82 V. Schreer et al.


exemplified by the opening quote of this paper from Deni. However, there have been ‘comparatively fewer cases where reflexive practices were explicitly integrated into institu- tional or group processes’ (Pienkowski et al., 2023,p. 10). Furthermore, as Staddon (2021,p. 9) found amongst com- munity forestry practitioners in Nepal, conservation profes- sionals are often not able to work with their critical insights, as their organizations may not support critique, and donors and funders tend to value quantitative over qualitative evi- dence. The same issues pertained to Deni: he formulated an astute critique of conservation but seemed powerless to act on it. How then can we work with such critiques? We suggest that one way forward is to encourage what


we call co-reflexivity between conservation professionals and social scientists from variousfieldsand disciplines. Co-reflexivity involves a process of collaboratively developing critical yet constructive perspectives on and approaches to conservation to enhance the conservation–social sciences rela- tionship. Thismethod is thus a relational practice that pushes the idea of reflexivity beyond self-reflection in two ways. Firstly, self-awareness results here not only from individual self-reflection, but is also actively encouraged, developed and shaped through shared reflections with others. Secondly, in addition to considering how identities, values and preferences influence perspectives, evaluations, actions and relations, co-reflexivity takes into account the ways contextual factors such as historical trajectories, political conditions and the physical environmentimpactconservationpractice. Social scientists have the methodological tools to reveal


and validate the qualitative insights resulting from shared reflections because reflexivity is a central aspect of their training. They can situate these reflections in the literature to draw empirical comparisons and demonstrate that conservationists’ experiences are usually valid, sometimes widely shared and possibly important to overcoming con- servation challenges. In turn, conservation professionals can provide grounding, validation and fine-tuning for the concepts and theories developed by social scientists. In this way, co-reflexivity could help social scientists deal with the challenges they face because of knowledge hier- archies within conservation organizations (Claus, 2022). The idea of co-reflexivity builds on growing efforts to es-


tablish productive interdisciplinary dialogues between crit- ical social scientists and conservationists (Eghenter, 2008; Peterson et al., 2010; Chua et al., 2020; Fair et al., 2023). Co-reflexivity, we contend, provides a promising alternative to the dichotomy between ‘social science for or on conserva- tion’ (Sandbrook et al., 2013,p. 1487), in which social re- search is either used to support existing models and goals of conservation, or social scientists provide at times overly critical accounts of conservation that are not necessarily or- iented towards constructive impact. Although it can be a matter of disciplinary and personal ethics for critical social scientists, such as political ecologists, to distance themselves


from conservation to better contest the sector’s colonial legacy of social injustice and racialized dispossession (Brockington et al., 2008; Milne, 2022; Fair et al., 2023), a rigid dichotomy between co-production and critique can re- inforce a problematic ‘separation of critical thought from action’ (Perry, 2022,p. 350). Moreover, we argue, the distinc- tion between social science for or on conservation insuffi- ciently accommodates the aspirations of many critical social scientists to contribute actively to conservation efforts (Massarella et al., 2021; Claus, 2022; Fair et al., 2023) and the increasing (if largely informal) tendencies for critical intro- spection amongst conservation professionals (Pienkowski et al., 2023). Taking up the call for critical social science to go beyond just critiquing conservation professionals and instead ‘to offer solidarity and support in promoting knowl- edge practices that recognize and resist injustices’ (Staddon, 2021,p. 13), we seek to demonstrate the potential of what we call social science with conservation, in which social scientists and conservation professionals co-produce critique (Fig. 1). We illustrate this through an exploration of the project


model, the dominant mode of operation in conservation as well as many other sectors, which organizes activity into distinct, target-oriented and temporally bounded units that can be funded, implemented and evaluated separately (Lundin, 2016). Through ‘sustained conversa- tions’ (West & Brockington, 2006,p. 614), a form of collaboration in which social scientists and conservation professionals engage in genuine reflection over an extended period of time, we put insights from social science research on project-based conservation into dialogue with conservation professionals’ experiences, analyses and responses to project work. Given the significance of the project model in conservation and beyond, we hope our paper will stimulate further exploration of this topic whilst simultaneously serving as a case study on how co-reflexiv- ity can facilitate productive engagements between conser- vation and social science. Here we first describe the process of co-reflexivity


through which this paper emerged and the data on which the analysis draws. Subsequently, we outline the basic tenets of the project model and how it structures and restricts conservation practices. We then showcase three critical perspectives on the project model developed through co-reflexivity. Finally, we discuss the implications of our analysis and possible ways forward.


Methods


Our analysis builds on a process of joint reflection and co-writing on the structures and effects of the project model in conservation. We first discussed our experiences with project-based conservation at a panel at the Royal Anthropological Institute’s Anthropology and Conservation


Oryx, 2025, 59(1), 81–90 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324000747


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140