific process, conservationists at all career levels can 581 begin a continuous cycle of self-reflection, assessment, and improvement. Some of the major 582 challenges to the implementation of reflexivity include the adherence to reductionist thinking 583 (Rogers et al. 2013, Knight et al. 2019), enduring coloniality (Kearney 2019, Chaudhury and 584 Colla 2021), and a lack of practical examples necessary to appreciate the influence of these 585 techniques (Chua et al. 2020). Our hope is that continued progress will be made in conservation 586 science to confront these issues and push the boundaries of prevailing practice to embrace new, 587 socially-just, and reflexive conservation paradigms. It is the responsibility of the conservationist 588 to decide when to utilize reflexive techniques and how much of the resulting information to share 589 with others. However, increased transparency and collaborative reflexivity will increase the 590 conservation community’s ability to solve the complex problems that blight the field, while also 591 promoting personal and professional development in the broader conservation community. 592 Recognizing the tenets of reflexivity will encourage conservation science that is socially and 593 ethically responsible, inclusive of diverse ways of knowing, and attentive to the inherent 594 complexities of social-ecological systems. 595 596 Supplementary Material 1 597 598 Supplementary Material 2 599 600 References 601 602 Adams, G., S. Estrada-villalta, and L. H. Gómez. 2018. The modernity / coloniality of being: 603 hegemonic psychology as intercultural relations. International Journal of Intercultural 604 Relations 62:13–22. 605 Alvesson, M., C. Hardy, and B. Harley. 2008. Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual 606 practices in organization and management theory. Journal of Management Studies 45:480– 607 501. 608 Andrews, M., P. Lyne, and E. Riley. 1996. Validity in qualitative health care research: An 609 exploration of the impact of individual researcher perspectives within collaborative enquiry. 610 Journal of Advanced Nursing 23:441–447. 611 Arlettaz, R., M. Schaub, J. Fournier, T. S. Reichlin, A. Sierro, J. E. M. Watson, and V. 612 Braunisch. 2010. From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge 613 the gap between research and implementation. BioScience 60:835–842. 614 Arpin, I. 2019. The rise of planning in nature conservation and the practitioners’ approach to 615 conflicts. The inspiring case of the Northern French Alps nature reserves. Journal for Nature 616 Conservation 48:54–60. 617 618 619 Ateljevic, I., C. Harris, E. Wilson, and F. L. Collins. 2005. Getting ‘entangled’: Reflexivity and the ‘critical turn’ in tourism studies. Tourism Recreation Research 30:9–21. Audouin, M., R. Preiser, S. Nienaber, L. Downsborough, J. Lanz, and S. Mavengahama. 2013. 620 Exploring the implications of critical complexity for the study of socialecological systems. 621 Ecology and Society 18. 622 Bacon, C., E. Mendez, and M. Brown. 2005. Participatory action research and support for 623 community development and conservation: examples from shade coffee landscapes in 624 Nicaragua and El Salvador. UC Santa Cruz Research Briefs. 625 626 627 Balmford, A., and R. M. Cowling. 2006. Fusion or failure? The future of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20:692–695. Ban, N. C., M. Mills, J. Tam, C. C. Hicks, S. Klain, N. Stoeckl, M. C. Bottrill, J. Levine, R. L. 628 Pressey, T. Satterfield, and K. M. A. Chan. 2013. A social-ecological approach to 629 conservation planning: Embedding social considerations. Frontiers in Ecology and the 630 Environment 11:194–202. 631 Barber, P. H., M. C. A. Ablan-Lagman, A. Ambariyanto, R. G. S. Berlinck, D. Cahyani, E. D. 632 Crandall, R. Ravago-Gotanco, M. A. Juinio-Meñez, I. G. N. Mahardika, K. Shanker, C. J. 633 Starger, A. H. A. Toha, A. W. Anggoro, and D. A. Willette. 2014. Advancing biodiversity 634 research in developing countries: The need for changing paradigms. Bulletin of Marine 635 Science 90:187–210. 636 Barrett, G., S. Brooks, J. Josefsson, and N. Zulu. 2013. Starting the conversation: Land issues 637 and critical conservation studies in post-colonial Africa. Journal of Contemporary African 638 Studies 31:336–344. 639 640 641 642 643 Bauer, H., F. Gebresenbet, M. Kiki, L. Simpson, and C. Sillero-Zubiri. 2019. Race and gender bias in the research community on African lions. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:1–4. Beier, P., L. J. Hansen, L. Helbrecht, and D. Behar. 