Literature DB >> 31953971

Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people.

Stephanie Brittain1,2, Harriet Ibbett1,3, Emiel de Lange4, Leejiah Dorward1,3, Simon Hoyte5, Agnese Marino2,5, E J Milner-Gulland1, Julia Newth6,7, Sarobidy Rakotonarivo8, Diogo Veríssimo1,9, Jerome Lewis5.   

Abstract

Social science is becoming increasingly important in conservation, with more studies involving methodologies that collect data from and about people. Conservation science is a normative and applied discipline designed to support and inform management and practice. Poor research practice risks harming participants and, researchers, and can leave negative legacies. Often, those at the forefront of field-based research are early-career researchers, many of whom enter their first research experience ill-prepared for the ethical conundrums they may face. We draw on our own experiences as early-career researchers to illuminate how ethical challenges arise during conservation research that involves human participants. Specifically, we considered ethical review procedures, conflicts of values, and power relations, and devised broad recommendations on how to navigate ethical challenges when they arise during research. In particular, we recommend researchers apply reflexivity (i.e., thinking that allows researchers to recognize the effect researchers have on the research) to help navigate ethical challenges and encourage greater engagement with ethical review processes and the development of ethical guidelines for conservation research that involves human participants. Such guidelines must be accompanied by the integration of rigorous ethical training into conservation education. We believe our experiences are not uncommon and can be avoided and hope to spark discussion to contribute to a more socially just conservation.
© 2020 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ciencias sociales; comités institucionales de revisión; dinámicas de poder; fieldwork; institutional review boards; legacy; legado; power dynamics; reflexividad; reflexivity; social science; trabajo de campo; valores; values; 价值观; 反身性; 机构审查委员会; 权力动力学; 田野调查; 社会科学; 遗留问题

Year:  2020        PMID: 31953971     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13464

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  5 in total

Review 1.  Asking sensitive questions in conservation using Randomised Response Techniques.

Authors:  Harriet Ibbett; Julia P G Jones; Freya A V St John
Journal:  Biol Conserv       Date:  2021-08       Impact factor: 5.990

2.  Woodlot management and livelihoods in a tropical conservation landscape.

Authors:  Karen Bailey; Jonathan Salerno; Peter Newton; Robert Bitariho; Shamilah Namusisi; Rogers Tinkasimire; Joel Hartter
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 5.129

Review 3.  Joining forces toward proactive elephant and rhinoceros conservation.

Authors:  Susanne Marieke Vogel; Maya Pasgaard; Jens-Christian Svenning
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 7.563

4.  Working from the Inside Out: Fostering Intrinsic Motivation and Expanding Our Criteria for Conservation Success.

Authors:  Claire Cardinal; Miranda A Strubel; Aimee S Oxley
Journal:  Int J Primatol       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 5.  Conducting conservation social science surveys online.

Authors:  Chloe B Wardropper; Ashley A Dayer; Madeline S Goebel; Victoria Y Martin
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 7.563

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.