Shifting Power in Practice: Implementing Relational Research and Evaluation in Conservation Science

Abstract

Elevating Indigenous leadership in conservation science is critical for social and ecological wellbeing. However, Indigenous knowledges are frequently undermined by persistent colonial research standards. In response, calls to implement ethical guidelines that advance Indigenous research and data governance are mounting. Despite this growing movement, most environmental studies continue to follow largely colonial, extractive models, presenting a widening gap between ethical guidelines and practical applications across diverse research contexts. To address this gap, our study aims to design and evaluate a wildlife conservation research project based on the Relational Science Model, which outlines guidance for improving research relations with Indigenous Peoples. To achieve this aim, we conducted a post-survey to evaluate the project from the perspectives of the intended beneficiaries of La Bendición in southwestern Guatemala, accompanied by researcher reflections and observations. The results revealed strong agreement between community research partner experience and Relational Science Model outcomes, including relevant and innovative knowledge generation, alongside improved trust in research collaborations. Respondents also outlined several areas of improvement, including a desire for more diverse community engagement, particularly regarding youth. Overall, this study outlines pathways and recommendations for researchers, institutions, and agencies to improve relational accountability in conservation science practice, supporting Indigenous conservation governance and environmental justice.

1. Introduction

Amidst growing concerns for biodiversity loss and climate change, Indigenous stewardship and conservation governance arise as pivotal mechanisms in environmental and species recovery (Artelle et al. 2019; Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021). Indigenous Peoples have been stewarding landscapes since time immemorial, and they continue to embody diverse, dynamic, and adaptive knowledge systems that support social and ecological resilience (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021). These Indigenous stewardship responsibilities and kinship ties to lands, waters, and wildlife are often demonstrated through sustainable hunting and fishing practices, fire treatments, erosion prevention, soil enhancement, management of mature and diverse forests, and numerous other stewardship practices that span across diverse ecosystems, including forests, deserts, grasslands, tundra, coastal areas, and waters (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021; Fisk et al. 2024; Julia de Burgos Cultural Arts Center 2020; Lake and Christianson 2019; Leonard et al. 2023; Waller and Reo 2018; Whyte 2018b). With Indigenous Peoples stewarding over a quarter of the planet’s land surface (Garnett et al. 2018) and 80% of global biodiversity (Waller and Reo 2018), elevating these uniquely contextual and relational knowledge systems is crucial to meet international calls for honoring Indigenous rights and strengthening environmental sustainability (David-Chavez and Gavin 2018; United Nations General Assembly 2007).

Despite the growing recognition of the importance of Indigenous stewardship, historical injustices and the ongoing realities of colonial oppression reinforce contemporary environmental and social disparities (Gilio-Whitaker 2019; Whyte 2018a). For example, the conventional (i.e., “typical”, by western standards) research model for engaging Indigenous Peoples and their knowledges has been widely criticized for continuing legacies of knowledge extraction, land dispossession, and human rights violations to preserve the false conception that humans are separate from their environments (Dowie 2011; Eichler and Baumeister 2021; Farrell et al. 2021; Kashwan et al. 2021; Lele et al. 2010; Liboiron 2021). This conventional paradigm is especially critical to re-evaluate in environmental studies that aim to promote ecological wellbeing, though they are often confined to limited and detached settler-colonial ways of knowing that fail to recognize the pluralistic and place-based knowledge systems embodied by Indigenous Peoples (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021; Gazing Wolf et al. 2024; Hird et al. 2023; Whyte 2018b). Consequently, without ethically engaging and honoring Indigenous Peoples and their knowledges, cultures, customs, and inherent rights in environmental research and conservation, this inevitably leads to inaccurate, irrelevant, and/or incomplete datasets that may be used to draft ill-suited policy and management decisions across diverse landscapes (David-Chavez et al. 2024; David-Chavez and Gavin 2018; Lele et al. 2010; Suiseeya 2014). Additionally, by restricting the ability of Indigenous Peoples to determine their own outcomes or practice Indigenous ways of being, this not only infringes on Indigenous Peoples’ fundamental right to self-determination (United Nations General Assembly 2007) but also contributes to reverberating social harms and largely ineffective conservation efforts (Armitage et al. 2019; Dawson et al. 2021; Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021).

