Facilitating biodiversity conservation through partnerships to achieve transformative outcomes

Conservation biology is a mission‐driven discipline that must navigate a new relationship between conservation and science. Because conservation is a social and political as well as an ecological project, conservation biologists must practice interdisciplinarity and collaboration. In a comparative study of 7 cases (Jaguars in the Chaco, Grevy's zebra in Kenya, Beekeeping in Tanzania, Andean cats in Argentina, Jaguars in Mexico, Lobster fishing, and Black bears in Mexico), we examined motivations for collaboration in conservation, who can collaborate in conservation, and how conservation professionals can work well together. In 5 case studies, successful conservation outcomes were prioritized over livelihood benefits. In the other 2 cases, livelihoods were prioritized. All case studies employed participatory approaches. There were multiple external actors, including local and Indigenous communities, nongovernmental organizations, agencies, regional and national governments, and international organizations, which enhanced conservation and wider sustainability outcomes. Key collaboration aspects considered across the case studies were time (mismatch between relationship building and project schedules), trust required for meaningful partnerships, tools employed, and transformative potential for people, nature, and the discipline of conservation biology. We developed guidelines for successful collaboration, including long‐term commitment, knowledge integration, multiscalar and plural approaches, cultivation of trust, appropriate engagement, evaluation, supporting students, and efforts for transformation.