2017. A how-to guide for coproduction of actionable science. Conservation Letters 10:288–296. Bennett, N. J., R. Roth, S. C. Klain, K. Chan, P. Christie, D. A. Clark, G. Cullman, D. Curran, T. 644 J. Durbin, G. Epstein, A. Greenberg, M. P. Nelson, J. Sandlos, R. Stedman, T. L. Teel, R. 645 Thomas, D. Veríssimo, and C. Wyborn. 2017. Conservation social science: Understanding 646 and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation 647 205:93–108. 648 Bennett, N. J., R. Roth, S. C. Klain, K. M. A. Chan, D. A. Clark, G. Cullman, G. Epstein, M. P. 649 Nelson, R. Stedman, T. L. Teel, R. E. W. Thomas, C. Wyborn, D. Curran, A. Greenberg, J. 650 Sandlos, and D. Veríssimo. 2016. Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. 651 Conservation Biology 31:56–66. 652 653 Berger, R. 2015. Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research 15. 654 Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18:3–13. 655 Berkes, F., and N. J. Turner. 2006. Knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservation 656 657 practice for social-ecological system resilience. Human Ecology 34:479–494. Borie, M., K. M. Gustafsson, N. Obermeister, E. Turnhout, and P. Bridgewater. 2020. 658 Institutionalising reflexivity? Transformative learning and the Intergovernmental science- 659 policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environmental Science 660 and Policy 110:71–76. 661 Brennan, R. E. 2018. Re-storying marine conservation: Integrating art and science to explore and 662 articulate ideas, visions and expressions of marine space. Ocean and Coastal Management 663 162:110–126. 664 Brittain, S., H. Ibbett, E. de Lange, L. Dorward, S. Hoyte, and A. Marino. 2020. Ethical 665 considerations when conservation research involves people. Conservation Biology. 666 Brook, R. K., and S. M. McLachlan. 2008. Trends and prospects for local knowledge in 667 ecological and conservation research and monitoring. Biodiversity and Conservation 668 17:3501–3512. 669 670 Brown, M. J. 2020. Science and Moral Imagination: A New Ideal for Values in Science. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. 671 Cairney, P. 2019. Understanding public policy. Red Globe Press. 672 Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D. H. Guston, J. Jäger, and R. 673 B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the 674 National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100:8086–8091. 675 Chaudhury, A., and S. Colla. 2021. Next steps in dismantling discrimination: Lessons from 676 ecology and conservation science. Conservation Letters 14:1–6. 677 Cheruvelil, K. S., P. A. Soranno, K. C. Weathers, P. C. Hanson, S. J. Goring, C. T. Filstrup, and 678 E. K. Read. 2014. Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: 679 the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Macrosystems Ecology 12:31–38. 680 Chua, L., M. E. Harrison, H. Fair, S. Milne, A. Palmer, J. Rubis, P. Thung, S. Wich, B. Büscher, 681 S. M. Cheyne, R. K. Puri, V. Schreer, A. Stępień, and E. Meijaard. 2020. Conservation and 682 the social sciences: Beyond critique and co-optation. A case study from orangutan 683 conservation. People and Nature 2:42–60. 684 Cilliers, P., H. C. Biggs, S. Blignaut, A. G. Choles, G. P. W. Jewitt, and D. J. Roux. 2013. 685 Complexity, modeling, and natural resource management. Ecology and Society 18. 686 Clark, T. 2008. “We’re over-researched here!”: Exploring accounts of research fatigue within 687 688 689 qualitative research engagements. Sociology 42:953–970. Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup. 2014. Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives. https://climatetkw.wordpress.com. 690 Cochran, P. A. L., C. A. Marshall, C. Garcia-Downing, E. Kendall, D. Cook, L. McCubbin, and 691 R. M. S. Gover. 2008. Indigenous ways of knowing: Implications for participatory research 692 and community. American Journal of Public Health 98:22–27. 693 Commission, E. 2020. Eco-systems of science for policy - Zooming in on particular science for 694 policy element across EU. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/policy-ecosystems-in-europe/single- 695 element-workshops. 696 Cooke, N. J., M. L. Hilton, B. Behavioral, S. Sciences, D. Behavioral, and S. Sciences. 2015. 697 Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Page Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team 698 Science. National Academies Press. 