2025/08/27 by Daniel C. Miller, Ivan R. Scales, Michael B. Mascia · 1 voice
Arts and Humanities · Environmental Science · #Conservation Techniques and Studies #Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation #Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
paper · pdf · doi:10.1111/cobi.70134
openalex publication_date 2025/08/27 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
Conservation is a social process with profound consequences for both nature and people. The social sciences, which include study of human societies and relationships between individuals and groups within those societies, are therefore uniquely positioned to examine and inform conservation efforts. The past 2 decades have seen growing recognition that conservation is fundamentally about people and the choices they make (Balmford & Cowling, 2006; Bennett, Roth, Klain, Chan, Christie, et al., 2017; Mascia et al., 2003). This recognition has led to the development of conservation social science (CSS)—“the study of the conservation-relevant aspects of human society, including the relationships among humans and between humans and their environment” (Miller et al., 2023)—as a field. Yet, the incorporation of the social sciences in mainstream conservation training, policy, and practice remains incomplete. For example, a recent study of conservation higher education in Australia and the United Kingdom showed that social science methods training is still absent from most curricula (Slater et al., 2024). Many challenges exist to better integration of social science into conservation (Bennett, Roth, Klain, Chan, Clark, et al., 2017). Social science disciplines often have different vocabularies and methodologies. They can also be based on very different philosophies of what research is for and even differ on what counts as valid knowledge (Moon & Blackman, 2023). Integration has been uneven across social science disciplines. Social research for conservation (which tends to be more applied) more easily meshes with mainstream conservation compared with social research on conservation (which tends to be more critical) (Sandbrook et al., 2013). Both are important, but dialogue between researchers across these traditions, and among the social and natural sciences more generally, has often been lacking. In a form of epistemic violence, governments and nongovernmental organizations working on conservation have sometimes intimidated and silenced social scientists investigating the power structures and inequalities in conservation (Koot et al., 2025). Moreover, some social sciences have historically ignored conservation and the environment as areas of research (Miller et al., 2023). Even within social science disciplines that routinely study conservation issues, conservation research and practice has sometimes been portrayed as monolithic (Sandbrook et al., 2011). In addition to the challenges of integrating different disciplines, researchers may struggle with tensions among the roles of scholar (document, explain, and critique), practitioner (identify problems and implement solutions), and advocate (promote specific goals and actions). Those working in conservation have a complex and wide-ranging set of values and ideas about how conservation should be carried out (Luque Lora et al., 2022; Sandbrook et al., 2011). Further, the diversity of perspectives on conservation is multiplied considerably when one looks beyond the social sciences to the natural sciences (Cardinale & Murdoch, 2025), Indigenous knowledge (Hill et al., 2020; Kimmerer, 2013), the arts and humanities (Bennett & Roth, 2019; Castree et al., 2014), and business, law, and policy (Ostrom & Cox, 2010; Smith et al., 2020). Thus, conservation conversations among people who often have very different beliefs, values, and backgrounds can sometimes be boisterous and heated. Although the growth of CSS and diversification of perspectives in conservation science and practice deserve celebration, much work remains. Racial, gender, nationality, and other inequalities persist in the conservation movement and among those who study it (Campos-Arceiz et al., 2018; Jones & Solomon, 2019; Maas et al., 2021). The shift in power relations required to move beyond the rhetoric of participation and empowerment to redress inequalities remains insufficient (Bailey et al., 2020; Petriello et al., 2025). We started this contribution from the premise that because conservation is not unified and can involve irreconcilable viewpoints (e.g., on whether capitalism facilitates or undermines conservation; Matulis & Moyer, 2017; cf. Child, 2009), those working in conservation must acknowledge, include, and attend to multiple and sometimes conflicting perspectives. To do so, requires better conversations among disparate perspectives as a first step toward a more inclusive and holistic conservation science and practice. Such conversations (i.e., “talk between two or more people in which thoughts, feelings, and ideas are expressed, questions are asked and answered, or news and information is exchanged” [Cambridge Dictionary, 2024]) can be formal (structured and deliberate) or informal (unstructured and