Over the last two decades, the field of biodiversity conservation has been reckoning with the historical lack of effective engagement with the social sciences. This has paralleled rapid declines in biodiversity alongside escalating concerns regarding socio-ecological justice, exacerbated by many common conservation practices. As a result, there is now wide recognition amongst scholars and practitioners of the importance of understanding and engaging human dimensions in conservation practice. Developing and applying theoretical and practical knowledge related to the social sciences, therefore, should be a priority for people working in biodiversity conservation. In this paper we report on the training needs for the next generation of conservation social science professionals. We discuss the key skill and knowledge bottlenecks in conservation social sciences, within the domains of research, policy, and practice, and at a global scale. We do this by analyzing survey responses provided by 119 professionals working in multiple conservation professional sectors. Based on their responses we identify the soft and technical skills that current conservation social scientists feel are most needed for the sector as a whole. The top three soft skills are Cultural awareness & ability to understand the values and perspectives of others, People management & conflict resolution, and Developing and maintaining inter/intra-organisational networks and working relationships. The top three technical skills are Behavior change expertise, Government and policy expertise, and General critical thinking & problem-solving skills. Overall, we also find that current conservation social scientists believe students and early career conservationists should prioritize soft skills rather than technical skills to be effective. These skills were also correlated with the skills considered hardest to train on the job, and there was some variation in the importance of soft and technical skills by institution and region.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thomas‐Walters et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: