By Stephen Chignell, and Terre Satterfield.
In the face of continued biodiversity loss and injustices brought upon people living in and around conservation landscapes, many experts are calling for critical reflection on the narratives driving conservation research and practice. Narratives can be understood as part of a larger process of ‘framing’, or the way the research community defines and discusses a problem.
Frames are often so embedded within an institution or community that they become invisible. Identifying, reflecting on, and even destabilizing entrenched frames can be helpful for understanding longstanding problems in a new way, bringing into view a wider set of facts, values, and possible actions. Key to this is understanding the scholarly processes that construct and maintain some frames and not others. How does this happen in a scientific community over time? What approaches can we use to find out?
To answer these questions, we developed an approach that combines quantitative analysis of scientific articles (mapping collaboration networks, keywords trends, and citations) with qualitative frame reflection (identifying storylines, metaphors, and what is included and excluded). We demonstrated this using the case of the Bale Mountains, an area in Ethiopia that is internationally recognized for its biodiversity. We traced the dominant frame’s presence through the literature, and identified several linked mechanisms that help explain why some frames endure over time:
- Persistent overreliance on the work of early actors
- Limited collaboration and citation across research communities
- Repetition of key ideas despite minimal supporting evidence, with subsequent circulation in non-traditional and non-peer-reviewed (“grey”) literature
- Assuming a process in one place applies in another based on shared metaphors or categories
- Continued citing of old influential studies despite new, contradictory evidence
- Using an article’s discussion section to uphold original frames when the results fail to uphold or counter initial assumptions
We believe these are the result of habit, not intention, and may also be at work in other contexts. Moving forward, we need greater cross-pollination, cross-training, and mindfulness about how we cite and write. We hope our study stimulates discussion on the influence of frames in biodiversity research and conservation practice, and provides a useful approach for recognizing and—if necessary—readjusting the frames we think with.
Relational Thinking 