The Truth About Science: A middle school curriculum teaching the scientific method and data analysis in an ecology context

The Truth About Science is a 40-lesson middle school curriculum module that teaches the process of scientific research, integrating mathematics and science concepts and skills. The goal of the curriculum is to teach students to think systematically and statistically about science inquiry. Students participate in each step of the scientific inquiry process, from asking testable research questions, designing unbiased experiments, and collecting their own data, to analyzing these data via graphical representations and statistical summaries, and communicating their research results as both poster and oral presentations. While the necessary statistical skills depend on difficult and abstract mathematical concepts, middle school students have been successful in applying them to their own research projects. The curriculum meets local and national standards in science and mathematics education and fills a gap in available educational materials. It has been piloted and revised through multiple iterations and published by the National Science Teachers Association Press. Feedback from teachers and students has been extremely positive.     

Facilitating biodiversity conservation through partnerships to achieve transformative outcomes

Conservation biology is a mission-driven discipline that must navigate a new relationship between conservation and science. Because conservation is a social and political as well as an ecological project, conservation biologists must practice interdisciplinarity and collaboration. In a comparative study of 7 cases (Jaguars in the Chaco, Grevy's zebra in Kenya, Beekeeping in Tanzania, Andean cats in Argentina, Jaguars in Mexico, Lobster fishing, and Black bears in Mexico), we examined motivations for collaboration in conservation, who can collaborate in conservation, and how conservation professionals can work well together. In 5 case studies, successful conservation outcomes were prioritized over livelihood benefits. In the other 2 cases, livelihoods were prioritized. All case studies employed participatory approaches. There were multiple external actors, including local and Indigenous communities, nongovernmental organizations, agencies, regional and national governments, and international organizations, which enhanced conservation and wider sustainability outcomes. Key collaboration aspects considered across the case studies were time (mismatch between relationship building and project schedules), trust required for meaningful partnerships, tools employed, and transformative potential for people, nature, and the discipline of conservation biology. We developed guidelines for successful collaboration, including long-term commitment, knowledge integration, multiscalar and plural approaches, cultivation of trust, appropriate engagement, evaluation, supporting students, and efforts for transformation.     

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy‐influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.     

On allegations of invasive species denialism

Science denialism retards evidenced-based policy and practice and should be challenged. It has been a particular concern for mitigating global environmental issues, such as anthropogenic climate change. But allegations of science denialism must also be well founded and evidential or they risk eroding public trust in science and scientists. Recently, 77 published works by scholars, scientists, and science writers were identified as containing invasive species denialism (ISD; i.e., rejection of well-supported facts about invasive species, particularly the global scientific consensus about their negative impacts). We reevaluated 75 of these works but could find no examples of refutation of scientific facts and only 5 articles with text perhaps consistent with one of the 5 characteristics of science denialism. We found, therefore, that allegations of ISD were misplaced. These accusations of science denialism may have arisen because invasion biology defines its subjects—invasive species—based on multiple subjective and normative judgments. Thus, more than other applied sciences its consensus is one of shared values as much as agreed knowledge. Criticisms of invasion biology have largely targeted those subjective and normative judgments and their global imposition, not the knowledge on which the discipline is based. Regrettably, a few invasion biologists have misinterpreted the critique of their values-based consensus as a denial of their science when it is not. To make invasion biology a more robust and widely accepted science and to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and conflicts, invasion biologists could be more accepting of perspectives originating from other disciplines and more open to values-based critique from scholars and scientists outside their field. This recommendation applies to all conservation sciences, especially those addressing global challenges, because these sciences must serve and be relevant to communities with an extraordinary diversity of cultures and values.     

Shared ways of thinking in Brazil about the science–practice interface in ecology and conservation

The debate in the literature on the science–practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision-making process and calling for problem-relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.     

