Doing social science with conservation 87


through new ‘engagements and collaborations with scien- tists, farmers, hunters, indigenous peoples, activists, and ar- tists’ (van Dooren et al., 2016,p. 5). To these, we add collaborations between social scientists and conservation professionals. Such collaborations could, for example, docu- ment and raise awareness about the importance of non- human labour in implementing conservation projects (Fair & McMullen, 2023) or about the ways in which non- human entities should be taken seriously as stakeholders of conservation efforts (Tryggestad et al., 2013). This would strengthen the position of professionals such as the Haitian agronomist in negotiations with donors, potentially reshaping the temporal (and other) boundaries of projects to accommodate non-human life.


Discussion


Our reflections on the project model demonstrate the value of cross-disciplinary engagement between conservation professionals and social scientists. Even though the project model could be considered a relatively abstract issue, so ubiquitous that it is difficult to discern, we have shown that conservation professionals do reflect on its effects and work to overcome its limitations. Conservation professionals can help to ground, validate


and refine academic analyses of the project model (and, by extension, analyses of conservation at large), and yet their experiences are under-represented in the literature on the project model. This omission is a missed opportunity to learn from a rich, if largely informal and undocumented, body of intellectual work. In return, social scientists can pro- vide professionals with the space and time to explore critical questions about the power relations, organizational struc- tures and socio-political contexts of their work. The practice of co-reflexivity can validate and deepen these reflections by putting them in dialogue with each other, connecting them with social science concepts, theories and case studies, and organizing them in an analytical way. However, as our lim- ited set of examples demonstrates, there is a wide diversity of conservation professionals, and their capacities to engage with social science and enact change vary in ways that may not be completely resolved by co-reflexivity. Our process of thinking and writing together has identi-


fied several important questions for further research with both theoretical and practical relevance. How does the pro- ject model shape organizational structures? How do these influence conservation subjectivities and impede reflexivity? How is it possible to redesign organizational structures to empower local-national staff? How do projects’ fixed aims and timeframes structure relations between conservation professionals and communities? How do these relations transcend or transform the project model? How do project structures affect the living world beyond people?


Addressing questions such as these through a practice of


co-reflexivity could help to formulate responses to the project model. For example, co-producing critique could empower professionals to voice and act on their concerns more actively. With a clearer view of the economic, political and social struc- tures at play, they could champion organizational reforms, in- sist on more integrated and realistic project designs or even occasionally prioritize localneedsand relationshipsoverproject deliverables. In addition, documenting processes of reflexivity can strengthen the evidence base required to convince funders to allow more time for meaningful connections to unfold. For instance, case studies could showhow project structures under- mine relationships or how conservation professionals work around these restrictions to form productive relationships with colleagues, communities and non-human entities. Co-reflexivity, as a form of social science with conserva-


tion in which the two meet on equal footing, can thus high- light critical insights and questions with the potential to catalyse beneficial changes in the conservation sector. This can be a starting point for other forms of collaborative re- search. Social scientists and conservationists could, for ex- ample, take up the work of critical action intellectuals (Ojha et al., 2022), who mobilize their research to transform environmental governance. Alternatively, co-reflexivity could help identify opportunities to expand repertoires of interdisciplinary research for conservation (Caudron et al., 2012) by addressing more sensitive topics. Such collabora- tions would be well placed to produce insights into the ex- periences of local-national conservation professionals that anthropological approaches have struggled to capture (Kiik, 2019) aswell as to provide important lessons for conservation practice on topics that individual conservation professionals by themselves may not be able to address (Staddon, 2021). Future co-reflexivity could include interdisciplinary pa-


nels in academic conferences, such as at the 2021 Royal Anthropological Institute’s Anthropology and Conservation Conference. A limitation we encountered, however, was that local-national staff could not participate in our panel because of financial and bureaucratic hurdles even though their experiences are crucial for understanding project- based conservation. To overcome this limitation, larger or- ganizations could hire social scientists to facilitate processes of co-reflexivity internally, or donors could fund reflexive processes with staff from multiple smaller organizations. Additionally, in view of the important role of funders in facilitating change in conservation (Blackwatters et al., 2023), future work could engage funders in processes of co-reflexivity. Finally, further integrating social science modules into conservation science curricula is essential to acquaint students with reflexivity and set a foundation to engage in productive interdisciplinary dialogues. Our call for social science with conservation does not di-


minish the need for nuanced social science on and for con- servation. Social science on conservation remains necessary


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