Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40165691›Full record

ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

A social network analysis of an epistemic community studying neoliberal conservation.

Brittany Bunce, Elia Apostolopoulou, Sara Maestre Andres, Alejandra Pizarro Choy, Marina Requena-I-Mora, Dan Brockington

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Emergence, exclusion, and unresolved horizons: Response to Bunce et al. (2025).Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  3. A social network analysis of an epistemic community studying neoliberal conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Review
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

6 authors.

Brittany BunceInstitut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4872-4238
Elia ApostolopoulouCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Sara Maestre AndresInstitut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB), Barcelona, Spain.
Alejandra Pizarro ChoySchool of Geography and Sustainable Development, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland.ORCID 0000-0001-6389-3473
Marina Requena-I-MoraInstitut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB), Barcelona, Spain.
Dan BrockingtonInstitut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5692-0154

Funding

European Research Council 101054259European Research Council CONDJUSTEuropean Research Council ERCMaría de Maeztu, Spanish Ministry of Science and InnovationWomen for Africa Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers typically operate in epistemic communities: groups that share common approaches to research agendas and sociopolitical action and define areas of debate. Although productive in their own spheres, a lack of understanding among these communities can undermine scientific progress. Thus, analyzing epistemic communities is important for understanding the politics of knowledge production. Social network analysis sheds light on these dynamics by mapping the collaborative networks that shape academic output. We used 255 publications examined in Apostolopoulou et al.'s review of neoliberal conservation literature and 2135 additional publications in a social network analysis. We compiled a coauthorship network for 318 authors and found a dispersed and polycentric network with low connectivity and relatively small clusters of scholars collaborating within tightly knit groups. Although the structure is conducive to innovation and diversity, building new connections among dispersed coauthor groups could enrich knowledge sharing to drive novel approaches. We identified central actors in building collaborations among communities and communicating ideas across the network. We considered actor attributes, such as gender and geographic location, alongside centrality measures. We found that seventy percent of the 20 authors with the highest betweenness centrality were men, and only one male author was affiliated to an institution in the Global South. Our analysis of thematic clusters in the literature highlighted the spatial patchiness and partialness of the literature across different subfields. Scholars should undertake more work on identified themes in currently excluded geographic regions through effective interdisciplinary collaborations and with local communities of research and practice and grassroots movements. There is a need to strengthen the field's intellectual diversity and to have a deeper engagement with issues of class, gender, and race. This would allow neoliberal conservation to reimagine conservation in ways that are not only environmentally sustainable, but also socially just.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesPoliticsSocial Network AnalysisCooperative BehaviorKnowledgeanálisis de redes de coautoríaanálisis de redes socialesciencias sociales de la conservacióncoauthorship network analysiscomunidad epistémicaconservación neoliberalconservation social scienceepistemic communitiesneoliberal conservationsocial network analysis保护社会科学合著网络分析新自由主义保护社会网络分析认识论群体

Identifiers

PMID40165691
PMCPMC11959346

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.