INTRODUCTION
Conservation biologists seek understanding of ecological processes, but are also interested in the normative goal of biodiversity conservation (Soulé & Orians, 2001). Conservation biology is thus a "mission-driven discipline" that has to navigate between science and conservation (Baumgaertner & Holthuijzen, 2017;Meine et al., 2006;Soulé & Wilcox, 2014). Biodiversity conservation is also a social and political process (Lele et al., 2010). Although the ideas of contemporary conservation are Western in origin (Adams, 2004;Meine et al., 2006), diverse cultural and geographic perspectives of conservation are required (Whyte et al., 2016). Conservation biology "rests on the assumption that biological diversity (species, communities, and ecosystems) or aspects of it are good and have intrinsic value or values" (Baumgaertner & Holthuijzen, 2017), but increasingly it embraces a plurality of biodiversity values (Pascual et al., 2021). Conservation is especially challenging in the Global South (Reed et al., 2016), and biodiversity hotspots there are often associated with cultural and linguistic diversity (Gorenflo et al., 2012). Cultural and temporal variation occurs in biodiversity values, and there has been a shift in conservation biology from "nature for people," "nature despite people," and "nature for itself" to "nature and people" (Mace, 2014). Biodiversity loss is one of the most significant global sustainability issues (Rockström et al., 2009;UN, 2015). It is exacerbated by accelerated land-use change, deforestation, persistent poverty, rapid cultural change (Gardner et al., 2009), and globalization (Davis et al., 2020), including large-scale land acquisition and deforestation (Davis et al., 2020) and wildlife trafficking (Kurland & Pires, 2017). Global drivers interact with local threats to conservation, although local practices can enhance biodiversity (Adams, 2004). These external and local pressures create differences in goals and expectations among groups and individuals. Such divergences can emerge as biodiversity conflicts, when one actor or group acts against the needs and interests of another and at their expense in relation to biodiversity conservation (Marshall et al., 2007). Partnershipbased, pluralistic, and dynamic approaches to conservation are needed to understand and address conflict and produce socially just conservation solutions (Gavin et al., 2018).
We drew on case studies to explore how such partnerships can be developed in practice, through interdisciplinary, participatory, collaborative, and transformative approaches. We sought shared experiences and lessons learned from academics and professionals who have been working with others to facilitate a range of conservation and development projects and to reflect on alternative ways of framing and tackling conservation challenges. Specifically, we asked what motivates conservation biologists to work with others, with whom can they work, and how can they work well together with other actors? We drew on lessons learned to suggest guidelines for such partnerships. We sought much needed empirical insights into how nonexclusionary, dialogical conservation approaches that consider socioeconomic and cultural as well as biological outcomes can function (Lele et al., 2010). This article is a collaborative synthesis that emerged from a symposium at an annual meeting of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation. We use the term conservation biologists to indicate the roles and experiences of conservation scientists and professionals focusing on biodiversity conservation. We are all academics who fill multiple roles; hence, our perspective is also grounded in practice and informed by action research (White, 2013).
First, we addressed the imperative for interdisciplinary research. The integration of conservation into a broader framing of sustainable development (UN, 2015;White, 2013) recognizes that conservation is a social and biological project. Social sciences are required to support conservation biology (Mascia et al., 2003), although there is a difference between social science for conservation, which shares the normative goal of biodiversity conservation, and research on conservation, which explores the theories and practices of conservation (Sandbrook et al., 2013). Social scientists can tell the stories of communities and illustrate different perspectives on conservation (e.g., Drury et al., 2011). Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research frames interrogate and analyze a problem synergistically via multiple disciplines (Brister, 2016) and can meet real-world challenges (White, 2013) and support democratization of science (Carolan, 2006). The boundary between conservation biology and other disciplines has become more porous (Meine et al., 2006). However, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research is difficult, time consuming, and risky (Ledford, 2008) and presents multiple practical (Campbell, 2005) and epistemological (Brister, 2016) challenges.
Second, we considered nonacademics with whom we could work to enact a pluralistic view of conservation. The term stakeholder emphasizes stakes and interests, and we prefer actors to acknowledge their legitimate roles and to reduce the initial emphasis on competition and potential conflict . Actors may include civil society (including local communities and nongovernmental organizations [NGOs]), local and national governments, the private sector, and hybrid roles . Actors have needs, values, and different forms of representation, and why and how they should be engaged needs consideration. For instance, Indigenous peoples have moral legitimacy and make practical contributions to biodiversity conservation and should be given a greater role (IPBES, 2019;Sobrevila, 2008;Whyte et al., 2016). Local communities should be engaged to achieve ethical and practicable solutions to conservation (Mishra et al., 2017;Vermeulen & Sheil, 2007). Third, we explored how different actors can be engaged. Participation is a concept and practice that incorporates different forms of engagement and can be both a means and an end (Parfitt, 2004). There is a ladder of formats ranging from tokenism, to communication, to empowerment (Arnstein, 1969;Pimbert & Pretty, 1995;White et al., 2018). More empowering forms of participation include collaboration (Davies & White, 2012), codesign (White & van Koten, 2016), and partnership (Leach, 2002). The greater potential benefits of empowering forms of participation are offset by human, institutional, financial, and time resources required to achieve them (Kapur, 2001), and a pragmatic strategy for participatory activities may be required . Participatory approaches can identify more effective solutions, enhance buy-in of strategies, and deepen mutual trust and relationships (Blackstock et al., 2007;White et al., 2018). If undertaken carelessly, however, they can have negative consequences, including exacerbating power inequalities (Cooke & Kothari, 2001). Participatory action research involves a nonhierarchical collaboration between researchers and participants to address a problem through novel thinking and action (Kindon et al., 2007). This approach is particularly relevant for conservation because its normative impetus blurs the boundary between knowledge production and implementation (White, 2013).

