Throughout March and April, we are featuring articles shortlisted for the 2024 Robert May Prize. The Robert May Prize is awarded by the British Ecological Society each year for the best paper in Methods in Ecology and Evolution written by an early career author. Omar Saif’s article ‘Fieldwork in conservation organisations–A review of methodological challenges, opportunities and ethics‘ is one of those shortlisted for the award.

The paper

What is your shortlisted paper about, and what are you seeking to answer with your research?  

This paper’s long term vision is about how we can transform conservation for the better. Transformation for me means a socially just conservation, where IP&LCs lead conservation project implementation alongside traditional implementers, and where degradation to nature is addressed not only in conservation areas but in wider landscapes where conservation interventions seriously tackle profit-driven industries. As conservation organisations are the main actors driving the conservation movement, to bring about such transformation, we need to know how organisations work and how they can change. Research on organisations and their practices, however, is not yet common practice and there are significant hurdles to convince conservation to be more open to critical inquiry. This paper therefore explicitly explores what the barriers are to researching organizations, the ethical considerations involved and their receptiveness to critique from diverse expertise such as critical social science. Now that this black box has been opened by our research, we hope organisations hesitation to welcome researchers lessens.  

Were you surprised by anything when working on it?  Did you have any challenges to overcome? 

We were expecting many more studies to discuss the issue of researcher access and sensitivities involved in studying organisations, since it is a relatively challenging location for fieldwork. However, out of 211 studies which involved the study of conservation organisations, only 26 contained substantive detail on these issues. Another surprising finding was evidence that conservationists appreciated this critical research, which often aligned with their own frustrations working in organisations. A methodological challenge was defining what an in-depth study of an organization constituted and indeed sometimes what an organization is given their great diversity in the conservation sector. 

What is the next step in this field going to be?  

Although we revealed critical challenges and opportunities that existed in studying conservation organizations, it was based on the published and grey literature. To understand the barriers in more depth, conducting first-hand interviews of both social science researchers and conservation practitioners would be necessary. The next step must also be taken by conservation organizations themselves, to invite critical social scientists into their organisations for extended periods and opening up spaces for them to study.  A promising direction in this field will also be the engagement of donors. Open discussions can point to how failure and organisational learning differ, and donors have a responsibility to encourage more reflection by organisations on their challenges – critical social scientists as a collective can help mediate this. 

What are the broader impacts or implications of your research for policy or practice?   

This research demonstrated that although there are many studies of organisations by critical social scientists, there is not yet any institutional architecture or substantive forums to open this discussion and mainstream research on conservation organisations as common practice. To address this, our paper first highlighted the benefits to conservation practice and social justice that can be achieved by studying organizations and making insightful changes to daily workings. Second, our paper shows what hurdles need overcoming to get to the point where critical but empathetic research on organizations’ decisions becomes commonplace. 

The author

How did you get involved in ecology?  

I became involved in ecology when I was studying in Sheffield, United Kingdom. As a rock climber, I used to visit the Peak District National Park. An incident occurred where climbing became banned in one area and I started to ask who has the authority to govern nature and choose who has access, who can utilise resources and who cannot? This led me to study conservation science through a Masters at Imperial College London and I have not looked back, although I now engage with ecology and conservation through social science. 

What is your current position? 

I am a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Wildlife Conservation Society Cambodia. 

Have you continued the research your paper is about? 

I had written this paper during my PhD as a preparation for fieldwork because I was in need of guidance for how to study a conservation organisation myself, such as advice on what methods would be needed and what ethical challenges I would face. Therefore, the latter part of my PhD involved following the paper’s recommendations as I worked alongside a large conservation organisation in Nepal. Together, the organization and I are now discussing how to publish the research I produced, some of it critical, while simultaneously empathetic to the broader cultural-conditions and economy they must work within. 

What one piece of advice would you give to someone in your field?  

Niche research directions that are novel often seem attractive because of their uniqueness but there is the tendency that such work struggles to gain relevance and traction. You as the researcher have done a lot of thinking and reflection to get to the point of crafting a research question and answering it with appropriate methods.  However, there often remains a large gap between what one is pushing for, such as transformation on the one hand and the barriers to achieve it in practice. I have learnt that some things that we want to change, be they particular organizations or otherwise, are simply not ready. The nuanced research we produce is often too far from the political possibilities in that setting and context. It is not an issue of the research, per se, thus not a cause to be disheartened, because taking novel thinking and evidence elsewhere can create meaningful change. Keep the original place in mind and one day they may be more receptive.