Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34324013›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental management2021

Expanded Ethical Principles for Research Partnership and Transdisciplinary Natural Resource Management Science.

Hailey Wilmer, Alison M Meadow, Amanda Bentley Brymer, Stephanie Russo Carroll, Daniel B Ferguson, Ibrahim Garba, Christina Greene, Gigi Owen, Dannele E Peck

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge is critical for nature-based solutions to contribute to just urban transformations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Hailey WilmerUSDA-ARS Sheep Production Efficiency Research, Dubois, ID, USA. hailey.wilmer@usda.gov.ORCID 0000-0003-0810-9687
Alison M MeadowArizona Institutes for Resilience, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Amanda Bentley BrymerDepartment of Natural Resources and Society, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA.
Stephanie Russo CarrollCollege of Public Health and Native Nations Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Daniel B FergusonDepartment of Environmental Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Ibrahim GarbaCollege of Public Health and Native Nations Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Christina GreeneClimate Assessment for the Southwest, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Gigi OwenClimate Assessment for the Southwest, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Dannele E PeckNorthern Plains Climate Hub, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
University of Arizona · USAgricultural Research Service · USAgricultural Research Service - Plains Area · USUniversity of Idaho · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural resource researchers have long recognized the value of working closely with the managers and communities who depend on, steward, and impact ecosystems. These partnerships take various forms, including co-production and transdisciplinary research approaches, which integrate multiple knowledges in the design and implementation of research objectives, questions, methods, and desired outputs or outcomes. These collaborations raise important methodological and ethical challenges, because partnering with non-scientists can have real-world risks for people and ecosystems. The social sciences and biomedical research studies offer a suite of conceptual tools that enhance the quality, ethical outcomes, and effectiveness of research partnerships. For example, the ethical guidelines and regulations for human subjects research, following the Belmont Principles, help prevent harm and promote respectful treatment of research participants. However, science-management partnerships require an expanded set of ethical concepts to better capture the challenges of working with individuals, communities, organizations, and their associated ecosystems, as partners, rather than research subjects. We draw from our experiences in collaborative teams, and build upon the existing work of natural resources, environmental health, conservation and ecology, social science, and humanities scholars, to develop an expanded framework for ethical research partnership. This includes four principles: (1) appropriate representation, (2) self-determination, (3) reciprocity, and (4) deference, and two cross-cutting themes: (1) applications to humans and non-human actors, and (2) acquiring appropriate research skills. This framework is meant to stimulate important conversations about expanding ethics training and skills for researchers in all career-stages to improve partnerships and transdisciplinary natural resources research.

Indexed as

EcologyEcosystemCommunicationHumansNatural ResourcesResearch PersonnelCommunityIndigenous data sovereigntyReciprocitySocial scienceStakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID34324013
OpenAlexW3183416359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.