We have been called spies, weak researchers, and arrogant. The reason? We are critical social scientists. We expose power dynamics, social inequalities, and injustices in conservation. This work produces knowledge that is considered “unwanted”, “threatening”, or “disobedient” by those whose interests are challenged.

Some say sticks and stones may break my bones, but words shall never hurt me. However, words have been used against us for character assassination, legal threats, job exclusions, retracted publications, and censorship. One may not expect this to happen in conservation research, but it does. It is instigated by research granting bodies, policymakers and government officials, donors, ethics bodies, conservation biologists, and international and local conservation NGOs.

In a recent article in Conservation Biology, we show how such intimidation happens before, during, and after the publication process. Here we highlight a few examples in which the topic and type of research were the most likely reason for the authorities’ obstruction. We conclude by directing a way forward for the well-being of people and nature.  

Ground realities

Before doing research, some of us faced difficulties in obtaining research permits. India and Indonesia raised “national security” issues to censure research that didn’t adhere to their developmentalist agendas. Access to the Great Nicobar Development mega project in India was denied to a researcher because she does “political ecology” and had “foreign” funding. In Mozambique, researchers were denied park entry into Parque Nacional do Limpopo. They were unjustly accused of inciting local residents who were protesting against eviction and resettlement.  

Receiving permits does not guarantee that intimidation will stop. While conducting research about militarised transboundary conservation in Central Africa, one of us was driven to a secluded, fenced complex by an all-male and armed group of national intelligence officers. Accused of spying, she was pushed to identify pictures of hacked body parts during a three-hour interrogation. Shocked and anxious for the safety of her local hosts, she left the country. Today, it still impacts her mental health and well-being.

Several of us faced intimidation during or after publication. For instance, South Africa’s national lobby organisation for wildlife ranching sent an email to all its members asking them not to collaborate with two PhD researchers. Rigorous research was dismissed as “anecdotal” and “unscientific”. Some of us were bullied across various media platforms. A European donor unhappy with non-academic publications critiquing management of Virunga National Park, told one of us to be “pragmatic” and that for every hundred Congolese people who did not like the park, he could show her a hundred happy ones.

Commitment to truth

Michel Foucault, a French philosopher, said the courage to speak truth is not optional but an obligation. We understand that conservation is highly competitive, because funding is limited. Therefore, conservation NGOs and governments are under pressure to show their successes. However, research findings—even when uncomfortable—enrich our combined understanding to improve conservation.

We suggest: (i) conservation organisations and social scientists engage and collaborate better (ii) (critical) social scientists should better understand the position, interests, and contexts of conservation practitioners (iii) education curricula should include social sciences in mainstream conservation teaching (iv) funders should rethink “success” in their criteria and make more room for critical reviews.

Intimidation is destructive, not only for critical social scientists but also broadly for conservation, affecting borth people and nature.

Further Reading 

Foucault, M. 1984. The courage of truth: The government of self and others II—Lectures at the Collège de France 1983–1984. Palgrave Macmillan.

Igoe, J., S. Sullivan and D. Brockington. 2009. Problematising neoliberal biodiversity conservation: Displaced and disobedient knowledge. Current Conservation 3(3): 4–7. https://www.currentconservation.org/problematising-neoliberal-biodiversity-conservation-displaced-and-disobedient-knowledge/.

Koot, S., N. Anyango-van Zwieten, S. Sullivan, W. Dressler, M. Spierenburg, L. Trogisch, E. Marijnen et al. 2025. Intimidation as epistemological violence against social science conservation research. Conservation Biology 39: e14454. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14454.