546 William M. Adams
(e.g. sections in Oryx on gender in November 2021, human rights in May 2023, and human–wildlife interactions in July 2023). So, has Homo conservationensis learned to ‘think like the
human’ they are (cf. Adams, 2007)? Somewhat. Most conservationists still study biology first, but they are often now taught about human society, and how to research it (especially in graduate courses). There is a considerable literature on conservation social science for them to read (Scales et al., 2023). Yet conservation research remains narrow and empirical in the questions it asks about human society. Papers on people in conservation journals tend to be quantitative and not qualitative in method and often appear without any discussion of theories about how societies work. Many are relatively narrow in disciplinary terms, drawing on economics, sociology or psychology more than on anthropology, political science, human geog- raphy or political ecology—let alone the humanities, where debates about being human and non-human (fundamental to conservation) are both rich and compelling. So, although Homo conservationensis has certainly
started to try to understand humans and their societies and economies, we do so with the caution of laboratory scientists poking a novel virus in a containment lab. We are also more comfortable using social science to look out at society than to look in, at ourselves (social science for con- servation not social science on conservation; Sandbrook et al., 2013). This is understandable, but short-sighted. The comparison with development studies, a discipline predi- cated on the eradication of poverty, is instructive. Critical analysis of development policy and its powerful institutions (the World Bank for example) is regarded as essential to keep development efforts moving and on course. If I am allowed one last observation, it is about how
Homo conservationensis writes, and for whom. Conservation debates, at least within academic journals, too easily become a dialogue among relatively privileged researchers (Gossa et al., 2014). The promotional games beloved within univer- sities reward so-called impact, but too many papers are speculative, outlining methods, procedures and tools for people on the ground who don’t have the time to read about them, or the freedom, money or power to try them. Moreover, the clipped, passive–aggressive style of academic writing often serves, as Latin did for medieval clerics, to dis- tance ordinary people. Yet conservation depends on such people utterly, both conservationists on the ground, and the many other individuals, communities and interest groups affected by what they think, say and do. So it is important to write in ways that non-academics
will understand. Complex ideas, and complex data, do not need to be unreadable (as the Economist demonstrates on a weekly basis). And while we are thinking about communi- cation, surely formal research papers are only one way to get ideas across: how about poetry, song (Veríssimo, 2024),
fiction (Brockington, 2024) or satire (Adams, 2010)? Not all ideas are best expressed in stilted academic prose. Greater diversity of conservation writing (with all it risks in terms of potential loss of scientific authority and power) seems to me an important part of speaking, and thinking, like a nature-caring human.
This Editorial and the Oryx articles cited are available as a vir- tual issue at
cambridge.org/core/journals/oryx/virtual-issues.
Acknowledgements My thanks to Martin Fisher for many years of wisdom and sound advice.
References
ADAMS,W.M. (2007) Thinking like a Human: science and the two cultures problem. Oryx, 43, 275–276.
ADAMS,W.M. (2010) Conservation plc. Oryx, 44, 482–484. ADAMS,W.M. & HULME,D.(2001) If community conservation is the answer, what is the question? Oryx, 35, 193–200.
BROCKINGTON,D.(2024) Samti and the Forest Thief. Africa Proper Education Network, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
CARPENTER, A.I. & ROBSON,O.(2005) A review of the endemic chameleon genus Brookesia from Madagascar, and the rationale for its listing on CITES Appendix II. Oryx, 39, 375–380.
ELTRINGHAM, S.K. (1994) Can wildlife pay its way? Oryx, 28, 163–168. FISHER,M.(2019) The small, the hidden and the less loved: conserving other species. Oryx, 53, 199–200.
FISHER,M.(2020) Democratizing knowledge for conservation: Oryx becomes open access. Oryx, 54, 591–592.
GOSSA, C., FISHER,M. & MILNER-GULLAND, E.J. (2014) The research–implementation gap: how practitioners and researchers from developing countries perceive the role of peer-reviewed literature in conservation science. Oryx, 49, 80–87.
KOTHARI,A.(2021) Half-Earth or Whole-Earth? Green or transformative recovery? Where are the voices from the Global South? Oryx, 55, 161–162.
LORIMER,J.(2015)Wildlife in the Anthropocene: Conservation after Nature. Minnesota University Press, Minneapolis, USA.
MILNER-GULLAND, E.J. (2021) The global conservation movement is divided but not diverse: reflections on 2020. Oryx, 55, 321–322.
PRENDERGAST, D.K. & ADAMS,W.M. (2003) Colonial wildlife conservation and the origins of the Society for the Preservation of theWild Fauna of the Empire (1903–1914). Oryx, 37, 251–260.
REDFORD, K.E. (2023) Extending conservation to include Earth’s microbiome. Conservation Biology, 37,e14088.
SANDBROOK, C.S. (2015) What is conservation? Oryx, 49, 565–566. SANDBROOK, C.S., ADAMS,W.M., BÜSCHER,B.&VIRA,B.(2013) Social research and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 27, 1487–1490.
SCALES, I., MILLER D.C. & MASCIA,M.(2023) (eds) Conservation Social Science: Understanding People, Conserving Biodiversity, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
SPWFE (1904) Memorial to the Right Honorable Earl Cromer, K.C.B. and the Governor-General of the Sudan. Journal of the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire, 1, 2–4.
VERÍSSIMO,D.(2024)
x.com/verissimodiogo/status/ 1787525098364153880 [accessed 9 July 2024].
WALPOLE, M.J. & LEADER-WILLIAMS,N.(2002) Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 11, 543–547.
Oryx, 2024, 58(5), 545–546 © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324001285
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