METHODS
We conducted a comparative case study analysis. Case studies focus on bounded systems; are time and work intensive; offer rich and detailed data on holistic systems; can have an element of development, revealing a longitudinal narrative over time; and are important within their wider context (Baxter, 2016;Bryman, 2012;Creswell, 2013;Flyvbjerg, 2011). We selected critical cases (Bryman, 2012;Flyvbjerg, 2011) in which we identified engagement with nonconservation biologists to explore the broad phenomenon of democratic and applied science and the more defined problem of enhancing biodiversity conservation. Comparative case study analyses employ multiple case studies (usually not more than 8) to provide a more structured research approach, but, in doing so, one needs to balance contextual insight (Bryman, 2012).
Comparative case study analysis requires selection of appropriate case studies and interpretation that enables theoretical reflection (Bryman, 2012). We used purposeful maximal sampling (nonprobability judgmental or expert sampling) (Creswell, 2013) for our case studies. Authors self-identified after presentation in our symposium, and each author contributed to 1 of the case studies. Case studies focused on Jaguars in the Chaco, Grevy's zebra in Kenya, Beekeeping in Tanzania, Andean cats in Argentina, Calakmul Jaguars, Lobster fishing, and Black bears in Mexico (Figure 1. Narratives were originally developed for each case study through a guided approach between the first and coauthors, which supported critical reflection and allowed the context and development aspects of the cases to be illustrated (Flyvbjerg, 2011) (Appendix S1). Such processes tend to expose and overcome inherent bias (Flyvbjerg, 2011). Each case study was structured in response to the following questions: why did you work with others, with whom did you work, how and to what extent did you work with others, what were the consequences of working with others, and what were the benefits and challenges of working with others?
We undertook embedded scrutiny of specific case study aspects to develop a thematic cross-case analysis (Creswell, 2013). This analysis was largely inductive. It emerged from the case studies themselves and allowed us to generate new insights; deductive elements were derived from existing theories of conservation (Baxter, 2016). We undertook 2-phase coding (categorization of themes and unit codes) with double blind coding synthesis. A suite of codes was developed from research questions and modified to address narrative content (including project aims, motivation, time frame, who was engaged, and outcomes). Coding was undertaken by R.M.W. and B.S. from the full narratives. A second round of questioning sought additional insights to strengthen the comparative analysis. Coding was then verified and adapted. Themes were developed from coded categories for interpretation and discussion. Results are presented as vignettes of individual case studies from the perspective of the conservation biologist who was involved in the case study (abbreviated in text and longer in Appendix S1) and as summary coded outcomes (Table 1).

Jaguars and landscape management in the Chaco
An initiative started in 2008 to address conservation needs of the jaguar in the Gran Chaco. The initial focus was on Paraguay, but transboundary goals are now being pursued (Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil). Very rapid deforestation and a lack of connectivity were exacerbating negative interactions between jaguars and landowners. This shifted the initiative's emphasis, and the jaguar was used as a tool and metric for wider landscape conservation and connectivity across the Chaco. Collaborative engagement with senior government officials, multiple NGO actors (mostly national and local), and associations of cattle producers led to some power devolution with mutual benefits for jaguar populations, ecosystems, and local actors.

Reducing conflict around Grevy's zebra in Kenya
Grevy's zebra (Equus grevyi), with fewer than 3000 individuals, is one of Africa's most endangered mammals (Williams, 2002). An initiative, starting in 2014, focused on building field capacity in conservation conflict transformation. A prominent local NGO (Grevy's Zebra Trust) facilitated more sustainable conservation outcomes for the zebra. They sought power devolution to local actors who could transform conservation conflicts and stimulate peacebuilding between communities. Both social and conservation gains accrued.

Beekeeping as a livelihood option in Tanzania
The socioecologically important miombo woodland ecoregion covers approximately 3.6 million km 2 across central and southern Africa. Currently threatened by deforestation for charcoal, agriculture, and pastoralism, it is a conservation priority (Jew et al., 2019). An initiative began in 2001 as a response to a conflict situation in which local communities were deprived of their right to use natural resources in a large protected area in

Black bear in Mexico (7)
Case study name and number Jaguars in the Chaco (1) Grevy's zebra in Kenya (2) Bee keeping in Tanzania (3) Jaguars in Mexico (4) Andean cats in Argentina (5) Lobster fishing in Mexico (6) Black bear in Mexico (7) Aim Grevy's zebra in Kenya (2) Bee keeping in Tanzania (3) Jaguars in Mexico (4) Andean cats in Argentina (5) Lobster fishing in Mexico (6) Black bear in Mexico (7) Working with whom? Grevy's zebra in Kenya (2) Bee keeping in Tanzania (3) Jaguars in Mexico (4) Andean cats in Argentina (5) Lobster fishing in Mexico (6) Black bear in Mexico (7) (Continues) Grevy's zebra in Kenya (2) Bee keeping in Tanzania (3) Jaguars in Mexico (4) Andean cats in Argentina (5) Lobster fishing in Mexico (6) Black bear in Mexico (7) Trust Case study name and number Jaguars in the Chaco Grevy's zebra in Kenya (2) Bee keeping in Tanzania (3) Jaguars in Mexico (4) Andean cats in Argentina (5) Lobster fishing in Mexico (6) Black bear in Mexico (7) Knowledges Tanzania (Hausser & Mpuya, 2004;Hausser et al., 2009). The aim of the project was to offer livelihood options other than forest resources, particularly beekeeping, a traditional practice. Long-term conservation and livelihood gains have occurred.