In response to these encounters and mis-encounters, several scholars, activists, and practitioners have highlighted the central importance of applying values-centered ethical frameworks to foster research initiatives that reaffirm, rather than undermine, Indigenous rights, in alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which our nations have endorsed (David-Chavez and Gavin 2018; Gardner-Vandy et al. 2021; Toomey 2016). There are numerous ethical frameworks that represent both broad and place-specific guidance for elevating the respect and honor of Indigenous rights in environmental research and practice (Collaboratory for Indigenous Data Governance 2021; David-Chavez et al. 2024; Hayward et al. 2021; Lovo et al. 2021). Many of these guiding frameworks collectively underscore the importance of centering relational values in projects engaging Indigenous Peoples, such that these efforts are directed by the self-determined goals, interests, visions, and futures of the local rightsholders (holders of land title and/or customary rights to ancestral lands and waters) (Carjuzaa and Fenimore-Smith 2010; David-Chavez et al. 2024; Ermine 2007; Gardner-Vandy et al. 2021; Jennings et al. 2023; Kūlana Noiʻi Working Group 2021; Whyte 2018b). However, although well established, these ethical frameworks are rarely meaningfully applied (David-Chavez and Gavin 2018), with conventional extractive paradigms continuing to shape mainstream research, practice, and evaluation (Chilisa et al. 2016; LaFrance and Nichols 2008). Consequently, interest in engaging Indigenous Peoples and their knowledges is outpacing the implementation of ethical guidance that honors Indigenous rights into conventional conservation research protocols, further eroding trust in partnerships alongside social and ecological outcomes (Toomey 2016).

Given the underlying, often unconscious, bias present in conventional conservation research that can diminish desired research outcomes, there is a need for researchers to reconsider and re-evaluate their research processes outside of these colonial paradigms. Evaluation is a critical step in this process, as it offers “a lens through which judgements are made and standards are set about what should be considered real program outcomes, what knowledge measures that reality, and what values support the evaluation practice” (Chilisa et al. 2016, p. 1). Under the colonial model of evaluation, the interests of researchers and funders often take precedence, which can fundamentally de-prioritize locally specific interests, values, and goals (Chilisa et al. 2016; LaFrance and Nichols 2008; Lucero et al. 2024). Meanwhile, this type of evaluation can also invite negative judgments and false depictions of Indigenous Peoples based on assumed deficiencies with respect to colonial standards (Chilisa et al. 2016; David-Chavez et al. 2024; LaFrance and Nichols 2008; Walter and Andersen 2013). Not only does the colonial evaluation approach contribute to harmful and inaccurate depictions of Indigenous Peoples, but it also redirects accountability away from external researchers and institutions who hold tremendous power to influence norms and standards in practice. Therefore, alongside research as a whole, there is a need for evaluation to prioritize the lived experiences, priorities, rights, and worldviews of Indigenous Peoples in order to improve standards of engagement (Chilisa et al. 2016; David-Chavez et al. 2024; Lucero et al. 2024). Applying values-based approaches throughout research processes, from initial conception through evaluation, provides valuable pathways towards improving research relations and accountability in practice across diverse contexts.

To promote the application of these leading ethical guidelines in conservation science, our study aims to field test the recently published Relational Science Model (RSM) as an evaluation instrument for a wildlife conservation field project conducted in Guatemala (David-Chavez et al. 2024). The RSM is a comprehensive framework that consolidates leading guiding principles and wise practices in research to improve leadership of and relations with Indigenous Peoples. The RSM also provides evaluation outcomes based on community-based Indigenous research scholarship that centers Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination (David-Chavez et al. 2024). In support of elevating these relational standards in the environmental field, the authorship team specifically aims to achieve the following: (1) outline the implementation of RSM recommendations into a wildlife conservation research project and (2) evaluate the project based on the experiences and insights of community research partners, alongside researcher reflections, in alignment with the values, principles, and intended outcomes of the RSM. To achieve these aims, we compiled key examples of how the research team implemented RSM ethical principles throughout a wildlife conservation research project, co-created and led by the local rightsholders and intended project beneficiaries of La Bendición, a multicultural mixed mestizo and Indigenous (Mayan mam) community in southwestern Guatemala. Next, to evaluate the research process, we compared the intended outcomes of the RSM against the realized outcomes of the wildlife conservation research project, based on community research partner experiences gathered via a post-survey and complementary researcher reflections. We conclude by offering further considerations and recommendations for researchers, institutions, and agencies to improve their relational science efforts in conservation and related fields.

2. Applying the Relational Science Model in Conservation Research

As the RSM is intended to guide diverse projects and collaborations that engage or are led by Indigenous Peoples towards honoring Indigenous rights and maintaining relational accountability (David-Chavez et al. 2024), our research draws from this model to build an underlying ethical framework in the context of conservation science. The RSM, in particular, emphasizes honoring Indigenous rights in practice by underscoring protocols and actions that align with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP is a formal and comprehensive statement that establishes a universal understanding of the fundamental and inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples, expanding upon the individual rights to respect for persons, beneficence, and justice established by the Belmont principles to the rights and protections of Indigenous collectives (FAO et al. 2016; Tsosie et al. 2021; United Nations General Assembly 2007). UNDRIP is especially pertinent to environmental fields, such as conservation, as, in addition to recognizing the rights of Indigenous Peoples to control their own lands and resources, UNDRIP also recognizes the importance of respecting Indigenous knowledges, cultures, and practices to ensure proper, sustainable, and equitable environmental management (United Nations General Assembly 2007). Meanwhile, with Indigenous Peoples recovering and working to maintain relational ties across global landscapes, researchers, institutions, and agencies have a clear responsibility to reaffirm these rights outlined in UNDRIP in environmental research and practice.

To further the adoption of UNDRIP in research, the RSM outlines several principles and protocols to nurture relational accountability across research collaborations, upheld by the four core values of integrity, respect, humility, and reciprocity. These values reflect long-held value framing evident throughout Indigenous scholarship and practice that are necessary to shift from colonial research paradigms centered in extraction towards relational research paradigms. Relational research paradigms aim to reconcile and tend to past and ongoing colonial harms while also strengthening pathways for communities to determine their own outcomes, both of which are necessary for achieving environmental justice (Gilio-Whitaker 2019; Raphael and Matsuoka 2024). Specifically, the values framing of the RSM provides mechanisms and guidance for (1) reaffirming the inherent individual and collective rights of Indigenous Peoples in making environmental policy and research decisions concerning their lands, waters, and knowledges (actualizing the value of integrity through procedural justice), (2) sustaining and restoring Indigenous research and conservation governance (actualizing the value of respect through transformational justice), (3) confronting colonial paradigms and honoring diverse ways of knowing and being in research and policymaking (actualizing the value of humility through recognition justice), (4) and ensuring equitable access to research and environmental resources and benefits (actualizing the value of reciprocity through distribution justice) (Matsuoka and Raphael 2024). Taken as a whole, the RSM, which embeds an environmental justice ethic, aims to redirect power and authority from external researchers and towards frontline communities to strengthen social and ecological recovery and resilience.

In implementing this relational framing, the wildlife conservation field project became grounded in the interests, goals, histories, and realities of the local rightsholders of La Bendición while calibrating to the skillsets and capacity encompassed by the research team. Our research team consisted of academic researchers from a US-based institution, local Guatemalan biologists and bilingual community liaisons, local and international nonprofit collaborators, and La Bendición community research partners, which included a diversity of networks, expertise, resources, and relationships to facilitate capacity sharing towards a collective, community-rooted vision. In attuning this team to the community context, we identified the primary goal of the project as promoting the shared generation of academic and place-based knowledges of the local landscape to support the strengthening of ancestral and kinship ties to place, alongside communal conservation governance. In pursuit of this goal and through the implementation of RSM principles (Figure 1; Table S1) (David-Chavez et al. 2024), the research team used a combination of participatory action research, social science methods, Indigenous ethical protocols, and standardized ecological survey methods to inventory the biodiversity (mammals and birds) and plant knowledge (herbal medicines) in the community-managed area of La Bendición. The outcomes of the wildlife conservation project included a photo album of all mammal species identified with camera traps and local experts, locally specific field guides of birds and mammals, workshops related to field equipment, data stewardship, and technology, a visual community timeline and map, medicinal herb recipe books for all community research partners, and ongoing support, recommendations, and considerations for strengthening self-determined communal conservation governance strategies, such as a community-run ecotourism program.

3. Evaluating Conservation Research Based on the Relational Science Model

To evaluate the wildlife conservation research project based on the RSM, we conducted a post-survey, followed by an inductive thematic analysis, highlighting the perspectives, stories, and lived experiences of community research partners (Chilisa et al. 2016; LaFrance and Nichols 2008; Lucero et al. 2024). We supplemented qualitative response data with quantitative assessments, as well as researcher insights, reflections, and observations regarding the wildlife conservation research process (Beck et al. 2021; Toomey 2016). We then summarized these results in relation to the four core values and associated Indigenous rights and relational-based outcomes outlined in the RSM (David-Chavez et al. 2024), focusing on challenges and opportunities for improving relational accountability in conservation science practice.

