TY - JOUR
T1 - A social network analysis of an epistemic community studying neoliberal conservation
AU - Bunce, Brittany
AU - Apostolopoulou, Elia
AU - Andres, Sara Maestre
AU - Choy, Alejandra Pizarro
AU - Requena-i-Mora, Marina
AU - Brockington, Dan
N1 - © 2025 The Author(s). Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.
PY - 2025/4
Y1 - 2025/4
N2 - Researchers typically operate in epistemic communities: groups that share common approaches to research agendas and sociopolitical action and define areas of debate. Although productive in their own spheres, a lack of understanding among these communities can undermine scientific progress. Thus, analyzing epistemic communities is important for understanding the politics of knowledge production. Social network analysis sheds light on these dynamics by mapping the collaborative networks that shape academic output. We used 255 publications examined in Apostolopoulou et al.’s review of neoliberal conservation literature and 2135 additional publications in a social network analysis. We compiled a coauthorship network for 318 authors and found a dispersed and polycentric network with low connectivity and relatively small clusters of scholars collaborating within tightly knit groups. Although the structure is conducive to innovation and diversity, building new connections among dispersed coauthor groups could enrich knowledge sharing to drive novel approaches. We identified central actors in building collaborations among communities and communicating ideas across the network. We considered actor attributes, such as gender and geographic location, alongside centrality measures. We found that seventy percent of the 20 authors with the highest betweenness centrality were men, and only one male author was affiliated to an institution in the Global South. Our analysis of thematic clusters in the literature highlighted the spatial patchiness and partialness of the literature across different subfields. Scholars should undertake more work on identified themes in currently excluded geographic regions through effective interdisciplinary collaborations and with local communities of research and practice and grassroots movements. There is a need to strengthen the field's intellectual diversity and to have a deeper engagement with issues of class, gender, and race. This would allow neoliberal conservation to reimagine conservation in ways that are not only environmentally sustainable, but also socially just.
AB - Researchers typically operate in epistemic communities: groups that share common approaches to research agendas and sociopolitical action and define areas of debate. Although productive in their own spheres, a lack of understanding among these communities can undermine scientific progress. Thus, analyzing epistemic communities is important for understanding the politics of knowledge production. Social network analysis sheds light on these dynamics by mapping the collaborative networks that shape academic output. We used 255 publications examined in Apostolopoulou et al.’s review of neoliberal conservation literature and 2135 additional publications in a social network analysis. We compiled a coauthorship network for 318 authors and found a dispersed and polycentric network with low connectivity and relatively small clusters of scholars collaborating within tightly knit groups. Although the structure is conducive to innovation and diversity, building new connections among dispersed coauthor groups could enrich knowledge sharing to drive novel approaches. We identified central actors in building collaborations among communities and communicating ideas across the network. We considered actor attributes, such as gender and geographic location, alongside centrality measures. We found that seventy percent of the 20 authors with the highest betweenness centrality were men, and only one male author was affiliated to an institution in the Global South. Our analysis of thematic clusters in the literature highlighted the spatial patchiness and partialness of the literature across different subfields. Scholars should undertake more work on identified themes in currently excluded geographic regions through effective interdisciplinary collaborations and with local communities of research and practice and grassroots movements. There is a need to strengthen the field's intellectual diversity and to have a deeper engagement with issues of class, gender, and race. This would allow neoliberal conservation to reimagine conservation in ways that are not only environmentally sustainable, but also socially just.
KW - coauthorship network analysis
KW - conservation social science
KW - epistemic communities
KW - neoliberal conservation
KW - social network analysis
KW - coauthorship network analysis
KW - conservation social science
KW - epistemic communities
KW - neoliberal conservation
KW - social network analysis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105002072409&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/14a40d26-4dc7-371b-9ce2-4939c3c06698/
U2 - 10.1111/cobi.70001
DO - 10.1111/cobi.70001
M3 - Review article
C2 - 40165691
AN - SCOPUS:105002072409
SN - 0888-8892
VL - 39
JO - Conservation biology
JF - Conservation biology
IS - 2
M1 - e70001
ER -