We understand why diversity matters in nature. Why aren't we applying the same thinking to conservation science?

For Black History Month, Oxford researchers Dr Ricardo Rocha and Dr Diogo Gaspar Verissimo reflect on their new study highlighting the lack of diverse voices in conservation publishing and why greater representation matters for protecting nature.

Published in Conservation Biology, the study found that just 1.9% of surveyed authors publishing in conservation journals in 2020 identified as Black, while approximately 80% identified as White.

Diversity in nature and diversity in science

For Ricardo, a Black conservationist and one of the study's authors, the findings raise an important question about the relationship between the diversity we seek to protect in nature and the diversity of the scientific community working to protect it.

"As ecologists/conservationists, we understand that a forest monoculture is fundamentally different from a diverse forest. Even if it contains thousands of trees, a monoculture may lack the range of ecological functions and responses that make diverse ecosystems more resilient. Yet we rarely apply that same thinking to ourselves."

The study used self-reported demographic data from authors in conservation-related journals to describe demographic patterns in 2010 and 2020 and to evaluate changes across the intervening decade. One of the distinctive aspects of the study is its approach to measuring representation. The researchers combined social research methods with ecological diversity indices, tools more commonly used to understand biodiversity and ecological communities.

For Ricardo, this offered an opportunity to examine the scientific community using analytical approaches familiar to ecologists.

"Human diversity differs massively from ecological diversity and thus the analogy has its limits but I think there is something powerful about using the conceptual and analytical tools of our own discipline to turn the lens back on ourselves."

Senior author Diogo was particularly concerned by the lack of progress across most dimensions of diversity.

"We found some encouraging improvements in gender representation, but almost no meaningful change across most other dimensions of diversity."

He added that, given the attention diversity and inclusion have received in recent decades, he had hoped to see more substantial progress.

Whose voices are heard in conservation?

For Ricardo, the implications extend beyond who is able to publish scientific research. They also raise questions about who communicates conservation knowledge and who is recognised as a credible voice.

Conservation is as much a social challenge as an ecological one. Protecting biodiversity often requires changes in human behaviour, and how people respond to scientific messages can depend on who is delivering them.

"When Black researchers are underrepresented, we are not only limiting participation in science, we are also limiting the diversity of voices through which conservation knowledge reaches society and this is particularly problematic as we often seek to engage with communities with different backgrounds, histories and relationships with nature."

Ricardo emphasises that representation alone does not automatically create trust, nor can any individual speak for an entire community. However, a wider diversity of scientists and communicators can help engage more meaningfully and can make conservation more relevant and accessible to different audiences.

From commitments to change?

For both researchers, the findings demonstrate the need for journals, universities and research institutions to move beyond statements of support for diversity and take measurable action.

Ricardo points to commitments made by scientific journals in 2020, following the murder of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement, to address systemic racism and improve racial representation.

Six years on, he believes it is important to examine what has changed.

"These were important commitments, but six years later, we need to ask: what concrete progress has been made, and how are we measuring it?"

He argues that journals and research institutions should collect demographic information ethically and systematically. Diogo similarly calls for active monitoring, alongside changes to the economics of academic publishing. While open access has improved access to research for readers, publication charges can remain a significant barrier for researchers without institutional funding. He suggests that models such as Diamond Open Access, where neither authors nor readers pay, deserve greater attention.

“Ultimately, I would like to see Governments and Universities take greater responsibility for making the system more equitable, rather than expecting individual researchers to overcome structural barriers on their own.”

Overall, the work highlights how a lack of representation continues to characterise academic publishing in conservation and ecology but shows signs of positive change. The evidence that gender-based initiatives are having a positive effect is evidence that change is possible, but more work is needed to enhance representation across other dimensions of diversity.

For Ricardo, the ultimate goal is conservation that can connect with a broader range of people and experiences.

"I would love to see a future in which conservation knowledge is communicated through a much wider diversity of voices, including people who understand the cultural and social contexts of the communities they are engaging with."

For Black History Month, the research provides an opportunity not only to recognise the contributions of Black conservationists, but also to consider what needs to change to ensure that more voices are represented in the scientific literature.

To read more about this research, published in Conservation Biology, visit: The Society for Conservation Biology.