Jaguars and social justice in Mexico
The Calakmul Biosphere Reserve in southern Mexico hosts the largest jaguar (Panthera onca) population in Mexico (Zarco-González et al., 2013), and 25,000 people live in the surrounding area (INEGI, 2015). A doctoral project continued a 20-year body of research in the region. Biodiversity conflicts around jaguar provided an empirical context for fieldwork, and practical recommendations for conflict management were presented to the local reserve collaborative management board.

Community conservation of Andean cats
The endangered Andean cat (Leopardus jacobita) is one of the world's rarest felids. The Andean Cat Alliance (AGA) was established in 1999 for its conservation. The conservation of the carnivore guild and other endemic species of the high Andes is part of AGA's ongoing conservation actions. Conservation biologists aimed to improve local community participation in wildlife conservation by developing livelihood benefits through community-based ecotourism. Although longterm engagement generated joint interest and collaboration on some projects, the ecotourism initiative was only partially successful because of funding and facilitation challenges and a lack of codesign with the community in early project stages.

Fishing cooperative for lobsters in Mexico
The Vigía Chico fishing cooperative (established 1968) is in the community of Punta Allen in the Biosphere Reserve of Sian Ka'an, Mexico. Although it has been the top producer of spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) in the region for over 30 years, it is a good example of a successful small-scale artisanal fishery (Méndez-Medina et al., 2015). The collaborative relationship between the cooperative, academia, and NGOs has enabled the fishers to acquire ecological knowledge about resources, but has also assisted them in negotiations with a succession of state actors and the market.

Black bear in Northeast Mexico
Black bears (Ursus americanus) face a range of threats in Mexico (Ripple et al., 2014). In the past, research on bears in Mexico focused on their ecology, with less emphasis on relationships with local communities (Juárez-Casillas & Varas, 2013). Participatory approaches with local communities were explored to strengthen black bear conservation in northeast Mexico. A wide range of novel engagement approaches with schools and other local community members raised awareness and released local knowledge. There is a sense of ownership by local people, which has reduced conflict and supported conservation efforts.

Types of case studies
The case studies comprised a range of initiatives in tropical or subtropical regions (Table 1). Some initiatives were based in well-defined places and focused on particular species, populations, human communities, and institutions (e.g., lobsters in Mexico, Grevy's zebra in Kenya, jaguars and black bear in Mexico). Others had a wider species focus (e.g., Andean cat) or habitat or ecosystem focus (e.g., jaguars in Gran Chaco, beekeeping in Miombo) that led to complex initiatives spanning international borders. In all cases, initiatives comprised multiple overlapping projects situated within a recognized program, in most cases, forming a string of studies varying in aim, disciplinary and practical focus, and intention. Four of the 7 case studies were based around particular carnivore species, although in each case the carnivore was a leverage point for additional species (e.g., Andean cat) or a charismatic species to facilitate conservation of a large regional landscape (e.g., jaguars in Gran Chaco). Because all cases self-identified as concerned with managing biodiversity conflicts, there was an initial recognition of different interests held by different parties with at least one party acting against the interests of another (Marshall et al., 2007). In all case studies, which took place over many years (approximately 13-35 years), the relationship between conservation biologists and other actors was longstanding. Such interactions involved multiple conservation biologists, including students at times, although maintaining long-term personal relationships and trust with key conservation biologists was seen as important. All case study narrators were passionate and emotionally involved in their projects.

