The following article (https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14454) may be one of the most important ones I have written so far, together with 17 others, considering the pressure of Intimidation practices that have increased in academia over the last years, in this case for critical social scientists working in conservation. The article presents practical examples of Intimidation and how these show different types of violence before and during fieldwork and during the process of publishing, coming together in ‘epistemological violence’: the suppression of knowledge that may be unwelcome for some parties. I especially thank Nowella Anyango-Van Zwieten for taking this up together and of course all other authors for sharing their – often very personal and disturbing – experiences of being intimidated. These are Sian Sullivan, Wolfram Dressler, Marja Spierenburg, Lisa Trogisch, Esther Marijnen, Robert Fletcher, Inaya Rakhmani, Suraya Abdulwahab Afiff, Tor A. Benjaminsen, Sarah Milne, Hanne Svarstad, Bram Büscher, Anwesha Dutta, Celia Lowe and Nitin D. Rai.

Abstract
We investigated intimidation of conservation social scientists, which is ongoing and aimed at silencing or discrediting research findings. Although social scientists share with conservation biologists the desire to understand and address the biodiversity crisis, their analysis of structural power relations and contradictions in conservation is sometimes not appreciated. Intimidation can take place before and during fieldwork, during the publication process, and after publication in academic and public spheres. We examined our diverse experiences of intimidation, including legal threats, character assassination, physical threats, job exclusion, and curtailment of academic freedom. Diverse actors, including national research granting bodies, international policy makers, donors, ethics bodies, and conservation biologists and organizations,may target research that does not align with their political, economic, financial, and ideological interests. We refer to intimidating practices to suppress or alter unwelcome perspectives or research findings as epistemological violence. Tactics of epistemological violence relate to structural, systemic, symbolic, discursive, and material violence and have significant implications for understanding and improving long-term conservation. Epistemological violence can impede the progress, effectiveness, and social justness of conservation and suppress critical or differently informed perspectives crucial for a well-functioning academia. Intimidation hampers crucial collaborations among disciplines and with societal partners. Epistemological violence has detrimental consequences for affected individuals, the broader conservation community, people living in or near conservation areas, and conservation achievements.

The link to the full article (open access, see also link on this website under “Publications”): https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14454