3.1. Survey Data Collection

The survey population included La Bendición community members who had some relationship to the wildlife conservation research project conducted in February–June 2023. These community respondents were also representatives of central leadership groups within the community, including the Youth Council, Women’s Council, and Board of Directors. Members of the research team conducted the survey in person with the community on 5 September 2023, approximately three months following the closure of the wildlife conservation research project. We chose to conduct this survey soon after the closure of the project so that community research partners could more easily and clearly recall project activities and their relevance, even if priorities may change in the future. Additionally, we did not complete a pre-survey and instead focused exclusively on a post-survey to request feedback only after we had established intentional and reciprocal relationships with community research partners.

Prior to administering the survey process, we briefed respondents (community members) on consent procedures, emphasizing that their participation in the survey was completely optional and that they could leave (opt out) at any time. We also assured respondents that their responses would remain anonymous. To administer the survey, researchers and community research partners co-organized three separate survey events for each group for a total of 50 participants (8% Youth Council, 58% Women’s Council, and 34% Board of Directors), representing approximately 10% of La Bendición. Because the focus of the survey was on assessing the lived experiences of community research partners who engaged in the previous wildlife conservation project, the survey population reflected that research demographic, rather than the demographic of the entire community. To start each survey event, we provided each community group with a visual representation of all the activities contained within the project so that they could review it and provide general feedback. Following this activity, we handed out hardcopy surveys to each respondent in Spanish, and it consisted of 14 questions regarding their experience with the project, including 9 open-ended questions used in subsequent qualitative analyses (Supplementary S1). These questions were developed predominantly by the academic research team, with input and insights from external collaborators.

3.2. Analyses

3.2.1. Qualitative Analyses

The authorship team, including local bilingual liaisons, compiled, translated (Spanish to English), and verified the accuracy of open-ended survey responses, making minor grammatical and spelling corrections to improve English interpretations. Using these data, we then completed a multilingual open-coding analysis (Supplementary S1). We found, early on, that respondents did not necessarily answer questions directly but often included additional or general thoughts, so we did not pre-categorize responses based on the survey questions. Instead, for this approach, two English-language coders used NVivo Pro 12 (version 12.6.0.959) to inductively (i.e., without predetermined categories) code all translated open-ended responses. Both coders, alongside the local bilingual liaison, reexamined, refined, and integrated these open codes, providing descriptions of each based on multilingual (Spanish to English) interpretations. The open codes then went through several rounds of collapsing and combining to identify connections that emerged in relation to the RSM potential outcomes (Creswell 2014; Glesne 2011). We then reviewed these codes and together determined our final set, including corresponding descriptions, interpretations, and connections to RSM potential outcomes (Table S3) (David-Chavez et al. 2024). Although shaped by the Indigenous ethics that frame the RSM, this inductive coding and organization process enabled community experiences derived from response data to further contextualize and define the interpretations of the outcomes presented in this study. Finally, we calculated the proportion of respondents that identified each thematic code and assessed inter-coder reliability using NVivo Pro 12 (version 12.6.0.959) to calculate a kappa coefficient of agreement among the two English-language coders for each code. Kappa coefficient values indicated almost perfect agreement for 34 out of 41 codes and perfect agreement for the remaining 7 codes (Landis and Koch 1977), with an overall percentage of 91.5%. Summary information is based on the lead author’s final analysis (Table S2).

3.2.2. Quantitative Analyses

Prior to analysis, members of the authorship team cleaned the data to only include numeric values where relevant, and they replaced all blank and extraneous responses with NA. Following this cleaning stage, we calculated summary statistics to complement our qualitative responses. We analyzed all quantitative responses using R statistical software (version 2024.04.02+764). Specifically, we calculated the percentage of respondents who agreed or disagreed (along a five-point Likert scale) with nine statements regarding their experience (Supplementary S1). We also calculated the percentage of respondents who were using, were not using, or hoped to use the results of the wildlife conservation research project Lastly, we calculated the percentage of respondents who indicated that they were more interested or less interested in forest conservation following the wildlife conservation research project and whether they were more likely or less likely to participate in a similar project. Sample sizes (n) varied because not all the respondents answered every component of every question in the survey.

3.3. Results and Discussion

To broadly assess the alignment of the overall project process with the RSM principles, Figure 2 outlines key reflections that correspond to each of the four RSM core values of integrity, respect, humility, and reciprocity, each of which demonstrated high agreement (agreement percentage ranging from 74 to 97%; Figure 2). Statements that reflected the value of integrity received the lowest level of agreement, though the majority of respondents still felt that their community was able to control the outcomes and information gathered during the project (86% agreement, n = 35) and that they knew what the project was about and how it would benefit their community from the start (74% agreement, n = 35). This lower level of agreement could indicate that more effort could have been dedicated towards engaging community research partners at the onset of the project, prior to initiating field project activities. Related to the value of respect, respondents largely agreed with feeling that the project team was flexible and accommodating of community needs and interests as they developed (95% agreement, n = 36) and feeling that they were able to provide input, lead, or change aspects of the projects or meetings if desired (91% agreement, n = 34). Statements that reflected the value of humility received the strongest agreement from respondents, which included feeling listened to and honored in their interactions with the research team (97% agreement, n = 33) and feeling that the research team was genuinely interested in learning from them and about their community or culture (94% agreement, n = 36). Lastly, regarding reciprocity, the respondents largely felt that the project was made relevant to community interests and concerns (94% agreement, n = 35), that there was a balance between what was asked and the benefits of the project (92% agreement, n = 35), and that they were able to access information and findings related to the project (81% agreement, n = 31).

