Credibility and advocacy in conservation science

The effects of self-disclosure and gender on a climate scientist's credibility and likability on social media

To examine whether different types of disclosure made by climate scientists on social media influence perceived source credibility (i.e. competence, integrity, benevolence) and likability, we conducted a 2 (self-disclosure type: personal vs political) × 3 (proportion of posts including a self-disclosure: 20% vs 50% vs 80%) × 2 (gender identity of scientist: male vs female) between-subjects experiment (N = 734). We found that people liked the scientist more for a personal than political disclosure, rated them as being more competent for a political disclosure, and liked a female scientist more than a male scientist. However, scientist's gender did not moderate the effect of disclosure type or the effect of participants' gender. Our results suggest distinct benefits when scientists deliver different types of messages on social media, although disclosure is unlikely to have substantial effects on lay judgments of scientists' credibility.

The role of gender in peer-group perceptions of climate scientists' media statements

This research explores whether environmental scientists perceive their male and female peers differently when making statements in the media including policy advocacy. Environmental scientists in the United Kingdom were provided with a media statement by a fictitious scientist containing a mixture of scientific information and advocacy, and asked to rate the statement against various attributes. Attributes were designed to represent stereotypes associated with male and female tendencies, and with science (impartial objectivity) and the media (dramatic narrative). The statements were randomly assigned to one of two male and two female scientists. Where the statements were attributed to a female scientist, male environmental scientists rated the fictitious scientist as significantly more 'dramatic' and 'biased' than their female counterparts did. These gendered attributes are typically held as contrary to the norms of science, suggesting an implicit bias among male scientists when reviewing their female peers' media statements.

Understanding and avoiding misplaced efforts in conservation

Conservation relies on cooperation among different interest groups and appropriate use of evidence to make decisions that benefit people and biodiversity. However, misplaced conservation occurs when cooperation and evidence are impeded by polarization and misinformation. This impedance influences actions that directly harm biodiversity, alienate partners and disrupt partnerships, waste resources, misinform the public, and (or) delegitimize evidence. As a result of these actions, misplaced conservation outcomes emerge, making it more difficult to have positive outcomes for biodiversity. Here we describe cases where a failed appreciation for cooperation, evidence, or both have eroded efforts to conserve biodiversity. Generally, these case studies illustrate that averting misplaced conservation requires greater adherence to processes that elevate the role of evidence in decision-making and that place collective, long-term benefits for biodiversity over the short-term gains of individuals or groups. Efforts to integrate human dimensions, cooperation, and evidence into conservation will increase the efficacy and success of efforts to conserve global biodiversity while benefiting humanity.

From a variety of ethics to the integrity and congruence of research on biodiversity conservation

This article aims to find the elements that are required for a common ethical approach that is suitable for the different perspectives adopted in integrative biodiversity conservation research. A general reflection on the integrity of research is a priority worldwide, with a common aim to promote good research practice. Beyond the relationship between researcher and research subject, the integrity of research is considered in a broader perspective which entails scientific integrity towards society. In research involving a variety of disciplines and a diversity of legal and ethical frameworks, there is a need of harmony between different sets of values. The notion of congruence (or more pragmatically, alignment) reflects the consistency of ethics in research within the biodiversity conservation's community of researchers. It also bears on the coherence of values shared between the scientific community and society. We examine the notion of research integrity in a broad sense. This examination is to be conducted in relation to the goal of protecting ecological integrity, which is at the core of biodiversity conservation. The notion of integrity constraints should be investigated further to develop a pragmatic response to the need for integrity and congruence in research for biodiversity conservation.

Conflicting demands and shifts between policy and intra-scientific orientation during conservation research programmes

Conservation scientists must meet the sometimes conflicting demands of policy and science, but not necessarily at the same time. We analysed the policy and intra-scientific orientations of research projects on effects of stump extraction on biodiversity, and found shifts over time associated with these demands. Our results indicate that uncertainties related to both factual issues and human decisions are often ignored in policy-oriented reports and syntheses, which could give misleading indications of the reliability or feasibility of any conclusions. The policy versus intra-scientific orientation of the scientific papers generated from the surveyed projects varied substantially, although we argue that in applied research, societal relevance is generally more important than intra-scientific relevance. To make conservation science more socially relevant, there is a need for giving societal relevance higher priority, paying attention to uncertainties and increasing the awareness of the value of cross-disciplinary research considering human decisions and values.