699 Coreau, A. 2016. Reflexive strategic action to consolidate a research-NGO partnership during 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 science-policy interactions. Environmental Science and Policy:1–9. Culley, T. M., R. Tunison, J. M. B. Sanchez, A. Wafer, and R. Holdren. 2021. Research inequity in the plant sciences. Applications in Plant Science 9:2–5. Cutcliffe, J. R. 2003. Reconsidering reflexivity: Introducing the case for intellectual entrepreneurship. Qualitative Health Research 13:136–148. Danks, D., and A. J. London. 2017. Algorithmic bias in autonomous systems. IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 0:4691–4697. Davidson, D. J. 2019. Emotion, reflexivity and social change in the era of extreme fossil fuels. British Journal of Sociology 70:442–462. Davies, T., A. Cowley, J. Bennie, C. Leyshon, R. Inger, H. Carter, B. Robinson, J. Duffy, S. 710 Casalegno, G. Lambert, and K. Gaston. 2018. Popular interest in vertebrates does not reflect 711 extinction risk and is associated with bias in conservation investment. PLoS ONE. 712 Dieleman, H. 2008. Sustainability, art, and reflexivity: why artists and designers may become 713 key change agents in sustainability. Pages 1–26 Sustainability: a new frontier for the arts 714 and cultures. 715 Domínguez, L., and C. Luoma. 2020. Decolonising conservation policy: How colonial land and 716 conservation ideologies persist and perpetuate indigenous injustices at the expense of the 717 environment. Land 9:11–14. 718 Donaldson, M. R., N. J. Burnett, D. C. Braun, C. D. Suski, S. G. Hinch, S. J. Cooke, and J. T. 719 Kerr. 2016. Taxonomic bias and international biodiversity conservation research. Facets 720 1:105–113. 721 722 Douglas, H. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. 723 724 725 726 Dowie, M. 2011. Conservation refugees: the hundred-year conflict between global conservation and native peoples. MIT Press. Drury, R., K. Homewood, and S. Randall. 2011. Less is more: The potential of qualitative approaches in conservation research. Animal Conservation 14:18–24. 727 Duffy, R., F. Massé, E. Smidt, E. Marijnen, B. Büscher, J. Verweijen, M. Ramutsindela, T. 728 Simlai, L. Joanny, and E. Lunstrum. 2019. Why we must question the militarisation of 729 conservation. Biological Conservation 232:66–73. 730 Echeverri, A., D. S. Karp, R. Naidoo, J. Zhao, and K. M. A. Chan. 2018. Approaching human- 731 animal relationships from multiple angles: A synthetic perspective. Biological Conservation 732 224:50–62. 733 Eigenbrode, S. D., M. O. O’Rourke, D. M. Wulfhorst, C. S. Althoff, K. M. Goldberg, W. Morse, 734 M. Nielsen-Pincus, J. Stephens, L. Winowiecki, and N. A. Bosque-Perez. 2007. Employing 735 philosophical dialog in collaborative science. BIoScience 57. 736 737 738 739 740 Elliott, K. C. 2017. A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. Page (O. U. Press, Ed.). New York. Elliott, K. C., and D. B. Resnik. 2014. Science, policy, and the transparency of values. Environmental Health Perspectives 122:A291–A292. Evely, A. C., I. Fazey, M. Pinard, and X. Lambin. 2008. The influence of philosophical 741 perspectives in integrative research: A conservation case study in the Cairngorms National 742 Park. Ecology and Society 13. 743 Fabricius, C., R. Scholes, and G. Cundill. 2006. Mobilizing knowledge for integrated ecosystem 744 assessments. Page Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems : Concepts and Applications in 745 Ecosystem Assessment. 746 Feeley, K. J., J. T. Stroud, and T. M. Perez. 2017. Most ‘global’ reviews of species’ responses to 747 climate change are not truly global. Diversity and Distributions 23:231–234. 748 Finlay, L. 1998. Reflexivity: an essential component for all research? British Journal of 749 750 751 Occupational Therapy 61:453–456. Finlay, L. 2002. “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research 12:531–545. 752 Fox, H. E., C. Christian, J. C. Nordby, O. R. W. Pergams, G. D. Peterson, and C. R. Pyke. 2006. 753 Perceived barriers to integrating social science and conservation. Conservation Biology 754 20:1817–1820. 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 Freshwater, D., and G. Rolfe. 2001. Critical reflexivity: a politically and ethically engaged research method for nursing. Journal of Research in Nursing 6:526–537. Game, E. T., E. Meijaard, D. Sheil, and E. Mcdonald-Madden. 