Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39587026›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2024

Enhancing disciplinary diversity and inclusion in conservation science and practice based on a case study of the Society for Conservation Biology.

Sophia Winkler-Schor, Harold N Eyster, Diele Lobo, Lauren Redmore, Andrew J Wright, Victoria M Lukasik, Wendy Chávez-Páez, Brooke Tully, Sarah Beard, Kwan-Lamar Blount-Hill and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Use of theories of human action in recent conservation research.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Review
  2. Conservation and the social sciences revisited.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  3. A framework for promoting disciplinary diversity and inclusion through epistemic justice.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Sophia Winkler-SchorNelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3120-0772
Harold N EysterGund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5571-3126
Diele LoboInstitute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9750-8721
Lauren RedmoreAldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, Montana, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7116-1467
Andrew J WrightEnvironmental Science and Policy Department, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8718-8143
Victoria M LukasikDepartment of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0879-5170
Wendy Chávez-PáezCenter for Development Research, Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0009-0001-3624-8361
Brooke TullyBrooke Tully LLC, New York, New York, USA.
Sarah BeardWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre, UN Environment Programme, Cambridge, UK.
Kwan-Lamar Blount-HillSchool of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5471-0812
Catherine ChristenSmithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Smithsonian Institution, Front Royal, Virginia, USA.
Zoe NyssaDepartment of Anthropology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0565-8971

Funding

Society for Conservation Biology
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective conservation requires a variety of perspectives that center on different ways of knowing. Disciplinary diversity and inclusion (DDI) offers an important means of integrating different ways of knowing into pressing conservation challenges. However, DDI means more than multiple disciplinary approaches to conservation; cognitive diversity and epistemic justice are key. In 2020, the Disciplinary Inclusion Task Force was formed via a grassroots movement of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) to assess the extent of DDI and to chart a path to increase DDI. First, we assessed past and present SCB governance documents. Next, we surveyed current SCB members (n = 577). Finally, we surveyed nonmember conservationists (n = 213). Members who were not biological scientists perceived SCB as less diverse (21.4% vs. 16%) and not equitable (21.8% vs. 161%), and, although the majority (44) of nonmembers reported that their work aligned reasonably well with the mission of the SCB, they thought the organization focused on biological sciences. Despite SCB's mission to be diverse and inclusive, realizing this mission will likely require diverse epistemological perspectives and shifting from top-down models of knowledge transfer. In centering on DDI, SCB can achieve its aspirations of connecting members across disciplines and ways of knowing to foster diverse perspectives and practices. We recommend that SCB and other organizations develop mechanisms to increase recruitment and retention of diverse members and leadership as well as expand strategic partnerships to flatten disciplinary hierarchies and promote inclusivity.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesBiologySocieties, Scientificconservation societydisciplinariodisciplinarydiversidaddiversityequidadequityinclusioninclusióninterdisciplinariointerdisciplinaryprofessional societysociedad de la conservaciónsociedad profesionaltransdisciplinariotransdisciplinary

Identifiers

PMID39587026
PMCPMC11588979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.