Embracing diverse worldviews to share planet Earth

Leading societies toward a more sustainable, equitably shared, and environmentally just future requires elevating and strengthening conversations on the nonmaterial and perhaps unquantifiable values of nonhuman nature to humanity. Debates among conservationists relating to the appropriateness of valuing ecosystems in terms of their human utility have eclipsed the more important and impactful task of expressing conservation concerns in terms that are meaningful to diverse stakeholders. We considered the wide global diversity of perspectives on the biosocial complex—the relationships and interactions between all living species on Earth—and argue that humanity's best chance for effective conservation is to take a pluralistic approach that engages seriously with the worldviews of all stakeholders. Many worldviews—particularly those in indigenous cultures—place a higher value on the spiritual and nonmaterial aspects than what is often represented by the discourse surrounding Western conservation policy. Alternative framings of the biosocial complex that recognize nature's intrinsic value can be powerful motivators for social change and for local-scale conservation efforts. At a national and international level, changing ethical framings of human relationships with nature have started influencing conceptions of human rights relating to the environment and of the rights of nature itself. This change has led to an increased role of the judiciary in promoting environmental sustainability and promoting justice for groups who are most often affected by environmental harms. We hope our essay will motivate the scientific community to change its own perception of what a sound and sustainable relationship between humanity and other species should be and will help citizens become active environmental subjects, connected to the ecosystems around them.     

Practical guide to coproduction in conservation science

We considered a series of conservation-related research projects on the island of Pemba, Tanzania, to reflect on the broad significance of Beier et al.’s recommendations for linking conservation science with practical conservation outcomes. The implementation of just some of their suggestions can advance a successful coproduction of actionable science by small research teams. Key elements include, first, scientists and managers working together in the field to ensure feedback in real time; second, questions jointly identified by managers and researchers to facilitate engaged collaboration; third, conducting research at multiple sites, thereby broadening managers’ abilities to reach multiple stakeholders; and fourth, establishing a multidisciplinary team because most of the concerns of local managers require input from multiple disciplines.     

Making a case for the consideration of trust,justice, and power in conservation relationships

In conservation, trust and justice are increasingly recognized as both intrinsically valuable and critical for successful socioecological outcomes. However, the interdependence between these concepts has not been explored. The conservation trust literature provides examples of efforts to build trust between conservationists and local actors; yet, these interventions are often conceived to incentivize local cooperation within dominant paradigms. We argue that when trust building is promoted as a technical fix that does not plan in advance to address power asymmetries in conservation practice, inequities may inadvertently be re-embedded. Therefore, we conceptualized a framework that joins trust, justice, and power so that critical analyses of conservation partnerships can be more effectively undertaken. We drew on environmental justice theory to better calibrate the trust literature for the historical-political settings of conservation, especially in the Global South. Justice and trust share strong theoretical links where perceptions of justice shape a willingness to trust, and, equally, trust is a precondition for justice to be perceived. Different forms of trust connect to varied domains of justice and power in different ways, which mediates the outcomes of interventions. We applied our framework to case studies to explore how these interdependences play out in practice. Failure of agencies to attend to issues of maldistribution, misrecognition of cultural values and knowledge, and exclusion from participation strongly compromised trust. Moreover, the ways in which nature-dependent communities and marginalized conservation workers are trusted, or the conditions under which they give trust, can lead to partnerships being perceived as just or unjust. Focusing on trust and justice can help identify power dynamics so they can be addressed more readily and create space for alternative understandings of partnerships.     

Applying a values-based decision process to facilitate comanagement of threatened species in Aotearoa New Zealand

Ko koe ki tēnā, ko ahau ki tēnai kīwai o te kete (you at that, and I at this handle of the basket). This Māori (New Zealanders of indigenous descent) saying conveys the principle of cooperation—we achieve more through working together, rather than separately. Despite decades of calls to rectify cultural imbalance in conservation, threatened species management still relies overwhelmingly on ideas from Western science and on top-down implementation. Values-based approaches to decision making can be used to integrate indigenous peoples’ values into species conservation in a more meaningful way. We used such a values-based method, structured decision making, to develop comanagement of pekapeka (Mystacina tuberculata) (short-tailed bat) and tara iti (Sternula nereis davisae) (Fairy Tern) between Māori and Pākehā (New Zealanders of European descent). We implemented this framework in a series of workshops in which facilitated discussions were used to gather expert knowledge to predict outcomes and make management recommendations. For both species, stakeholders clearly stated their values as fundamental objectives from the start, which allowed alternative strategies to be devised that naturally addressed their diverse values, including mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge and perspectives). On this shared basis, all partners willingly engaged in the process, and decisions were largely agreed to by all. Most expectations of conflicts between values of Western science and Māori culture were unfounded. Where required, positive compromises were made by jointly developing alternative strategies. The values-based process successfully taha wairua taha tangata (brought both worlds together to achieve the objective) through codeveloped recovery strategies. This approach challenges the traditional model of scientists first preparing management plans focused on biological objectives, then consulting indigenous groups for approval. We recommend values-based approaches, such as structured decision making, as powerful methods for development of comanagement conservation plans between different peoples.     