2014. Conservation in a wicked complex world; challenges and solutions. Conservation Letters 7:271–277. Garland, E. 2008. The elephant in the room: confronting the colonial character of wildlife conservation in Africa. African Studies Review 51:51–74. Gossa, C., M. Fisher, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2015. The research-implementation gap: How 762 practitioners and researchers from developing countries perceive the role of peer-reviewed 763 literature in conservation science. Oryx 49:80–87. 764 Gould, R. K., M. Pai, B. Muraca, and K. M. A. Chan. 2019. He ʻike ʻana ia i ka pono (it is a 765 recognizing of the right thing): how one indigenous worldview informs relational values 766 and social values. Sustainability Science 14:1213–1232. 767 Gray, N. J., A. Meeker, S. Ravensberden, A. Kipp, and J. Faulkner. 2017. Producing science and 768 global citizenship? Volunteer tourism and conservation in Belize. Tourism Recreation 769 770 Research 42:199–211. Gray, S. M., C. R. Booher, K. C. Elliott, D. B. Kramer, J. C. Waller, J. J. Millspaugh, B. M. 771 Kissui, and R. A. Montgomery. 2019. Research-implementation gap limits the actionability 772 of human-carnivore conflict studies in East Africa. Animal Conservation:1–11. 773 Green, S. J., J. Armstrong, M. Bogan, E. Darling, S. Kross, C. M. Rochman, A. Smyth, and D. 774 Veríssimo. 2015. Conservation needs diverse values, approaches, and practitioners. 775 Conservation Letters 8:385–387. 776 Greenwood, D. J., and M. Levin. 2007. Introduction to Action Research. 777 Guillemin, M., and L. Gillam. 2004. Ethics, reflexivity, and “Ethically important moments” in 778 779 780 research. Qualitative Inquiry 10:261–280. Haas, E. J., and C. L. Hoebbel. 2018. Filling in the “whys” of quantitative data: the roles of nonresearch and reflexivity in applied safety climate research. SAGE Publications Ltd. 781 Holland, J. H. 1992. Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus 121:17–30. 782 Holland, J. H. 2006. Studying complex adaptive systems. Journal of Systems Science and 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 Complexity 19:1–8. Hopf, H., A. Krief, G. Mehta, and S. A. Matlin. 2019. Fake science and the knowledge crisis: Ignorance can be fatal. Royal Society Open Science 6. Horton, C. C., T. R. Peterson, P. Banerjee, and M. J. Peterson. 2016. Credibility and advocacy in conservation science. Conservation Biology 30:23–32. Huntley, B. J. 2014. Good news from the South: Biodiversity mainstreaming - A paradigm shift in conservation? South African Journal of Science 110:1–4. Ibbett, H., and S. Brittain. 2019. Conservation publications and their provisions to protect research participants. Conservation Biology 0:1–13. 792 Iwanaga, T., H. Wang, T. E. Koralewski, W. E. Grant, A. J. Jakeman, and J. C. Little. 2021. 793 Toward a complete interdisciplinary treatment of scale: Reflexive lessons from 794 socioenvironmental systems modeling. Elementa:1–28. 795 Jenkins, L. D., S. M. Maxwell, and E. Fisher. 2012. Increasing conservation impact and policy 796 relevance of research through embedded experiences. Conservation Biology 26:740–742. 797 Jones, N. A., S. Shaw, H. Ross, K. Witt, and B. Pinner. 2016. The study of human values in 798 understanding and managing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 21. 799 Kareiva, P., and M. Marvier. 2012. What is conservation science? BioScience 62:962–969. 800 Kearney, A. 2019. Interculturalism and responsive reflexivity in a settler colonial context. 801 802 803 Religions 10. Keeney, R. L. 2004. Framing public policy decisions. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 4:95–115. 804 Knight, A. T., C. N. Cook, K. H. Redford, D. Biggs, C. Romero, A. Ortega-Argueta, C. D. 805 Norman, B. Parsons, M. Reynolds, G. Eoyang, and M. Keene. 2019. Improving 806 conservation practice with principles and tools from systems thinking and evaluation. 807 Sustainability Science 14:1531–1548. 808 Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, M. Rouget, A. Balmford, A. T. Lombard, and B. M. Campbell. 809 2008. Knowing but not doing: Selecting priority conservation areas and the research- 810 implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22:610–617. 811 Koot, S., P. Hebinck, and S. Sullivan. 2020. Science for success—A conflict of interest? 812 researcher position and reflexivity in socio-ecological research for CBNRM in Namibia. 813 Society and Natural Resources 0:1–18. 814 Larocco, A. A., J. E. Shinn, and K. Madise. 2019. Reflections on positionalities in social science 815 fieldwork in Northern Botswana: A call for decolonizing research. Politics and Gender:1– 816 29. 817 Laurance, W. F., H. Koster, M. Grooten, A. B. Anderson, P. A. Zuidema, S. Zwick, R. J. Zagt, 818 A. J. Lynam, M. Linkie, and N. P. R. Anten. 