# Improving transparency in conservation social science research to enhance quality, equity, and collaboration

## TL;DR

This paper argues that greater transparency in conservation social science research can improve quality, equity, and collaboration by making researchers' positions and challenges more visible.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a reflexive tool and positionality statement guidance to enhance transparency in conservation social science.

## Key findings

- Many conservation social science papers lack transparency about data collection and researcher backgrounds.
- Key gaps include reporting on language barriers, recruitment strategies, and time spent in the field.
- The authors recommend using first-person writing and reflexive tools to improve research visibility and ethics.

## Abstract

Recognition of the value of multidisciplinary research that bridges natural and social science perspectives has come with calls for conservation scientists to reflect critically on underlying assumptions and power relations involved in the production of knowledge and its application. We propose that improving transparency in conservation social science—around researchers’ positionality, study limitations, and fieldwork challenges—is essential to and depends on enhanced reflexivity and can allow readers to assess research quality, foster ethical research, and support constructive dialogue and collaboration across subdisciplines of conservation science. We assessed gaps and opportunities for enhanced transparency based on an in‐depth review of 39 papers on the social impacts of protected areas published in 12 conservation journals from 2010 to 2022. We evaluated transparency in these publications based on whether authors reported on their collaborations, values, and identity; methodology and methods; data collection; influence of the wider sociopolitical context; potential limitations and challenges; and linked recommendations to evidence. Authors reported consistently on research aims, intended methods, and sampling strategy but provided limited information on their backgrounds; relationships between authors, field teams, and participants; and field site. Gaps included not reporting who collected the data (lacking from 43% of papers), whether data collectors spoke participants’ language (46%), participant recruitment strategy (56%), women's representation in samples (41%), and time spent in the field (28%). Based on our findings, we devised a reflexive tool relevant to field‐based studies and advice on preparing positionality statements for use by researchers, reviewers, and journal editors. We recommend conservation social scientists shift their expectations of what is reflected on and reported in publications, develop positionality statements, engage with other available reflexive tools, and adopt the first person in their writing to make more visible their role and responsibilities in the research process.