In the field of Conservation, there is a massive lack of care taken to ensure that human data and rights are not compromised when trying to protect and preserve other species. This lack of caution has led to serious malpractice, breaches of privacy and human rights violations, with cases as dire as those involving government bodies monitoring the lives and movements of tribal communities in certain parts of the world. This topic is usually overlooked by many academics in circles of conservation science and, as mentioned before, is a severely understudied issue with very little formally published literature in academia.

This mini research project aims to successfully carry out a brief and effective qualitative study that uses semi-structured interviews to elicit expert opinion and knowledge on conservation technologies and their interaction with the people affected by them. This is being done by interviewing world-leading academics in the field of biodiversity conservation who use a range of these technologies, as well as representatives from organizations that are involved with particular kinds of conservation surveillance.

Some fundamental questions this research project revolve around are: "Has the concerned academic considered the ethical implications of their conservation research when the meaning of "ethics" changes constantly with contexts and communities?; What is the best way to retain the efficacy of "x” conservation technology without compromising on the safety and wellbeing of human inhabitants inhabiting the same space or nearby spaces? ; Has the concerned academic come across a breach of rights whilst pursuing biodiversity conservation either personally or as part of a research group (without disclosing any details if they do not intend to)?, and if yes, what measures were taken (if any) to ensure protection of information and rights?". A refined list of such questions revolving around related themes was finalized to produce a concise 'interview sheet' that is used flexibly depending on the academic's area of expertise, with all the data collected being anonymized. 

These interviews take place either in person (where possible) or online, and is recorded and transcribed. Data from the transcripts is then cleaned up, coded using general thematic analysis, and consolidated as answers to the afore mentioned broader questions around human costs in conservation. 

The more implicit goal of this project (and I, personally feel the most important bit) is that of sparking conversation around the issue to initiate a dialogue across the board. The most beautiful part of this process for me has been speaking to all these academics that, for the most part, have not thought about the topic in any serious depth, and to be able to have a candid, free-flowing conversation with them, really trying to understand what they think (and more importantly feel) about it. The things that come out of these conversations have been so crucial and valuable that after each interview, I am left with something new to consider, to add to the questionnaire, and to think about.

Another incredible thing I must share here is what I learnt about the academics in general.  I had made it very clear to myself from the start that, as I interviewed various professors and researchers from different institutions, I'd keep these conversations as "non-serious" as possible. I wanted to get to know the person in front of me (or on my screen) for who they are and not for the answers they gave me in a tiny window of time, and it simply could not be done if I went in with a pre-set checklist to tick off on. This approach was an absolute winner as I had the most fascinating conversations with academics of different disciplines and diverse backgrounds, learning as much about them and their journey as I did about the topic at hand. A few academics mentioned that this was such a refreshing activity to partake in, since most people usually send just them an email with a pdf or survey to fill in. Doing such impersonal research on "Human considerations" would have been a seriously ironic blunder, and I am beyond glad that this is how I chose to design the process.

I hope to compile my findings and potentially contribute to a paper on the subject. I do also hope to have inspired someone who has just read this little post to think about these issues with a more keen lens, to start seeing that conservation is not all sunshine and rainbows for the people affected by it, and that we're going to need to start speaking up about this stuff if we want to ensure least friction.