Abstract
Natural resource researchers have long recognized the value of working closely with the managers and communities who depend on, steward, and impact ecosystems. These partnerships take various forms, including co-production and transdisciplinary research approaches, which integrate multiple knowledges in the design and implementation of research objectives, questions, methods, and desired outputs or outcomes. These collaborations raise important methodological and ethical challenges, because partnering with non-scientists can have real-world risks for people and ecosystems. The social sciences and biomedical research studies offer a suite of conceptual tools that enhance the quality, ethical outcomes, and effectiveness of research partnerships. For example, the ethical guidelines and regulations for human subjects research, following the Belmont Principles, help prevent harm and promote respectful treatment of research participants. However, science–management partnerships require an expanded set of ethical concepts to better capture the challenges of working with individuals, communities, organizations, and their associated ecosystems, as partners, rather than research subjects. We draw from our experiences in collaborative teams, and build upon the existing work of natural resources, environmental health, conservation and ecology, social science, and humanities scholars, to develop an expanded framework for ethical research partnership. This includes four principles: (1) appropriate representation, (2) self-determination, (3) reciprocity, and (4) deference, and two cross-cutting themes: (1) applications to humans and non-human actors, and (2) acquiring appropriate research skills. This framework is meant to stimulate important conversations about expanding ethics training and skills for researchers in all career-stages to improve partnerships and transdisciplinary natural resources research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams WM, Mulligan M (2003) Decolonizing nature: strategies for conservation in a post-colonial era. Earthscan, London
Alcoff L (1991) The problem of speaking for others. Cult Crit 20:5–32
Allegretti AM, Thompson JL, Laituri M (2015) Engagement and accountability in transdisciplinary space in Mongolia: principles for facilitating a reflective adaptive process in complex teams. Knowl Manag Dev J 11(2):23–43. https://km4djournal.org/index.php/km4dj/article/view/252
Álvarez-Berríos NL et al. (2018) Correlating drought conservation practices and drought vulnerability in a tropical agricultural system. Renew Agriculture Food Syst 33(3):279–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174217051800011X
Bankoff G (2001) Rendering the world unsafe: “vulnerability” as western discourse. Disasters 25(1):19–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00159
Bartlett C et al. (2015) Integrative science and two-eyed seeing: enriching the discussion framework for healthy communities. In: Hallstrom K, Guehlstrof N, Parkes M (eds) Ecosystems, society and health: pathways through diversity, convergence and integration. Ontario, Canada: McGill-Queens University Press, p. 280–326
Bauder H, Engel-DiMauro S (2008) Introduction: critical scholarship, practice and education. In: Bauder H, Engel-DiMauro S (eds) Critical geographies: a collection of readings. Kelowna, B.C., Canada: Praxis (e)Press, p. 1–7
Benda LE et al. (2002) How to avoid train wrecks when using science in environmental problem solving. BioScience 52(12):1127–1136. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[1127:HTATWW]2.0.CO;2
Bettini G (2013) Climate barbarians at the gate? A critique of apocalyptic narratives on “climate refugees”. Geoforum 45:63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.09.009
Biermann C, Mansfield B (2014) Biodiversity, purity, and death: conservation biology as biopolitics. Environ Plan D: Soc Space 32(2):257–273. https://doi.org/10.1068/d13047p
Biggs S (1989) Resource-poor farmer participation in research: a synthesis of experiences from nine national agricultural research systems. In: Organization and management of on-farm client-oriented research. International Service for National Agricultural Research
Bosque-Pérez NA et al. (2016) A pedagogical model for team-based, problem-focused interdisciplinary doctoral education. BioScience 66(6):477–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw042
Bourdieu P (1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Brinkley C (2020) Hardin’s imagined tragedy is pig shit: a call for planning to recenter the commons. Plan Theory 19(1):127–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218820460
Briske DD et al. (2011) Origin, persistence, and resolution of the rotational grazing debate: integrating human dimensions into rangeland research. Rangel Ecol Manag 64(4):325–334. https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-10-00084.1
Brittain S et al. (2020) Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people. Conserv Biol 34(4):925–933. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13464
Brydon-Miller M (2008) Ethics and action research: deepening our commitment to principles of social justice and redefining systems of democratic practice. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The SAGE handbook of action research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, p. 199–210. http://methods.sagepub.com/book/the-sage-handbook-of-action-research/d19.xml. Accessed 17 Nov 2020
Buchanan A (1993) Role of collective rights in the theory of indigenous peoples’ rights. Transnatl Contemp Probl 3:89
Cajete G (2000) Native science: natural laws of interdependence. Clear Light Publishers, Santa Fe, NM
Campbell A, Groundwater-Smith S (2007) An ethical approach to practitioner research: dealing with issues and dilemmas in action research. Routledge, New York