2012. Making conservation research more 819 relevant for conservation practitioners. Biological Conservation 153:164–168. 820 Law, E. A., N. J. Bennett, C. D. Ives, R. Friedman, K. J. Davis, C. Archibald, and K. A. Wilson. 821 2017. Equity trade-offs in conservation decision making. Conservation Biology 32:294– 822 303. 823 Lawrence, A., and S. Molteno. 2012. From rationalism to reflexivity? Reflections on change in 824 the UK biodiversity action plan. Reflexive Governance for Global Public Goods:283–298. 825 Lélé, S., and R. B. Norgaard. 2005. Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience 55:967. 826 Levin, S. A. 1998. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems 827 828 829 830 1:431–436. Liénard, J. F., T. Achakulvisut, D. E. Acuna, and S. V. David. 2018. Intellectual synthesis in mentorship determines success in academic careers. Nature Communications 9:1–13. Liu, J., T. Dietz, S. R. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran, A. N. Pell, P. Deadman, T. 831 Kratz, J. Lubchenco, E. Ostrom, Z. Ouyang, W. Provencher, C. L. Redman, S. H. 832 Schneider, and W. W. Taylor. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. 833 Science 317:1513–1516. 834 Longino, H. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 835 Lynch, A. J. J. 2017. Respect, reflect, and engage–enhancing biophysical research practices with 836 Indigenous people, their land, and culture. Australasian Journal of Environmental 837 Management 24:319–331. 838 Lynch, A. J. J., E. Kalumanga, and G. A. Ospina. 2016. Socio-ecological aspects of sustaining 839 Ramsar wetlands in three biodiverse developing countries. Marine and Freshwater Research 840 67:850–868. 841 842 Lynch, M. 2000. Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privilaged knowledge. Theory, Culture and Society 17:26–54. 843 MacKenzie, J. M. 1988. The Empire of Nature. Manchester University Press, Manchester. 844 MacMynowski, D. P. 2007. Pausing at the brink of interdisciplinarity: Power and knowledge at 845 846 847 848 849 850 the meeting of social and biophysical science. Ecology and Society 12. Maldonado-Torres, N. 2007. On the coloniality of being: Contributions to the development of a concept. Pages 240–270 Cultural Studies. Mascia, M. B., J. P. Brosius, T. A. Dobson, B. C. Forbes, M. A. Mckean, and N. J. Turner. 2003. Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation Biology 17:649–650. Matulis, B. S., and J. R. Moyer. 2017. Beyond inclusive conservation: the value of pluralism, the 851 need for agonism, and the case for social instrumentalism. Conservation Letters 10:279– 852 287. 853 854 855 856 857 Mauthner, N. S., and A. Doucet. 2003. Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology 37:413–431. McMullin, E. 2000. Values in Science. Page in W. Newton-Smith, editor. A Companion to the Philosophy of Science. Blackwell Publishing Inc., Oxford. Messier, C., K. Puettmann, R. Chazdon, K. P. Andersson, V. A. Angers, L. Brotons, E. Filotas, 858 R. Tittler, L. Parrott, and S. A. Levin. 2015. From management to stewardship: viewing 859 forests as complex adaptive systems in an uncertain world. Conservation Letters 8:368–377. 860 Miller, T. R., T. D. Baird, C. M. Littlefield, and G. Kofinas. 2008. Epistemological pluralism: 861 862 863 reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society 13. Milner, H. R. 2007. Race, culture, and researcher positionality: working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher 36:388–400. 864 Milstein, T., M. Thomas, and J. Hoffmann. 2019. Dams and flows: immersing in Western 865 meaning systems in search of ecocultural reflexivity. Environmental Communication 866 13:104–117. 867 Mishra, C., J. C. Young, M. Fiechter, B. Rutherford, and S. M. Redpath. 2017. Building 868 partnerships with communities for biodiversity conservation: lessons from Asian mountains. 869 Journal of Applied Ecology 54:1583–1591. 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 Mkumbukwa, A. R. 2008. The evolution of wildlife conservation policies in Tanzania during the colonial and post-independence periods. Development Southern Africa 25:589–600. Montana, J., L. Elliott, M. Ryan, and C. Wyborn. 2020. The need for improved reflexivity in conservation science. Environmental Conservation 47:217–219. Montgomery, R. A., K. Borona, H. Kasozi, T. Mudumba, and M. Ogada. 