Five approaches to producing actionable science in conservation

The knowledge produced by conservation scientists must be actionable in order to address urgent conservation challenges. To understand the process of creating actionable science, we interviewed 71 conservation scientists who had participated in 1 of 3 fellowship programs focused on training scientists to become agents of change. Using a grounded theory approach, we identified 16 activities that these researchers employed to make their scientific products more actionable. Some activities were more common than others and, arguably, more foundational. We organized these activities into 3 nested categories (motivations, strategies, and tactics). Using a co-occurrence matrix, we found that most activities were positively correlated. These correlations allowed us to identify 5 approaches, framed as profiles, to actionable science: the discloser, focused on open access; the educator, focused on science communication; the networker, focused on user needs and building relationships; the collaborator, focused on boundary spanning; and the pluralist, focused on knowledge coproduction resulting in valuable outcomes for all parties. These profiles build on one another in a hierarchy determined by their complexity and level of engagement, their potential to support actionable science, and their proximity to ideal coproduction with knowledge users. Our results provide clear guidance for conservation scientists to generate actionable science to address the global biodiversity conservation challenge.     

Practical Science Communication Strategies for Graduate Students

Development of skills in science communication is a well‐acknowledged gap in graduate training, but the constraints that accompany research (limited time, resources, and knowledge of opportunities) make it challenging to acquire these proficiencies. Furthermore, advisors and institutions may find it difficult to support graduate students adequately in these efforts. The result is fewer career and societal benefits because students have not learned to communicate research effectively beyond their scientific peers. To help overcome these hurdles, we developed a practical approach to incorporating broad science communication into any graduate‐school time line. The approach consists of a portfolio approach that organizes outreach activities along a time line of planned graduate studies. To help design the portfolio, we mapped available science communication tools according to 5 core skills essential to most scientific careers: writing, public speaking, leadership, project management, and teaching. This helps graduate students consider the diversity of communication tools based on their desired skills, time constraints, barriers to entry, target audiences, and personal and societal communication goals. By designing a portfolio with an advisor's input, guidance, and approval, graduate students can gauge how much outreach is appropriate given their other commitments to teaching, research, and classes. The student benefits from the advisors’ experience and mentorship, promotes the group's research, and establishes a track record of engagement. When graduate student participation in science communication is discussed, it is often recommended that institutions offer or require more training in communication, project management, and leadership. We suggest that graduate students can also adopt a do‐it‐yourself approach that includes determining students’ own outreach objectives and time constraints and communicating these with their advisor. By doing so we hope students will help create a new culture of science communication in graduate student education. Estrategias Prácticas para la Comunicación Científica para Estudiantes de Posgrado     

Mapping epistemic cultures and learning potential of participants in citizen science projects

The ever‐widening scope and range of global change and interconnected systemic risks arising from people–environment relationships (social‐ecological risks) appears to be increasing concern among, and involvement of, citizens in an increasingly diversified number of citizen science projects responding to these risks. We examined the relationship between epistemic cultures in citizen science projects and learning potential related to matters of concern. We then developed a typology of purposes and a citizen science epistemic‐cultures heuristic and mapped 56 projects in southern Africa using this framework. The purpose typology represents the range of knowledge‐production purposes, ranging from laboratory science to social learning, whereas the epistemic‐cultures typology is a relational representation of scientist and citizen participation and their approach to knowledge production. Results showed an iterative relationship between matters of fact and matters of concern across the projects; the nexus of citizens’ engagement in knowledge‐production activities varied. The knowledge‐production purposes informed and shaped the epistemic cultures of all the sampled citizen science projects, which in turn influenced the potential for learning within each project. Through a historical review of 3 phases in a long‐term river health‐monitoring project, we found that it is possible to evolve the learning curve of citizen science projects. This evolution involved the development of scientific water monitoring tools, the parallel development of pedagogic practices supporting monitoring activities, and situated engagement around matters of concern within social activism leading to learning‐led change. We conclude that such evolutionary processes serve to increase potential for learning and are necessary if citizen science is to contribute to wider restructuring of the epistemic culture of science under conditions of expanding social‐ecological risk.     