Although these ratings provide a baseline understanding of the overall impression of the research on local rightsholders, the primary voices and experiences of community research partners offer a deeper understanding of the realized impacts of the wildlife conservation research project in alignment with RSM values and intended outcomes (LaFrance and Nichols 2008). Therefore, to provide a more complete evaluation, the proceeding sections outline the thematic analysis and additional complementary quantitative metrics and researcher reflections related to each RSM value to assess community-based outcomes, as well as the implications of these results.

3.3.1. Integrity

The RSM outlines four potential outcomes of applying research integrity, including accountability to community, upholding sovereignty, improved data quality, and improved trust in research processes and relationships (David-Chavez et al. 2024). Overall, the authorship and analysis team identified the value of integrity as largely representing outcomes that corresponded to how the external research team and affiliated institutions formally and ethically prepared for working with Indigenous research partners, such as through drafting accountability agreements, completing ethics trainings, introducing the project and researchers, and facilitating Indigenous data governance strategies (Figure 3), which we further expand upon in our methods (Figure 1; Table S1). Therefore, evaluation indicators of integrity include both internal mechanisms demonstrating researcher and institutional preparations (Figure 3), as well as how these actions influenced community experiences (Figure 2a,b; Figure 4). For example, regarding how the community experienced the outcome related to trust, responses indicated a growing and persistent interest in the research and research topic, with 100% of respondents indicating that they were more interested in forest conservation because of this project, 8% of whom had a growing interest in medicinal plants specifically (n = 38; Figure 4a). Meanwhile, there were several respondents who noted continued excitement and interest in future projects, exemplified by statements such as “Keep doing more research projects”, with 97% of respondents indicating they were more likely to participate in a similar project thereafter, with the rest being unsure (n = 39; Figure 4b). These results arose even after previous lived experiences with researchers entering La Bendición lands for environmental research purposes and extracting knowledge, with limited community engagement or reciprocity. These results underscore the role of relational accountability strategies in supporting reconciliation efforts (Armitage et al. 2019; David-Chavez et al. 2024).

In striving to implement ethical standards of integrity, the research team did face challenges in articulating rights within local political and international contexts, as Guatemala and U.S.-based institutions have minimal legal guidance for working with Indigenous and mixed rural communities in this region (Nature 2022). The lack of guidance required the academic researchers to independently outline the implementation of UNDRIP in appropriate research protocols, such as the university Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol. Meanwhile, because this research was facilitated by university affiliates, original templates came directly from the institution. However, because the use of these formal and legal agreements is generally not required by institutions, it became the responsibility of the researchers to be the primary liaisons, even if this was not their area of expertise. In the end, due to the limited legal support, researchers and community research partners dedicated substantial time outside of regular research activities to walking through and revisiting these documents throughout the study and critically considering the meaning and importance of data retention and long-term data stewardship in alignment with the CARE principles (Carroll et al. 2020, 2021, 2022; Jennings et al. 2023). These processes could be improved through the institutional recognition and consideration of Indigenous research and data sovereignty, such as through dedicated support staff and Indigenous rights-specific research protocols. Additionally, further consideration of the resources, expertise, and timelines required to thoughtfully develop these formal agreements and data stewardship plans is warranted.

Lastly, the research team also harbored concerns involving the accessibility of digital data, given the lack of digital infrastructure and mixed literacy within the community. These concerns, coupled with ongoing discussions with community experts, led us to pursue diverse data outputs (e.g., printed visuals, written reports, presentations, workshops, and an external hard-drive) to support community authority and the utility of their data (Figure 2b) and build research and data stewardship capacity in La Bendición. The importance of pursuing data creations beyond academic publications is consistent with other research illustrating the broad social and political impacts offered by expansive community-specific outputs (Bennett et al. 2017). However, these diverse data creations could be further enabled by university-level support, such as academic incentives, to pursue community-based outcomes, rather than conventional metrics based on the quantity of data extracted and publications generated.