2020. Positioning human heritage at the center of conservation practice. Conservation Biology. Montgomery, R. A., K. C. Elliott, M. W. Hayward, S. M. Gray, J. J. Millspaugh, S. J. Riley, B. 877 M. Kissui, D. B. Kramer, R. J. Moll, T. Mudumba, E. D. Tans, A. B. Muneza, L. Abade, J. 878 M. Beck, C. F. Hoffmann, C. R. Booher, and D. W. Macdonald. 2018a. Examining evident 879 interdisciplinarity among prides of lion researchers. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 880 6:1–13. 881 Montgomery, R. A., K. M. Redilla, W. Ortiz-Calo, T. Smith, B. Keller, and J. J. Millspaugh. 882 2018b. Evaluating the individuality of animal-habitat relationships. Ecology and Evolution 883 8:10893–10901. 884 Moon, K., V. M. Adams, and B. Cooke. 2019. Shared personal reflections on the need to 885 broaden the scope of conservation social science. People and Nature 1:426–434. 886 Moon, K., and D. Blackman. 2014. A Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for 887 888 Natural Scientists. Conservation Biology 28:1167–1177. Moon, K., D. A. Blackman, V. M. Adams, R. M. Colvin, F. Davila, M. C. Evans, S. R. 889 Januchowski-Hartley, N. J. Bennett, H. Dickinson, C. Sandbrook, K. Sherren, F. A. V. St. 890 John, L. van Kerkhoff, and C. Wyborn. 2018. Expanding the role of social science in 891 conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods. Methods 892 in Ecology and Evolution 10:294–302. 893 Moon, K., T. D. Brewer, S. R. Januchowski-Hartley, V. M. Adams, and D. A. Blackman. 2016. 894 A guideline to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation 895 journals. Ecology and Society 21. 896 Muhammad, M., N. Wallerstein, A. L. Sussman, M. Avila, and B. Duran. 2015. Reflections on 897 researcher identity and power: The impact of positionality on community based 898 participatory research (CBPR ) processes and outcomes. Critical Sociology 41. 899 900 901 National Science Foundation, N. C. for S. and E. S. 2019. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Page Special Report NSF 19-304. Nel, J. L., D. J. Roux, A. Driver, L. Hill, A. C. Maherry, K. Snaddon, C. R. Petersen, L. B. 902 Smith-Adao, H. Van Deventer, and B. Reyers. 2016. Knowledge co-production and 903 boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans. Conservation Biology 904 30:176–188. 905 906 Newing, H. 2010. Interdisciplinary training in environmental conservation: Definitions, progress and future directions. Environmental Conservation 37:410–418. 907 908 909 Norberg, J., and G. S. Cumming. 2008. Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future. Columbia University Press. Norris, P. E., M. O. O’Rourke, A. S. Mayer, and K. E. Halvorsen. 2016. Managing the wicked 910 problem of transdisciplinary team formation in socio-ecological systems. Landscape and 911 Urban Planning 154:115–122. 912 913 North, M. A., W. W. Hastie, and L. Hoyer. 2020. Out of Africa: The underrepresentation of African authors in high-impact geoscience literature. Earth-Science Reviews 208:103262. 914 Noss, R. 1999. Is there a special conservation biology ? Conservation Biology:113–122. 915 O’Rourke, M. O., and S. J. Crowley. 2013. Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary 916 917 918 919 science: The story of the Toolbox Project. Synthese 190:1937–1954. Olsson, P., C. Folke, and F. Berkes. 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 34:75–90. Pasgaard, M., N. Dawson, L. V. Rasmussen, M. Enghoff, and A. Jensen. 2017. The research and 920 practice of integrating conservation and development: Self-reflections by researchers on 921 methodologies, objectives and influence. Global Ecology and Conservation 9:50–60. 922 Peterson, R. B., D. Russell, P. West, and J. P. Brosius. 2010. Seeing (and doing) conservation 923 924 925 926 through cultural lenses. Environmental Management 45:5–18. Pielke Jr., R. A. 2007. The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press. Pooley, S., M. Barua, W. Beinart, A. J. Dickman, G. Holmes, J. Lorimer, A. J. Loveridge, D. W. 927 Macdonald, G. Marvin, S. M. Redpath, C. Sillero-Zubiri, A. Zimmermann, and E. J. 928 Milner-Gulland. 2016. An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to 929 improving human–predator relations. Conservation Biology 31:513–523. 930 931 932 Pooley, S. P., J. A. Mendelsohn, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2014. Hunting down the chimera of multiple disciplinarity in conservation science. Conservation Biology 28:22–32. Preiser, R., R. Biggs, A. De Vos, and C. Folke. 2018. Social-ecological systems as complex 933 adaptive systems: Organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. 