Governing trade-offs in ecosystem services and disservices to achieve human–wildlife coexistence

Sustaining wildlife populations, which provide both ecosystem services and disservices, represents a worldwide conservation challenge. The ecosystem services and Ostrom's social–ecological systems frameworks have been adopted across natural and social sciences to characterize benefits from nature. Despite their generalizability, individually they do not include explicit tools for addressing the sustainable management of many wildlife populations. For instance, Ostrom's framework does not specifically address competing perspectives on wildlife, whereas the ecosystem services framework provides a limited representation of the social and governance context wherein such competing perspectives are embedded. We developed a unified social–ecological framework of ecosystem disservices and services (SEEDS) that advances both frameworks by explicitly acknowledging the importance of competing wildlife perspectives embedded in the social and governance contexts. The SEEDS framework emulates the hierarchical structure of Ostrom's social–ecological systems, but adds subsystems reflecting heterogeneous stakeholder views and experiences of wildlife-based services and disservices. To facilitate operationalizing SEEDS and further broader analyses across human–wildlife systems, we devised a list of variables to describe SEEDS subsystems, such as types and level of services and disservices, cost and benefit sharing, and social participation of stakeholders. Steps to implement SEEDS involve engaging local communities and stakeholders to define the subsystems, analyze interactions and outcomes, and identify leverage points and actions to remedy unwanted outcomes. These steps connect SEEDS with other existing approaches in social–ecological research and can guide analyses across systems or within individual systems to provide new insights and management options for sustainable human–wildlife coexistence.     

Sharing and preparing: cross-institutional,food security-based knowledge in Canada

This study proposes a framework for the collection and management of knowledge related to food security in Canada. This paper has several goals. First, the paper summarizes the current state of food security knowledge in Canada. Second, the paper presents data from an experiment where food security issues were discussed by stakeholders at two fora, the first of which was held in western Canada and the second held in eastern Canada. Finally, based on the notes taken during and feedback received after the fora, this paper suggests a framework for organizing and managing the multiple perspectives and complex types of knowledge about food security and sustainable development from a Canadian context. Two fora were held in Canada where food security issues were presented and discussed by multiple stakeholders. Most provinces in Canada were represented in at least one of the two sessions. Sessions were designed to be informative and interactive; agenda were designed to take advantage of the needs and experiences of multiple stakeholders in both western and eastern regions of Canada. To develop the framework, the sessions were also designed to assess the types of issues and knowledge about food security in Canada. Evidence presented from this experiment supports arguments that food security work must be approached in a collaborative manner, no matter the approach or discipline. Data from fora held in western and eastern regions of Canada indicate a number of specific ways in which those along the food continuum have the desire to share knowledge and enter into partnerships to work toward secure and sustainable food systems. Data also indicate how academia and institutions of higher learning might play a key role in sharing food security-based knowledge. The data from this study suggest that academia could play a leadership role in collecting and sharing information about food security-based knowledge from all disciplinary approaches that could help collaborative in addressing the complexity of food security challenges. The framework developed in this paper could provide the guide for organizing knowledge about food security and sustainable development. The framework could be used as a map to guide understanding about the different ways in which food security can be approached and understood; this could help reduce tensions among partners in projects where a wide variety of experiences are attempting to work collaboratively. The two food security fora brought together stakeholders with specialized knowledge about food security in a Canadian context. The analysis of data arising from the fora permitted unique insights to arise about the nature of knowledge by region. The data in this study also allowed us to build a framework for food security knowledge from these regional knowledge bases. This paper suggests that academia actively take a leadership role and openly share knowledge about food security. Open sharing of knowledge will help collaborates in dealing with complex food security issues understand in-depth other approaches; this sharing may help to make explicit the tensions that arise during collaborative work.     