3.3.2. Respect

Regarding the RSM core value of respect, four central outcomes arise, including project relevance, utility, and support for local decision-making and self-determination (David-Chavez et al. 2024). Regarding project relevance, several respondents voiced general project appreciation and community benefits, including noting how supporting forest conservation could support livelihoods as well, with one respondent noting, “We need to protect the forest. Without forest, there is no source of water or animals. The forest regulate[s] the weather and they provide food” (Figure 5). By intentionally making research processes relevant to community interests and goals, this led to a high degree of utility, with nearly three-quarters of community research partners already using project results after merely three months following the conclusion of the project (n = 33; Figure 6), with one respondent stating, “What this left us is something visible, for example the recipe book, [and] the pictures of the animals of the forest”, and another noting, “For the future, my family could get benefit through an ecotourism project. [This] could be a way to open this possibility”. Of those not yet using project results (27%), 4% are hoping to use project results in the future (n = 12; Figure 6), with one respondent commenting “The projects you have brought to us have been very good. I couldn’t participate but I would like to in another opportunity”.

The ability for community members to engage in future project efforts could be encouraged through the advancement of local decision-making and self-determination, both of which had demonstrated support through this project (Figure 2c,d and Figure 5). For example, because the ability of the community to make decisions as a collective is largely supported by the strength of connections within the community, we highlight several responses that emphasized growing community appreciation, learning, and cohesion, with one respondent commenting that “It was interesting to talk and remember how we as a community are structure[d], and share… the [role] of each of us in the community”. Meanwhile, regarding self-determination, some community members noted how the project paves the way for future, community-driven projects, with one community member commenting, “We [were] exposed [to] the forest diversity and richness in addition to the services it provides… we are able to manage new projects and there is more forest conservation conscience”.

Related to improvements, other community members noted the desire to play a stronger role in project leadership, supported by internal community processes, as well as external researcher facilitation, with one respondent noting, “Involve more [of] the directive organisms in the process [so] that everything goes well”. Community leadership could be supported through external researchers spending more time with the community and meeting with community experts, respected leaders, and community groups more often prior to developing a project proposal. The importance of building relationships in this way has been underscored throughout the literature as a primary driving force in promoting Indigenous leadership and co-creation (David-Chavez et al. 2024; Ermine 2007; Gardner-Vandy et al. 2021). However, funding allocation to relationship development and project co-creation outside of data collection is frequently undervalued in grant priorities (Gardner-Vandy et al. 2021; Tachera 2021), with the majority of conservation grants prioritizing extractive research paradigms (Hird et al. 2023; Kashwan et al. 2021). Based on these results and the culmination of research outlining the importance of Indigenous-led research processes, funding that explicitly prioritizes relationship building, local leadership, and flexible, community-driven timelines and outcomes would elevate the value of respect in these contexts (Toomey et al. 2015; Zonta et al. 2023) and thereby provide additional capacity for researchers to outline thoughtful engagement strategies early on (e.g., in a grant proposal).

3.3.3. Humility

For the RSM core value of humility, outcomes encompass increased capacity, collective action, innovation through knowledge generation, and the strengthening of knowledge transmission (David-Chavez et al. 2024). In particular, implementing principles of humility yielded increased capacity and collective action of community research partners through the diverse methods employed during the research process (Figure 7). Results related to capacity demonstrated strong ties to the potential for extending knowledge transmission within the community, with several respondents noting the desire for, interest in, and intention of continuing to create new knowledge within the community, developing future projects, and expanding knowledge exchanges to include more of the community or other communities, with one respondent commenting, “I would like to share more knowledge about the forest and medicinal plants” (Figure 7). Some respondents also commented on a personal interest or desire to engage in the project further. Regarding collective action, several respondents noted how this project and future projects might contribute to community development, with one respondent noting, “The community improves as we improve as well. The nature preserves”. Additionally, related to collective action for strengthening knowledge transmission, in particular, women played a leading role in organizing the community in a medicinal recipe knowledge exchange that proved to be transformative and rewarding for the majority (60%; Figure 7) of community research partners, with several respondents underscoring the importance of learning about and utilizing medicinal plants to “heal the family” and to “not lose the ancestral information of the recipes”. This exchange was especially important for this community given their mixed culture, with much of the community originally coming from different regions of Guatemala. Meanwhile, the importance of women’s knowledges for safeguarding crucial food and medicine resources and thereby local ecosystem diversity has long contributed to ecosystem stewardship and conservation innovation (Shiva 1994). In this way, the implementation of RSM principles related to humility demonstrated strengthened conservation development, as well as communal governance and healing through honoring the local expertise and leadership of women in the community (Figure 2e) (Armitage et al. 2019).