934 Ecology and Society 23. 935 936 937 938 Pullin, A. S., T. M. Knight, D. A. Stone, and K. Charman. 2004. Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation 119:245–252. Quarshie, A., A. Salmi, and Z. Wu. 2019. From equivocality to reflexivity in biodiversity protection. Organization and Environment. 939 Randeria, S. 2007. Global Designs and Local Lifeworlds: Colonial Legacies of Conservation, 940 Disenfranchisement, and Environmental Givernance in Postcolonial India. Interventions 941 9:12–30. 942 Redpath, S. M., J. Young, A. Evely, W. M. Adams, W. J. Sutherland, A. Whitehouse, A. Amar, 943 R. A. Lambert, J. D. C. Linnell, A. Watt, and R. J. Gutiérrez. 2013. Understanding and 944 managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 28:100–109. 945 Reed, M. S., L. C. Stringer, I. Fazey, A. C. Evely, and J. H. J. Kruijsen. 2014. Five principles for 946 the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. Journal of 947 Environmental Management 146:337–345. 948 Robinson, D., K. J. C. Hill, A. Garnet Ruffo, S. Couture, and L. C. Ravensbergen. 2019a. 949 Rethinking the practice and performance of indigenous land acknowledgement. Canadian 950 Theatre Review 177:20–30. 951 Robinson, K. F., A. K. Fuller, R. C. Stedman, W. F. Siemer, and D. J. Decker. 2019b. Integration 952 of social and ecological sciences for natural resource decision making: challenges and 953 954 opportunities. Environmental Management 63:565–573. Rodríguez, I., and M. L. Inturias. 2018. Conflict transformation in indigenous peoples’ 955 territories: doing environmental justice with a ‘decolonial turn.’ Development Studies 956 Research 5:90–105. 957 Rogers, K. H., R. Luton, H. Biggs, R. O. Biggs, S. Blignaut, A. G. Choles, C. G. Palmer, and P. 958 Tangwe. 2013. Fostering complexity thinking in action research for change in social- 959 ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18. 960 961 Roldan-Hernandez, L., A. B. Boehm, and J. R. Mihelcic. 2020. Parachute environmental science and engineering. Environmental Science and Technology 54. 962 Rosenthal, M. F., M. Gertler, A. D. Hamilton, S. Prasad, and M. C. B. Andrade. 2017. 963 Taxonomic bias in animal behaviour publications. Animal Behaviour 127:83–89. 964 965 966 967 968 Ross, C. 2017a. Ecology and Power in the Age of Empire: Europe and the Transformation of the Tropical World. Oxford University Press, Oxfrord, UK. Ross, D. 2017b. Black country, white wilderness: conservation, colonialism, and conflict in Tasmania. Journal for Undergraduate Ethnography 7:1–24. Rust, N. A., A. Abrams, D. W. S. Challender, G. Chapron, A. Ghoddousi, J. A. Glikman, C. H. 969 Gowan, C. Hughes, A. Rastogi, A. Said, A. Sutton, N. Taylor, S. Thomas, H. Unnikrishnan, 970 A. D. Webber, G. Wordingham, and C. M. Hill. 2017. Quantity does not always mean 971 quality: the importance of qualitative social science in conservation research. Society and 972 Natural Resources 30:1304–1310. 973 Sandri, S. 2009. Reflexivity in Economics. Page Reflexivity in Economics. 974 Schlüter, M., A. Baeza, G. Dressler, K. Frank, J. Groeneveld, W. Jager, M. A. Janssen, R. R. J. 975 McAllister, B. Müller, K. Orach, N. Schwarz, and N. Wijermans. 2017. A framework for 976 mapping and comparing behavioural theories in models of social-ecological systems. 977 Ecological Economics 131:21–35. 978 Schroeder, D., K. Chatfield, M. Singh, R. Chennells, and P. Herissone-Kelly. 2019. The San 979 Code of Research Ethics. Page Equitable Research Partnerships: A Global Code of Conduct 980 to Counter Ethics Dumping. 981 982 Schroeder, D., J. Cook, F. Hirsch, and S. Fenet. 2018. Ethics Dumping Case Studies from NorthSouth Research. Springer International Publishing. 983 Schuurbiers, D., and E. Fisher. 2009. Lab-scale intervention. EMBO reports 10:424–427. 984 Schwandt, T. A. 2011. Reflexivity. Page The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry By: SAGE 985 986 Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks, California. Settles, I. H., S. T. Brassel, P. A. Soranno, K. S. Cheruvelil, G. M. Montgomery, and K. C. 987 Elliott. 2019. Team climate mediates the effect of diversity on environmental science team 988 satisfaction and data sharing. Plos One 14:e0219196. 989 990 991 Singh, J., and H. Van Houtum. 2002. Post-colonial nature conservation in Southern Africa: Same emperors, new clothes? GeoJournal 58:253–263. Singh, S., M. Granski, M. del P. Victoria, and S. Javdani. 2018. The praxis of decoloniality in 992 researcher training and community-based data collection. American Journal of Community 993 Psychology 62:385–395. 