spontaneous). We focused on the former, but our contribution can also help with the latter. To support enhanced conversations, here we outline principles and a framework derived from Conservation Social Science (Miller et al., 2023) and relevant literature in and beyond conservation. We tested and refined the principles and framework in international workshops held in São Paulo, Brazil, and Nairobi, Kenya, in 2023. Our intended audience includes individuals and groups working in conservation research, policy, and practice (e.g., in universities, government, or nongovernmental organizations) who wish to better engage with the diverse views, values, and knowledges related to conservation. Such engagement is imperative if global biodiversity goals are to be achieved (CBD, 2022), not least because the inclusion of diverse disciplinary and social perspectives improves the quality of collective judgment and action (Moore & MacKenzie, 2020; Page, 2008). Perspectives on conservation are diverse within the conservation movement and across society (Pascual et al., 2021; Sandbrook et al., 2011). Enhanced dialogue on the future of conservation therefore requires distinguishing different views and the interests they represent and genuinely trying to understand them (even if full understanding may not always be possible). Doing so means questioning potentially unfounded assumptions and avoiding caricatures of arguments of those holding different views. For CSS more specifically, it entails distinguishing differences in underlying values and philosophies (e.g., regarding the purpose of research) from more superficial differences (e.g., in data collection and analyses). Because conservation comprises a wide range of viewpoints, some of which may be irreconcilable (Matulis & Moyer, 2017), achieving consensus will not always be possible. Disagreement is not inherently negative (Angouri, 2012) and should not be ignored or suppressed. Critique and dissent are important because they can help avoid the suppression of marginal voices and reveal new possibilities for addressing interlinked social and environmental problems (Raymond et al., 2022). Conservation and conservation science are increasingly interdisciplinary (Bennett, Roth, Klain, Chan, Christie, et al., 2017; Kareiva & Marvier, 2012). Formal training in more than one discipline or in an interdisciplinary field can be useful, although it is not necessary to contribute effectively to conversations about conservation. However, basic awareness of other disciplines, methodologies, and worldviews can facilitate dialogue. Such awareness can help build respect for specialized disciplinary expertise, Indigenous and local knowledge, and different methods, which may help advance understanding and address conservation challenges. Introductory primers on CSS (Miller et al., 2023) and conservation biology (Cardinale & Murdoch, 2025), for example, can help build basic awareness. Conservation researchers sometimes wring their hands because decision-making processes seem unscientific or political (Adams & Sandbrook, 2013). Yet, research can inform beliefs on which complex values-based decisions are made, even if is not wholly determinative of decision-making. A more nuanced and realistic understanding of the role of science in decision-making—as one of many different considerations that a decision maker might weigh along with, for example, their own values, public opinion, interest group pressure, political party affiliation, or a catalyzing event—can lead to more effective conversations and strategies for engaging in decision-making processes. Here, the social sciences can play a vital role in improving understanding of these processes and how they might be influenced. Disparities in conservation remain stubbornly persistent. Thus, conservation conversations must be diversified so that the White, male, middle-class voices of native English speakers (which include the authors of this article) do not predominate and new voices can be heard (Bailey et al., 2020; Chaudhury & Colla, 2021; Rudd et al., 2021). Such diversification requires a fundamental shift in power away from the Global North (Kothari, 2021). It also demands moving beyond abstract ideas and tokenistic actions to a material rebalancing of profoundly asymmetric power relations as a starting point for more just, effective, and enduring conservation (Temin, 2025). Although those working in conservation must seek to engage with plural perspectives, the questions of who gets to initiate dialogue in the first place and who decides whom to invite to take part in conversations remain. Sober analysis of how power has shaped conservation discourse, policy, and action is necessary to identify potential leverage points for dislodging current power structures (Kashwan et al., 2021; Raymond et al., 2022). Synthetic research on power (Miller & Agrawal, 2023; Shackleton et al., 2023) and decolonization in conservation (Corbera et al., 2021) can help guide such analyses. Building on insights from social science (Angouri, 2012; Brown, 2018; Page, 2008) and conservation experience (Gregory et al., 2012; Nikolakis & Hotte, 2022), we