Carroll SR et al. (2020) The CARE Principles for Indigenous data governance. Data Sci J 19(1):43. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043
Carroll SR, Rodriguez-Lonebear D, Martinez A (2019) Indigenous data governance: strategies from United States Native Nations. Data Sci J 18(1):31. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2019-031
Chief K, Meadow A, Whyte K (2016) Engaging southwestern tribes in sustainable water resources topics and management. Water 8(8):350. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8080350
Cronon W (1996) The trouble with wilderness or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environ Hist 1(1):7–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/3985059
Cross JE, Pickering K, Hickey M (2015) Community-based participatory research, ethics, and institutional review boards: untying a gordian knot. Crit Sociol 41(7–8):1007–1026. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920513512696
David-Chavez DM, Gavin MC (2018) A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environ Res Lett 13(12):123005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf300
Davis M (2016) Data and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. In: Kukutai T, Taylor J (eds) Indigenous data sovereignty: toward an agenda. Australian National University Press, Canberra, Australia, p 79–97
Deloria V (1969) Custer died for your sins: an Indian manifesto. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK
Djenontin INS, Meadow AM (2018) The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice. Environ Manag 61(6):885–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3
Dooling S, Simon G (2012) Cities, nature, and development: the politics and production of urban vulnerabilities. Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington, VT
Doyle E, Buckley P (2017) Embracing qualitative research: a visual model for nuanced research ethics oversight. Qualitative Res 17(1):95–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116661230
Drabiak-Syed K (2010) Lessons from Havasupai tribe v. Arizona state university board of regents: recognizing group, cultural, and dignity harms as legitimate risks warranting integration into research practice. J Health Biomed Law 6:175
Duffy R et al. (2019) Why we must question the militarisation of conservation. Biol Conserv 232:66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.013
Eigenbrode SD et al. (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience 57(1):55–64. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570109
Elliott-Engel J (2018) State administrators’ perceptions of the environmental challenges of cooperative extension and the 4-H program and their resulting adaptive leadership behaviors. Doctoral Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/98002/Elliott-Engel_J_D_2018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Ermine W (2000) A critical examination of the ethics in research involving Indigenous peoples. Master’s Thesis. University of Saskatchewan. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/226113261.pdf. Accessed 6 Apr 2021
Estes N (2019) Our history is the future: Standing Rock versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the long tradition of indigenous resistance. Verso, Brooklyn, NY
Fagundes C et al. (2019) Ecological costs of discrimination: racism, red cedar and resilience in farm bill conservation policy in Oklahoma. Renew Agr Food Syst 35:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170519000322
Fernández-Giménez ME et al. (2019) Complexity fosters learning in collaborative adaptive management. Ecol Soc 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10963-240229
Fuhlendorf SD et al. (2006) Should heterogeneity be the basis for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire and grazing. Ecol Appl 16(5):1706–1716. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1706:SHBTBF]2.0.CO;2
Garrison NA et al. (2019) Genomic research through an indigenous lens: understanding the expectations. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 20(1):495–517. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015434
Haalboom B, Natcher DC (2012) The power and peril of “vulnerability”: approaching community labels with caution in climate change research. ARCTIC 65(3):319–327. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4219
Hadorn GH et al. (2008) The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, p 19–39
Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Stud 14(3):575–599
Haraway W (2013) When species meet. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN
Harrison J, MacGibbon L, Morton M (2001) Regimes of trustworthiness in qualitative research: the rigors of reciprocity. Qualitative Inq 7(3):323–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040100700305
Haycox SW (2020) Alaska: an American colony. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA
Heimer CA, Petty J (2010) Bureaucratic ethics: IRBs and the legal regulation of human subjects research. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 6(1):601–626. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131454
HHS Office of Human Research Protections (2016). Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (“Common Rule”). https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/index.html. Accessed 2 July 2021
Hill Collins P, Bilge S (2020) Intersectionality. 2nd ed. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK
Hintzen RE et al. (2020) Relationship between conservation biology and ecology shown through machine reading of 32,000 articles. Conserv Biol 34(3):721–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13435
