ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2024
A framework for promoting disciplinary diversity and inclusion through epistemic justice.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of theories of human action in recent conservation research.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Review
- A framework for promoting disciplinary diversity and inclusion through epistemic justice.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024Article
- Enhancing disciplinary diversity and inclusion in conservation science and practice based on a case study of the Society for Conservation Biology.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Integrating diverse disciplines and knowledge practices into conservation offers new insights into the complex socioecological dynamics of conservation challenges and how to address them. Integration, however, is not simple; disciplines differ widely in their epistemic and professional commitments, theories, methods, applications, practices, and codes of ethics. Using an epistemic justice approach, we examined how and why different forms of disciplinary and social diversity are connected and offer a framework for promoting disciplinary diversity for conservation science and practice. This framework draws on a literature review and open-ended responses from surveys of Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) members (n = 577) and nonmembers (n = 213) on experiences of professional and disciplinary exclusion and inclusion collected by SCB's Disciplinary Inclusion Task Force. We propose 4 steps conservation organizations and projects can take to promote disciplinary diversity and inclusion: know your history; understand power dynamics; listen to underrepresented voices; and operationalize disciplinary diversity and inclusion. As members of a highly interdisciplinary and diverse task force, we illustrated this framework through reflections on our shared experiences working together and the challenges and opportunities we faced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.