Conservation Science and Discursive Violence: A Response to Two Rejoinders

0Citations
Citations of this article
3Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We respond to two rejoinders to our review article “Science for Success,” which proposed fuller contextualization of epistemological approach, researcher position and interests in conservation research. This way readers—including reviewers and journal editors—can better understand and interpret findings. We suggest this contextualization is particularly important when conservation and development professionals undertake research about programs they are involved in, as this can potentially create a conflict of interest. Both rejoinders follow an extended process of complaint about our article that included academic and legal threats, and ad hominem attacks, with little engagement with the points made about researcher positionality. We consider this to be a form of “discursive violence” deployed to silence unfavorable perspectives, confirming our argument that positionality in conservation (research) begs self-reflection and transparent disclosure.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Koot, S., Hebinck, P., & Sullivan, S. (2022). Conservation Science and Discursive Violence: A Response to Two Rejoinders. Society and Natural Resources. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2064023

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free