Holder CL, Corntassel JJ (2002) Indigenous peoples and multicultural citizenship: bridging collective and individual rights. Hum Rights Q 24(1):126–151
Hoover DL et al. (2019) Traversing the wasteland: a framework for assessing ecological threats to drylands. BioScience 70(1):35–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz126
Hudson M (2009) Think globally, act locally: collective consent and the ethics of knowledge production. Int Soc Sci J 60(195):125–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2009.01706.x
Hudson M et al. (2020) Rights, interests and expectations: Indigenous perspectives on unrestricted access to genomic data. Nat Rev Genet 21(6):377–384. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-0228-x
Israel HA (1998) The Nazi origins of Eduard Pernkopf’s Topographische Anatomie des Menschen: the biomedical ethical issues. Ref Librarian 29(61–62):131–146. https://doi.org/10.1300/J120v29n61_14
Israel M, Hay I (2006) Research ethics for social scientists. Sage, London
Ives CD, Fischer J (2017) The self-sabotage of conservation: reply to Manfredo et al. Conserv Biol 31(6):1483–1485. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13025
Jackson L et al. (2019) Including vulnerable populations in the assessment of data from vulnerable populations. Front Big Data 2:8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2019.00019
Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017
Jones JR (1993) Bad blood. The Free Press, New York
Jennifer L, Shirk HL, Ballard CC, Wilderman T, Phillips A, Wiggins R, Jordan E, McCallie M, Minarchek, BV, Lewenstein ME, Krasny R, Bonney (2012) Public Participation in Scientific Research: a Framework for Deliberate Design. Ecology and Society 17(2), https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04705-170229
Kimmerer RW (2013) Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge, and the teachings of plants. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions
Kimmerer RW, Lake FK (2001) The role of Indigenous burning in land management. J Forestry 99(11):36–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/99.11.3610.1093/jof/99.11.36
Kimmerer RW (2019) Recent advances lecture: P-values and cultural values: creating symbiosis among Indigenous and western knowledges to advance ecological justice. https://esa.org/louisville/plenary-speakers/
Klenk N et al. (2017) Local knowledge in climate adaptation research: moving knowledge frameworks from extraction to co‐production. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 8(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.475
Knapp CN et al. (2019) Placing transdisciplinarity in context: a review of approaches to connect scholars, society and action. Sustainability 11(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184899
Kohn E (2013) How forests think: toward an anthropology beyond the human. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
Kuhn TS (2012) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Kukutai T, Cormack D (2019) Mana motuhake ā-raraunga: datafication and social science research in Aotearoa. Kōtuitui: NZ J Soc Sci Online 14(2):201–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2019.1648304
Kukutai T, Taylor J (2016a) Data politics and Indigenous representation in Australian statistics. In: Kukutai T, Taylor J (eds) Indigenous data sovereignty: toward an agenda. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University Press, p. 79–97
Kukutai T, Taylor J (2016b) Data sovereignty for indigenous peoples: current practice and future needs. In: Kukutai T, Taylor J (eds) Indigenous data sovereignty: toward an agenda. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University Press, p. 1–22
LaDuke W (2017) All our relations: Native struggles for land and life. Haymarket Books, Chicago, IL
Lake FK, Long JW (2014) Fire and tribal cultural resources. In: Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, p. 173–186
Lee R, Ahtone T (2020) Land grab universities: expropriated indigenous land is the foundation of the land-grant university system. In: High Country News, 30 March. https://www.hcn.org/issues/52.4/indigenous-affairs-education-land-grab-universities. Accessed 6 Apr 2021
Lomawaima KT (2000) Tribal sovereigns: reframing research in American Indian education. Harv Educ Rev 70(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.70.1.b133t0976714n73r
Mach KJ et al. (2020) Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability 42:30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.002
Mackewn J (2008) Facilitation as action research in the moment. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607934.n54
Maezumi SY et al. (2018) The legacy of 4,500 years of polyculture agroforestry in the eastern Amazon. Nat Plants 4(8):540–547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-018-0205-y
Maiter S et al. (2008) Reciprocity: an ethic for community-based participatory action research. Action Res 6(3):305–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307083720
Manfredo MJ et al. (2017) Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation. Conserv Biol 31(4):772–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12855
Manzo K (2010) Imaging vulnerability: the iconography of climate change. Area 42(1):96–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00887.x
Marino EK, Faas AJ (2020) Is vulnerability an outdated concept? After subjects and spaces. Ann Anthropological Pract 44(1):33–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/napa.12132
Martin VY (2020) Four common problems in environmental social research undertaken by natural scientists. BioScience 70(1):13–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz128
McGregor HE (2013) Situating Nunavut education with Indigenous education in Canada. Can J Educ 36(2):87–118. https://www.jstor.org/stable/canajeducrevucan.36.2.87