994 Soulé, M. E. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35:727–734. 995 Stefanoudis, P. V., W. Y. Licuanan, T. H. Morrison, S. Talma, J. Veitayaki, and L. C. Woodall. 996 997 998 2021. Turning the tide of parachute science. Current Biology 31:R184–R185. Stronach, I., D. Garratt, C. Pearce, and H. Piper. 2007. Reflexivity, the picturing of selves, the forging of method. Qualitative Inquiry 13:179–203. 999 Stroud, J. T., E. Rehm, M. Ladd, P. Olivas, and K. J. Feeley. 2014. Is conservation research 1000 money being spent wisely? Changing trends in conservation research priorities. Journal for 1001 Nature Conservation 22:471–473. 1002 Swart, J. A. A., J. Zevenberg, P. Ho, J. Cortina, M. Reed, M. Derak, S. Vella, H. Zhao, and H. J. 1003 van der Windt. 2018. Involving society in restoration and conservation. Restoration Ecology 1004 26:S3–S6. 1005 1006 1007 Syracuse, F. S. 2016. Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating fieldwork dilemmas in international research. Acme. Takacs, D. 2020. Whose voices count in biodiversity conservation? Ecological democracy in 1008 biodiversity offsetting, REDD+, and rewilding. Journal of Environmental Policy and 1009 Planning 22:43–58. 1010 Tallis, H., and J. Lubchenco. 2014. A call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515:27–28. 1011 Tapela, B. N., L. Maluleke, and C. Mavhunga. 2007. New architecture, old agendas: 1012 Perspectives on social research in rural communities neighbouring the Kruger National 1013 Park. Conservation and Society 5:60–87. 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 Toomey, A. H., A. T. Knight, and J. Barlow. 2017. Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation. Conservation Letters 10:619–625. Trisos, C. H., J. Auerbach, and M. Katti. 2021. Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology. Nature Ecology & Evolution. de Vos, A., R. Biggs, and R. Preiser. 2019. Methods for understanding social-ecological systems: A review of place-based studies. Ecology and Society 24:1–24. Vucetich, J. A., D. Burnham, E. A. Macdonald, J. T. Bruskotter, S. Marchini, A. Zimmermann, and D. W. Macdonald. 2018. Just conservation: What is it and should we pursue it? 1022 1023 1024 Biological Conservation 221:23–33. Wark, J. 2021. Land acknowledgements in the academy: Refusing the settler myth. Curriculum Inquiry 51:191–209. 1025 Watts, D. J. 2017. Should social science be more solution-oriented? Nature Human Behaviour. 1026 West, P., J. Igoe, and D. Brockington. 2006. Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected 1027 areas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35. 1028 White, R. M., A. Fischer, K. Marshall, J. M. J. Travis, T. J. Webb, S. di Falco, S. M. Redpath, 1029 and R. van der Wal. 2009. Developing an integrated conceptual framework to understand 1030 biodiversity conflicts. Land Use Policy 26:242–253. 1031 Whitfield, J. 2008. Group Theory. Nature 455:1–10. 1032 Wilson, J. R. U., S. Proches, B. Braschler, E. S. Dixon, and D. M. Richardson. 2007. The (bio) 1033 diversity of science reflects the interests of society. Frontiers in Ecology and the 1034 Environment 5:409–414. 1035 Wilson, K. A., N. A. Auerbach, K. Sam, A. G. Magini, S. L. Moss, S. D. Langhans, S. Budiharta, 1036 D. Terzano, and E. Meijaard. 2016. Conservation research is not happening where it is most 1037 needed. PLoS ONE 14:1–5. 1038 Woodall, L. C., S. Talma, O. Steeds, P. Stefanoudis, and A. De Comarmond. 2021. Co- 1039 development, co-production, and co-dissemination of scientific research: a case study to 1040 demonstrate mutual benefits. Biology Letters 17. 1041 1042 1043 1044 Woolley, A. W., C. F. Chabris, A. Pentland, N. Hashmi, and T. W. Malone. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330:686–688. Wuchty, S., B. F. Jones, and B. Uzzi. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316:1036–1039. 1045 Wyborn, C., J. Montana, N. Kalas, S. Clement, F. Davila, N. Knowles, E. Louder, M. Balan, J. 1046 Chambers, L. Christel, T. Forsyth, G. Henderson, S. Izquierdo Tort, M. Lim, M. J. 1047 Martinez-Harms, J. Merçon, E. Nuesiri, L. Pereira, V. Pilbeam, E. Turnhout, S. Wood, and 1048 M. Ryan. 2021. An agenda for research and action toward diverse and just futures for life 1049 on Earth. Conservation Biology 00:1–12. 1050 1051 1052 Young, J. C., K. Searle, A. Butler, P. Simmons, A. D. Watt, and A. Jordan. 2016. The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biological Conservation 195:196–202.