Contribution short abstract

This presentation reflects on my process of gathering a theoretical framework, the construction of a research design, and the challenges of fieldwork, while remaining consequential with nurturing critical dialogues and navigating epistemic conflicts.

Contribution long abstract

As a researcher working in political ecology of conservation strategies, I acknowledge that these strategies can perpetuate social, political, and historical structures rooted in colonial legacies. As a Peruvian biologist and conservation practitioner after almost 15 years of professional experience, the previous statement feels extremely familiar and painfully underwritten. As I embark on my PhD journey in a European University, critical questions and reflections around my own practice and approach emerge. It is known that significant epistemic conflicts surface when there is a lack of critical dialogue between key knowledge- and stake-holders in conservation and human-nature relationships (Petriello & Stronza, 2020; Shanee, 2019; Zhang et al., 2023). So how do I make sure that my research is part of that critical dialogue? I acknowledge that my approach to it is crossed by my training, my life experience, my gender, my language and culture, my attachment to a territory and, specially, my willingness to attain an advance academic degree. Therefore, while planning and doing my research I have been trying to remain conscious of what I felt was invisible in conservation practice. This presentation reflects about my own process of gathering a theoretical framework, the construction of a research design, and the challenges of fieldwork. I am willing to share how my practice is constantly challenged by the context and political decisions. This presentation is an attempt to remain consequential with nurturing critical dialogues and navigating epistemic conflicts.