Practical Recommendations to Help Students Bridge the Research–Implementation Gap and Promote Conservation

Seasoned conservation researchers often struggle to bridge the research–implementation gap and promote the translation of their work into meaningful conservation actions. Graduate students face the same problems and must contend with obstacles such as limited opportunities for relevant interdisciplinary training and a lack of institutional support for application of research results. However, students also have a crucial set of opportunities (e.g., access to academic resources outside their degree programs and opportunities to design research projects promoting collaboration with stakeholders) at their disposal to address these problems. On the basis of results of breakout discussions at a symposium on the human dimensions of the ocean, a review of the literature, and our own experiences, we devised recommendations on how graduate students can create resources within their academic institutions, institutionalize resources, and engage with stakeholders to promote real‐world conservation outcomes. Within their academic institutions, graduate students should foster links to practitioners and promote knowledge and skill sharing among students. To institutionalize resources, students should cultivate student leaders and faculty sponsors, systematically document their program activities, and engage in strategic planning to promote the sustainability of their efforts. While conducting research, students should create connections to and engage actively with stakeholders in their relevant study areas and disseminate research results both to stakeholders and the broader public. Our recommendations can serve as a template for graduate students wishing to bridge the research–implementation gap, both during their current studies and in their future careers as conservation researchers and practitioners. Recomendaciones Prácticas para Ayudar a Estudiantes a Vencer la Brecha entre Investigación e Implementación y Promover la Conservación     

The case for embedding researchers in conservation agencies

Although protected areas represent a pivotal response to escalating anthropogenic threats, they face many pressures, inside and outside their boundaries. Amid these challenges, effective conservation is guided by evidence-based decision making supported by dynamic processes of learning and knowledge exchange. Although different models promote knowledge exchange, embedding research scientists within conservation agencies is best suited to supporting evidence-based conservation. Based on available literature and our experiences on several continents, we considered the benefits, challenges, and opportunities associated with embedding research scientists within conservation agencies and the research required to better understand the effectiveness of the embedding model for evidence-based conservation. Embedded researchers provide long-term commitment to building social capital among academic and nonacademic stakeholders; act as skilled gatekeepers who increase 2-way flow of knowledge between scientists and managers; attract, coordinate, and support management-relevant external research projects; drive the design and maintenance of long-term monitoring; and align their research with information needs. Notwithstanding the many benefits, research capacity of conservation agencies is declining worldwide. A significant challenge is that the values, structures, functions, and effectiveness of the embedding model of knowledge exchange remain poorly evaluated and documented. Also, embedded researchers have to balance their desire for creativity and flexibility with the standardization and quality control required by their public sector agencies; may be perceived as not credible because they are not truly independent of their agency; and have to couple scientific productivity with skills for transdisciplinary research, social facilitation, and stakeholder engagement. Systematic research on embedding and other models of knowledge exchange, across different world contexts, is required to better understand the benefits, costs, and institutional arrangements associated with different models.     

Contributions of paraecologists and parataxonomists to research,conservation, and social development

Citizen science has been gaining momentum in the United States and Europe, where citizens are literate and often interested in science. However, in developing countries, which have a dire need for environmental data, such programs are slow to emerge, despite the large and untapped human resources in close proximity to areas of high biodiversity and poorly known floras and faunas. Thus, we propose that the parataxonomist and paraecologist approach, which originates from citizen‐based science, is well suited to rural areas in developing countries. Being a paraecologist or a parataxonomist is a vocation and entails full‐time employment underpinned by extensive training, whereas citizen science involves the temporary engagement of volunteers. Both approaches have their merits depending on the context and objectives of the research. We examined 4 ongoing paraecologist or parataxonomist programs in Costa Rica, India, Papua New Guinea, and southern Africa and compared their origins, long‐term objectives, implementation strategies, activities, key challenges, achievements, and implications for resident communities. The programs supported ongoing research on biodiversity assessment, monitoring, and management, and participants engaged in non‐academic capacity development in these fields. The programs in Southern Africa related to specific projects, whereas the programs in Costa Rica, India, and Papua New Guinea were designed for the long term, provided sufficient funding was available. The main focus of the paraecologists’ and parataxonomists’ activities ranged from collection and processing of specimens (Costa Rica and Papua New Guinea) or of socioeconomic and natural science data (India and Southern Africa) to communication between scientists and residents (India and Southern Africa). As members of both the local land user and research communities, paraecologists and parataxonomists can greatly improve the flow of biodiversity information to all users, from local stakeholders to international academia.     

Studying citizen science through adaptive management and learning feedbacks as mechanisms for improving conservation

Citizen science has generated a growing interest among scientists and community groups, and citizen science programs have been created specifically for conservation. We examined collaborative science, a highly interactive form of citizen science, which we developed within a theoretically informed framework. In this essay, we focused on 2 aspects of our framework: social learning and adaptive management. Social learning, in contrast to individual‐based learning, stresses collaborative and generative insight making and is well‐suited for adaptive management. Adaptive‐management integrates feedback loops that are informed by what is learned and is guided by iterative decision making. Participants engaged in citizen science are able to add to what they are learning through primary data collection, which can result in the real‐time information that is often necessary for conservation. Our work is particularly timely because research publications consistently report a lack of established frameworks and evaluation plans to address the extent of conservation outcomes in citizen science. To illustrate how our framework supports conservation through citizen science, we examined how 2 programs enacted our collaborative science framework. Further, we inspected preliminary conservation outcomes of our case‐study programs. These programs, despite their recent implementation, are demonstrating promise with regard to positive conservation outcomes. To date, they are independently earning funds to support research, earning buy‐in from local partners to engage in experimentation, and, in the absence of leading scientists, are collecting data to test ideas. We argue that this success is due to citizen scientists being organized around local issues and engaging in iterative, collaborative, and adaptive learning.     

A Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for Natural Scientists

Natural scientists are increasingly interested in social research because they recognize that conservation problems are commonly social problems. Interpreting social research, however, requires at least a basic understanding of the philosophical principles and theoretical assumptions of the discipline, which are embedded in the design of social research. Natural scientists who engage in social science but are unfamiliar with these principles and assumptions can misinterpret their results. We developed a guide to assist natural scientists in understanding the philosophical basis of social science to support the meaningful interpretation of social research outcomes. The 3 fundamental elements of research are ontology, what exists in the human world that researchers can acquire knowledge about; epistemology, how knowledge is created; and philosophical perspective, the philosophical orientation of the researcher that guides her or his action. Many elements of the guide also apply to the natural sciences. Natural scientists can use the guide to assist them in interpreting social science research to determine how the ontological position of the researcher can influence the nature of the research; how the epistemological position can be used to support the legitimacy of different types of knowledge; and how philosophical perspective can shape the researcher's choice of methods and affect interpretation, communication, and application of results. The use of this guide can also support and promote the effective integration of the natural and social sciences to generate more insightful and relevant conservation research outcomes. Una Guía para Entender la Investigación de Ciencias Sociales para las Ciencias Naturales Katie Moon     

Evaluating environmental education,citizen science,and stewardship through naturalist programs

Amateur naturalists have played an important role in the study and conservation of nature since the 17th century. Today, naturalist groups make important contributions to bridge the gap between conservation science and practice around the world. We examined data from 2 regional naturalist programs to understand participant motivations, barriers, and perspectives as well as the actions they take to advance science, stewardship, and community engagement. These programs provide certification‐based natural history and conservation science training for adults that is followed by volunteer service in citizen science, education, and stewardship. Studies in California and Virginia include quantitative and qualitative evaluation data collected through pre‐ and postcourse surveys, interviews, and long‐term tracking of volunteer hours. Motivations of participants focused on learning about the local environment and plants and animals, connecting with nature, becoming certified, and spending time with people who have similar interests. Over half the participants surveyed were over 50 years old, two‐thirds were women, and a majority reported household incomes of over $50,000 (60% in California, 85% in Virginia), and <20% of those surveyed in both states described themselves as nonwhite. Thus, these programs need to improve participation by a wider spectrum of the public. We interviewed younger and underrepresented adults to examine barriers to participation in citizen science. The primary barrier was lack of time due to the need to work and focus on career advancement. Survey data revealed that participants’ ecological knowledge, scientific skills, and belief in their ability to address environmental issues increased after training. Documented conservation actions taken by the participants include invasive plant management, habitat restoration, and cleanups of natural areas and streams. Long‐term data from Virginia on volunteer hours dedicated to environmental citizen science show an increase from 14% in 2007 to 32% in 2014. In general, participants in the naturalist programs we examined increased their content knowledge about ecosystems, had greater confidence in conserving them, and continued to engage as citizen scientists after completing the program.