Meadow AM et al. (2015) Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather Clim Soc 7(2):179–191. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00050.1
Mikesell L, Bromley E, Khodyakov D (2013) Ethical community-engaged research: a literature review. Am J Public Health 103(12):e7–e14. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301605
Mildenberger M (2019) The tragedy of the tragedy of the commons. Scientific American Blog. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/. Accessed 19 Aug 2020
Mohanty CT (2003) “Under western eyes” revisited: feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles. Signs: J Women Cult Soc 28(2):499–535. https://doi.org/10.1086/342914
Moon K, Blackman D (2014) A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists: social science for natural scientists. Conserv Biol 28(5):1167–1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12326
Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990)
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) Data matters: ethics, data, and international research collaboration in a changing world: proceedings of a workshop. Sloan SS (ed). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25214/data-matters-ethics-data-and-international-research-collaboration-in-a
National Research Council (2015) Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Cooke NJ, Hilton L (eds). Washington D.C.: National Research Council. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/Guide-for-the-Care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2021
National Research Council Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Use and Care of Laboratory Animals (2011) Guide for the use and care of laboratory animals. 8th ed. National Academies Press, Washington DC
Native People’s Technical Assistance Office, University of Arizona (2012). Research and engagement guidelines. https://nptao.arizona.edu/research-engagement-guidelines. Accessed 2 July 2021
Noddings N (2013) A relational approach to ethics and moral education. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
Norgaard KM (2014) The politics of fire and the social impacts of fire exclusion on the Klamath. Humboldt J Soc Relat 36(1):77–101
Norström AV et al. (2020) Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat Sustainability 3:1–9
Opie A (1992) Qualitative research, appropriation of the “other” and empowerment. Feminist Rev 40(1):52–69
Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA
Poole R (1972) Towards deep subjectivity. Harper and Row, New York
Porensky LM (In press). Embracing complexity and humility in rangeland science. Rangelands. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rala.2021.03.007
Rainie SC et al. (2019) Indigenous data soverignty. In: Davies T et al. (eds) The state of open data: histories and horizons. Cape Town, South Africa: African Minds and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
Reed MG et al. (2020) Foundational principles for intercultural research with Indigenous and rural peoples: connecting principles to knowledge mobilization. In: Imagining the future of knowledge mobilization: perspectives from UNESCO Chairs Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada/Canadian Commission for UNESCO. Ottawa: Canada. p 31–52
Reid RS et al. (2021) Using research to support transformative impacts on complex, “wicked problems” with pastoral peoples in rangelands. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:273. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.600689
Repko AF, Szostak R (2020) Interdisciplinary research: process and theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Incorporated
Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group (2019) CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. The Global Indigenous Data Alliance. http://www.GIDAglobal.org
Reverby SM (2009) Examining Tuskegee: the infamous syphilis study and its legacy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC
Rozance MA et al. (2020) Building capacity for societally engaged climate science by transforming science training. Environ Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc27a
Saad TC (2018) The history of autonomy in medicine from antiquity to principlism. Med, Health Care Philos 21(1):125–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9781-2
Said EW (1978) Orientalism. 1st Vintage Books ed. Vintage Books, New York
Shore N (2006) Re-conceptualizing the Belmont Report: a community-based participatory research perspective. J Community Pract 14(4):5–26. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v14n04_02
Smith C, Machiocote M, Fortuna L (2020) Cite Black Women Podcast. https://soundcloud.com/user-211649525
Snipp M (2016) What does data sovereignty imply: what does it look like? In: Kukutai T, Taylor J (eds) Indigenous data sovereignty: toward an agenda. Australian National University Press, Canberra, Australia, p 39–56
Sprague J (2016) Feminist methodologies for critical researchers: bridging differences. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Walnut Creek, CA
Taitingfong R et al. (2020) A systematic literature review of Native American and Pacific Islanders’ perspectives on health data privacy in the United States. J Am Med Inform Assoc 27(12):1987–1998. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa235
TallBear K (2007) Narratives of race and indigeneity in the Genographic Project. J Law, Med Ethics 35(3):412–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00164.x
Tengö M et al. (2014) Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43(5):579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3
Townsend RC, Cushion CJ (2021) “Put that in your fucking research”: reflexivity, ethnography and disability sport coaching. Qual Res 21(2):251–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120931349