In addition to supporting the generation and sharing of medicinal recipe knowledge, the application of participatory methods and community-engaged research and knowledge sharing (Figure 2f) contributed to innovative, place-based knowledge generation in support of both immediate concerns and future visions of La Bendición (Bingham et al. 2021; Maiter et al. 2008). For example, community members commented on the importance of each research method employed, from specific learning outcomes related to birds, camera traps, and their communal forest to the general creation and application of new knowledge alongside project novelty, with one respondent noting, “We know our forest… now we know animal species and we are very interested in the forest, to keep watching over the forest to know better the richness of it”. These same sentiments were also expanded by the transmission of knowledge within the community, with respondents commenting on the importance of communal and intergenerational knowledge exchanges facilitated during the project, with one respondent commenting, “I tell my children and the family about the animals that live in the forest and about the existence of camera traps”.

Community research partners also provided valuable feedback on how to improve humility within the project, such as the need for Indigenous (Mayan mam) language translation, as well as more youth engagement. Similar to the value of respect, these features of humility could have been improved through the dedicated investment in relationships early on across diverse demographics and roles (Gardner-Vandy et al. 2021; Walker et al. 2020; Wong et al. 2020). Although relationships with Indigenous language speakers and youth community members became strengthened by the end of the project, with results recently translated into Mayan mam and youth engagement in workshops, these initiatives occurred well after the development and application of research activities, rather than during important co-creation stages of the project. Because language revitalization and the transmission of knowledge to youth are central to the resurgence and continuity of Indigenous knowledge systems (Simpson 2004), strengthening these processes throughout would promote communal forest stewardship innovation both now and into the future (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021).

3.3.4. Reciprocity

For the RSM core value of reciprocity, outcomes include improved access, sustained relationships and support, equitable outcomes, and validity of research results (David-Chavez et al. 2024). These outcomes build upon the previous values, as well as the intentional framing of the project, with the project led by the self-determined goals and interests of the local community (Figure 2h,i). Building from these relational intentions and methods (Figure 1), in alignment with the accessibility of the project results, several respondents emphasized the generation and retention of knowledge for the community, with one respondent noting, “The job that you came to do here will remain here at the community, you didn’t take it away” (Figure 8), consistent with quantitative results (Figure 2g). However, community research partners outlined several needs and areas of improvement to ensure broader access and engagement, including a desire for more of the community to participate in the research, alongside addressing literacy and language barriers and other accessibility barriers, such as scheduling of research activities. Regarding sustained relationships and support, several respondents emphasized interest in maintaining research efforts amongst the community and with researchers and requested more learning opportunities, such as workshops, alongside continued visits and follow-ups by the research team. In supporting equitable outcomes, although respondents indicated a balance between research requests and benefits (Figure 2i), respondents also underscored the need to motivate more of the community to participate, especially youth members. Additionally, respondents noted that improved facilitation, including supporting more unity amongst the community and with the researchers, would be helpful. Lastly, related to the outcome of research and data validity, while the respondents did not speak to this directly, the overall reliability of the research was supported by both internal processes of community review, feedback, and authorship, as well as expressed project relevance (Figure 2h).

Similar to the previous values, investing in relationships and meaningful community leadership opportunities arise as key for strengthening reciprocity in project processes. specifically, cultivating a research team at the onset, inclusive of diverse community members and respected leaders, could help foster more community ownership and facilitation of project activities through sharing capacity (Muhl et al. 2023). However, given the full and abundant lives of community members, these additional roles would need to be appropriately and meaningfully supported. Monetary compensation is one option, though identifying conservation grants that emphasize community engagement presents an outstanding challenge, with the other major hindrance being the logistical constraints of providing direct funds to rural community members, especially non-English speakers and those based in the Global South (e.g., written English forms, digital transfers, tax and citizenship requirements, etc., as required by our institution). While we were able to strategize honorarium payments to community research partners at the closure of the project, these funding constraints limited our ability to provide initial and ongoing monetary compensation during the project. In response, members of the authorship team have since been working with La Bendición to establish a formal community organization and website to facilitate more direct funding moving forward.

