ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
Navigating scale and interdisciplinary dynamics in conservation social science.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Navigating scale and interdisciplinary dynamics in conservation social science.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To better understand and address global human-environment crises, interdisciplinary collaborations across the natural and social sciences have become increasingly common in conservation. Within such collaborations, the question of scale can cause tensions: how to agree on the unit of measurement and analysis? We contend there is value in scrutinizing the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scale more closely. Drawing on 2 research projects in Indonesia that integrate cultural anthropology and conservation biology, we focused on how these collaborations navigated questions of scale. We sought to illustrate that the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scale choices should be understood as situated in the context of the accelerating drive to scale up conservation science and practice impact. Current conservation discourse around scale deeply affects 3 interconnected factors: ethical and strategic considerations, epistemological parity, and institutional structures. However, interdisciplinary efforts can engage these factors in different ways that have implications for how research unfolds and responds to the push to scale up conservation. To cultivate more robust and resilient interdisciplinary collaborations between the natural and the social sciences, we recommend centering reflexive practices, recognizing the value of rescaling methods and goals, and reforming funding structures.
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.