propose a framework for acting on the principles for enhancing conservation conversations in 3 steps: before, during, and after conversations. First, take stock of who has been invited and who has not. Consider inviting others who may have been overlooked. Second, create conditions for invitees to participate given constraints they may face. For example, ensuring a trusted convener and taking care to respect gender and other social norms can help enable participation. Our experience and a large literature (e.g., Kaner, 2014) suggest that a trained facilitator may be useful here as well as during the conversation. Third, clarify and agree on the purpose of the conversation and on the ground rules for it. Is the conversation meant to lead to a specific decision or action? Or, is the aim to build dialogue and greater understanding? Even for conversations that do not have the goal of consensus, a topic agreed on ahead of time can facilitate preparation and focused discussion. Asking participants to suggest and then read, watch, or listen to material relevant to the selected topic can also enable meaningful dialogue. First, identify the range of viewpoints and what values, experiences, methods, and priorities undergird them. Second, listen to understand. Ensure all parties have a grasp of participants’ viewpoints and encourage participants to ask questions to clarify misunderstandings. Third, once different views are established and understood, locate areas of agreement (where consensus might be achieved) and areas of disagreement (where consensus might not be possible or even desirable). Fourth, develop appreciation of the nature of the disagreements and how fundamental they are (e.g., agreement on conservation goals but not practices vs. fundamental disagreement on goals) as a basis for potential agreement or for recognizing and even celebrating viewpoint difference. Fifth, manage in a fair and inclusive way different views and conflicts that may emerge. Sixth, create space for introspection and reflection among participants to inform postconversation agreements, including about whether and how to continue the conversation. First, gather feedback to learn how the conversation went from the perspective of those involved, especially from individuals and groups historically marginalized in conservation, and identify what to do differently in future conversations. Second, follow through to implement and assess plans and agreements made. Soulé (1985, p. 727) labeled conservation biology as “multidisciplinary,” “synthetic,” and “eclectic” and explicitly noted the need for insights from the social sciences. Since then, the field of CSS has emerged and grown markedly (Miller et al., 2023). However, its development and integration with conservation more generally are far from complete. Much work still focuses on biological processes rather than important, but often harder-to-measure, social factors (Hicks et al., 2016). A more comprehensive and dynamic understanding of conservation capable of informing effective action to maintain and restore biodiversity requires valuing various ways of knowing and knowledges. To grow further, conservation research, training, policy, and practice must embrace the diversity of methodologies, philosophies, and insights from the social sciences and beyond. In so doing, CSS can mature as a field that rigorously examines the myriad social dimensions of conservation and human–nature interactions in a rapidly changing world. How integration of the broad and diverse array of social sciences in conservation might occur—and vice versa—remains an open question. We simply stress such a process must start with frank conversations that recognize the plurality of views, values, and approaches in the social sciences and beyond. The social sciences can help improve understanding of the varieties of conservation, support conservation practice, and imagine other ways it could be carried out. As a field, CSS can also present a productive forum for conversations about potential synergies among different goals, while navigating trade-offs. Embracing the principles described here and revising them based on experience will help foster greater equality, respect, and trust necessary for better conversations among participants in varied conservation-related debates. Doing so will require patience and humility. However, it is our firm belief that better conversations are a necessary first step toward better research, better policies, and better practices capable of transforming currently unsustainable trajectories to a world of mutual flourishing for people and biodiversity. We thank F. Liberali and her research group at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, T. Osborne, participants at the 2023 FLARE Annual Meeting in Nairobi, and 4 anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier version of this article. We thank Wiley for permission to draw from the concluding chapter of Conservation Social Science: Understanding People and the Conservation of Biodiversity, edited by Miller et al. (2023). This work was supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (grant 05-83705-000-GSS).