Tsosie KS, Yracheta JM, Dickenson D (2019) Overvaluing individual consent ignores risks to tribal participants. Nat Rev Genet 20(9):497–498. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0161-z
Tuhiwai Smith L (2013) Decolonizing methodologies: research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd, London
Turner M (1993) Overstocking the range: a critical analysis of the environmental science of Sahelian pastoralism. Economic Geogr 69(4):402–421. https://doi.org/10.2307/143597
Ulibarri N et al. (2019) Creativity in research: cultivate clarity, be innovative, and make progress in your research journey. Cambridge University Press, New York
United Nations (2007) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Resolution/Adopted by the General Assembly. Resolution A/Res/61/295. United Nations. https://www.refworld.org/docid/471355a82.html. Accessed 17 Jan 2020
United Nations (2009) The Nagoya Protocol. https://www.cbd.int/abs/text/. Accessed 2 Dec 2020
United Nations (2018) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy. A/73/45712. United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Privacy/SR/Pages/AnnualReports.aspx. Accessed 22 Jan 2020
United Nations (2019) Recommendation on the Protection and Use of Health-Related Data. A/74/277. United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Privacy/SR_Privacy/UNSRPhealthrelateddataRecCLEAN.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2020
USDA-APHIS (2021) Animal welfare. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfaocus/animalwelfare. Accessed 2 July 2021
Vella S Carter C, Reed MS (2021) What can we learn from anthropological practice to conduct socially just participatory action research? Educ Action Res 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2021.1897024
Waddell BJ (2019) A cautionary tale: discriminatory lending against hispanic farmers and ranchers in southern Colorado. Rural Sociol 84(4):736–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12265
Wallach AD et al. (2020) When all life counts in conservation. Conserv Biol 34(4):997–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13447
Weber EP, Khademian AM (2008) Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Adm Rev 68(2):334–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00866.x
West-McGruer K (2020) There’s “consent” and then there’s consent: Mobilising Māori and Indigenous research ethics to problematise the western biomedical model. J Sociol 56(2):184–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319893523
Wilder CS (2013) Ebony and ivy: race, slavery, and the troubled history of America’s universities. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, New York
Wilkinson MD et al. (2016) The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
Wilmer H et al. (2018) Collaborative adaptive rangeland management fosters management-science partnerships. Rangel Ecol Manag 71(5):646–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2017.07.008
Wilmer H et al. (2019) Community-engaged research builds a nature-culture of hope on North American Great Plains rangelands. Soc Sci 8(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8010022
Woods RJ (2017) The herds shot round the world: native breeds and the British Empire. 1800–1900. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/84366
Yeh ET (2016) “How can experience of local residents be ‘knowledge’?” Challenges in interdisciplinary climate change research. Area 48(1):34–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12189
Young TP (2000) Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Biol Conserv 92(1):73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00057-9
Acknowledgements
This paper is a contribution from the Long-Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) network. LTAR is supported by the United States Department of Agriculture. It was also supported by the Northern Plains Climate Hub, Northwest Climate Hub, US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program through grant NA17OAR4310288 with the Climate Assessment for the Southwest program at the University of Arizona, and the Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center (SW CASC) through Cooperative Agreement G18AC00320 from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and National Science Foundation IGERT program, award 0903479. The authors thank Kendra Wendel for assistance with manuscript development and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful recommendations, which strengthened the paper.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to conceptual development and writing, and read and approved the final manuscript. GO contributed figure development, HW and AMM led manuscript editing.
Funding
US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service as part of the Long-term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) network, the Northern Plains Climate Hub, Northwest Climate Hub, US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program through grant NA17OAR4310288 with the Climate Assessment for the Southwest program at the University of Arizona, and the Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center (SW CASC) through Cooperative Agreement G18AC00320 from the United States Geological Survey (USGS); National Science Foundation IGERT program, award 0903479.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilmer, H., Meadow, A.M., Brymer, A.B. et al. Expanded Ethical Principles for Research Partnership and Transdisciplinary Natural Resource Management Science. Environmental Management 68, 453–467 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01508-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01508-4