Why conservation biologists work with others
The motivations for working with nonconservation biologists varied. In 5 of the 7 cases, conservation biologists primarily wanted successful conservation outcomes, and livelihood benefits were seen as being desirable and necessary coproducts. These cases initially focused on a charismatic species (jaguar, Andean cat, Grevy's zebra, black bear). In the other 2 case studies, the focus was on direct use of species for livelihoods (bees, lobsters). The bees case in Tanzania highlighted that "conservation was an unintended byproduct of an approach that focused first and foremost on local development and needs." Likewise, the successful fishing cooperative in Mexico began with the determination of local fishers to develop viable livelihood options; natural resource management strategies emerged later. Working with local communities altered community perspectives on carnivores, supporting longer term conservation goals (e.g., black bear in Mexico).
In all cases, conservation biologists perceived their research as value based and as supporting a public good. Motivations always had a practical intention, although most case studies also sought conceptual understanding. Motivation varied from a specific project (Grevy's zebra conservation through addressing intertribal conflict) to investigation of an ecoregion under threat (ranching in the Gran Chaco) from which a suite of issues and projects emerged over time. Donor pressure stimulated some work with nonacademics (e.g., Andean cat), and we all recognized that transdisciplinary action research widened funding opportunities. Initiatives drew on multiple funding sources, from local government support (e.g., lobsters in Mexico), to national state funding (e.g., jaguar and black bear in Mexico), and to international government and NGO support (e.g., Andean cat, jaguar in Gran Chaco, Grevy's zebra). The focus of projects was determined by "a combination of strategy, prior experience and serendipity" (jaguar in Gran Chaco).

Who conservation biologists work with
In all case studies, conservation biologists worked with multiple nonacademic actors. All initiatives involved local communities, and most also engaged with local governments, government agencies, or local or international NGOs. Four cases engaged extensively with the private sector, including farmers, ranchers, and fishers. In some cases, actor definitions were blurred or hybrid. For example, research on beekeeping in Tanzania was led by an academic who was also a cofounder of the NGO involved in practical action. Local communities were recognized as heterogeneous, with individuals having different views and enthusiasms (e.g., Andean cat, black bear in Mexico), and were defined by place (e.g., villages-Andean cat; formal regional designations-jaguar in Mexico) or were engaged through existing institutions (e.g., fishing cooperative-lobsters). Actors were sometimes engaged as collectives or existing collaborations, such as the fishing cooperative (lobsters), Collaborative Reserve Management Board (jaguar in Mexico), or tourism association (Andean cat). In only 1 case was the initiative begun by nonacademics and then academic input sought (lobsters). All of the cases sought collaboration or partnership with academics from other disciplines, recognizing that both social science and ecology were required. Some interdisciplinarity was achieved through a willingness of individuals to learn new academic skills (especially jaguar in Gran Chaco and in Mexico). All case studies were intellectually agile, demonstrating how academics are not restrained by specific academic disciplines and can develop new competencies. Finally, north-south partnerships were evident in most of the case studies (less so for Andean cat and Mexican lobster), enabling initiatives to draw on Global North resources to work with local knowledge and culture. Key individuals often traversed north-south categories, for example, through membership in multiple institutions (e.g., beekeeping in Tanzania, jaguar in Mexico, jaguar in Gran Chaco).

How conservation biologists work with others
Interdisciplinarity was critical to all case studies, perhaps because of the focus on real-world problems (White, 2013). Embedded social science facilitated feasibility surveys, communication, workshops, economic assessments, understanding of community processes, and specific skills delivery, such as sustainable tourism, and was never merely add-on for communication. In 2 cases, research was driven by social scientists in collaboration with natural scientists (beekeeping in Tanzania, jaguars in Gran Chaco). In some cases, researchers did not frame their research within a discipline, rather they cited approaches (e.g., ethnography) or methods (e.g., surveys, inter-views, transects). The approach was pragmatic, open-minded, and opportunistic; no researcher was dogmatic in their defense of a particular discipline. All cases involved integration of multiple knowledges, including academic, local, and Indigenous, but they were also defined as ecological, political, and economic or as intellectual, human, and social knowledges.
All case studies cycled temporally between research and practical action, with research starting some initiatives (Andean cat, black bear, and jaguar in Chaco and Mexico) and action beginning others (Grevy's zebra, lobster, and beekeeping initiatives). In the case of jaguar in Gran Chaco, there is now an explicit cyclical strategy in which science underpins action recommendations, actions are implemented, outcomes are rigorously evaluated, and additional targeted recommendations are proposed, if necessary, depending on action outcomes and research findings, and the cycle repeats.
The emphasis on action or research also varied; some cases leaned more toward research (e.g., jaguar in Mexico) and others toward action (e.g., jaguar in Gran Chaco) at the time of writing. It was difficult to entirely separate research from action because, for example, good initiatives used evidence derived from surveys to inform action. However, in 2 case studies (Andean cat, lobster) it was recognized that good research took time to complete and could delay required action to mitigate loss of biodiversity. One researcher commented, "The rhythm of science is slower than the rhythm of management; we need to act before all possible data are collected." Another noted, "The problem is that the science is being driven by universities. Conservation science on the ground should be driven by science-based NGOs engaged in action and problem solving." All cases included multiple and changing forms of learning by different actors. Shifts in learning focus represented transitions from research to action, engagement with different actors, and the need for different specific skills. In the beekeeping case, traditional ecological knowledge on beekeeping was included, and in the black bear case study, local perspectives on indigenous species were incorporated.
The degree of participation varied across cases from offering conceptual and pragmatic insights (jaguar in Mexico) to empowerment coproduction of knowledge to enable participants to negotiate successfully for continued access to resources and develop sustainable management strategies (lobster in Mexico). In all cases, the ultimate aim was empowerment of communities and other actors. Actors were involved in research interviews, focus groups, surveys, feasibility surveys, skills training, strategic development, and being mentored.