Because monetary compensation is just one option out of many, during the project, we pursued other community-rooted compensation options as well, such as gift giving, celebrations and meals, community-driven products, and co-authorship (Chief et al. 2015; David-Chavez et al. 2024). Although we implemented co-authorship and acknowledgments in all community-specific outputs, the additional requirements of academic journals (e.g., individual authorship, email access, and literacy and language standards) presented further barriers for authorship by community organizations, especially in rural contexts. Additionally, thesis and dissertation research in particular reinforces the requirement for lead authorship by the academic researcher, thereby undermining ethical procedures, alongside the significant knowledge contributions of community research partners (Carroll et al. 2022; Chief et al. 2015; Kūlana Noiʻi Working Group 2021). Taken as a whole, strategizing compensation mechanisms while navigating institutional bureaucracy to adequately meet ethical standards with regard to reciprocity created an undue burden on the research team, which is a growing concern for early-career researchers and researchers with minoritized identities (Jimenez et al. 2019). This dynamic can exacerbate inequities, not only regarding reciprocity between community research partners and external researchers but also within institutions where early-career researchers and scholars of minoritized backgrounds tend to assume the responsibilities of implementing and improving just practices (Hird et al. 2023; Jimenez et al. 2019). Identifying and working to mitigate these institutional challenges could help facilitate equitable compensation for communities, thereby lessening the researcher burden while encouraging valuable contributions to conservation science from community experts.

4. Conclusions

This article underscores the possibilities and capacity of conservation and environmental sciences to engage Indigenous-centered ethical principles, with measurable outcomes for improved Indigenous conservation governance and research relations (David-Chavez et al. 2024) (Figure 2). Ethical models, such as the RSM, which was further contextualized in this study, offer crucial pathways and insights for fields such as conservation and environmentalism to divest from colonial research paradigms and instead honor and uphold the fundamental and legal rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly 2007). Thereby, conservation initiatives can value the local expertise and place-based knowledges that are key for supporting social and environmental recovery and resilience (IPCC 2023). This article contributes to this goal by offering further guidance for applying and evaluating community-engaged conservation studies based on the RSM principles (Figure 1; Table S1), as well as key values-based recommendations for researchers, institutions, and agencies to continue instilling ethics for relational accountability into their research processes, as summarized below.

(1)

Integrity: We recommend that institutions, agencies, and governing bodies formalize an Indigenous rights-based practice for engaging with Indigenous Peoples in research that aligns with UNDRIP, such that protocols and mechanisms are made transparent to both institutional affiliates and community research partners with dedicated and informed support staff. These efforts should include identifying clear pathways to support Indigenous data governance and data stewardship (Carroll et al. 2022) as well as strategies for incentivizing community-driven outcomes. We also recommend that all researchers consider the time and resources it takes to implement ethical procedures when crafting project timelines.

(2)

Respect: We recommend that funders (alongside researchers and institutions) place a stronger emphasis on relationship and trust building at the onset of research projects that engage Indigenous Peoples, lands, or interests, such that responsible engagement with and facilitation of community leadership is at the forefront of research planning (Gardner-Vandy et al. 2021).

(3)

Humility: We recommend that external researchers build diverse and meaningful relationships prior to developing formal research proposals, especially with youth, women, Indigenous language speakers, and Elders (Wong et al. 2020).

(4)

Reciprocity: We recommend that funders, external researchers, institutions, and other agencies meaningfully compensate and credit diverse, robust, and place-based research teams through improving community access to direct funding sources and authorship (Baker et al. 2019; Kūlana Noiʻi Working Group 2021).

With these research recommendations in mind, we also offer further limitations and refinements to our study design to consider for future evaluation efforts. For example, in alignment with suggestions to improve research participation, survey participation could also be encouraged by investing more time and resources into connecting with and providing tangible benefits to diverse community members prior to commencing the study, including those who may not have participated or have interest in the initial conservation project. Additionally, while the wildlife conservation research project emphasized participatory methodologies, we did not employ these same strategies in our survey design or analysis process, given this study’s more expedited time frame. Instead, in our process, we employed broad, open-ended questions to promote an inductive analysis shaped by community voices and insights and further supported by researcher reflections and observations. However, this more generalized approach also limited the ability of this study to evaluate each RSM outcome based on community experience alone (e.g., the value of integrity). These limitations warrant further consideration of the balance between open-ended questions and more focused questions related to value outcomes from the RSM or other co-developed evaluation models. Overall, for future efforts, we recommend considering evaluation approaches for research projects at the onset of project activities to better attune both research and evaluation to community-specific values, worldviews, and outcomes (Chilisa et al. 2016). The RSM, for example, as it is considered a “living working model” (p. 10, David-Chavez et al. 2024), could be further adapted, including underlying values, to meaningfully reflect specific community contexts. Taken as a whole, this article outlines an approach to implementing Indigenous rights-centered ethical standards into conservation science to better align intentions with realized outcomes while demonstrating evaluation procedures for building in research responsiveness to continually adapt, innovate, and advance relational conservation science practice.