DISCUSSION
Our comparative case study analysis provides lessons regarding motivation, forms, and outcomes of collaboration in partnerships between conservation biologists and other actors. The aspects highlighted below represent key lessons from these case studies for successful collaboration, but we also broadly concur with wider proposals for suites of principles in approaches to conservation partnership (e.g., Gavin et al., 2018;Mishra et al., 2017;Vermeulen & Sheil, 2007).

Time
All cases demonstrated that collaboration takes significant time, which is consistent with previous work (Mishra et al., 2017;Vermeulen & Sheil, 2007). Relationships, specific projects and goals, and long-term objectives all evolve slowly, sometimes over decades (Mishra et al., 2017;Sterling et al., 2017). The expectations of conservation biologists or of community members (e.g., Grevy's zebra, Andean cat) may not be met within a project life cycle. There is thus a need to consider conservation biology initiatives as a chain of projects that allow access to diverse funding options, offer adaptability to changing political and biophysical contexts (e.g., Grevy's zebra, lobsters), and permit key conservation biologists to remain connected with local actors while students enter and depart. Hence, time can be seen as immediate and defined (e.g., by a 3-year project funding cycle or PhD project), but it is also infinite and unbounded (as a dynamic process; an evolving partnership striving for stronger relationships and adapting to new conditions). Longer term initiatives may have strategic direction, but can also be responsive and resilient, changing over time with serendipity or necessity. For example, the lobster fishers have to adapt to more frequent and intense hurricanes with climate change. We saw progression and maturation over time in some initiatives (e.g., shift to empowerment for beekeeping in Tanzania; shift from training to systemic transformation for Grevy's zebra in Kenya). Time was not linear in these case studies in that most had simultaneous as well as sequential aims over time; they were opportunistic in response to funding, community pressure, and biophysical changes.
In contrast to this long-term view for commitment and deep relationships is the need to address conservation crises. One researcher said, in frustration, "The stakes are high for endangered species and yet there are limited resources to manage these animals." This is a major paradox for conservation: avoiding ecological tipping points, but needing long-term efforts to overcome relational tipping points and establish reciprocal collaborative action (Whyte, 2020).
There was also a focus on place and a similar nested context for spatial as for temporal scales. Hence, a project may focus on 1 test village, but the region may align with a species distribution or habitat range that provides an imperative for transnational emphasis (as for Andean cat and jaguars in Gran Chaco). Long-term presence in 1 place can help generate trust for decision-making and project success (Mishra et al., 2017), but wider kinship relationships are required to support consent, trust, accountability, and reciprocity toward environmental justice and deeper coordinated action (Whyte, 2020).

Trust
We found that trust is critical to collaborative achievement in conservation biology and beyond, both in individual and institutional relationships. For example, ECOSUR in Mexico developed trust with the fishing cooperative that enabled tough discussions around use of fishing devices and resource allocation. Trust is both an outcome and an attribute to facilitate outcomes. One researcher commented that they nurtured "trust as a tool, not a result." Trust is a key element in the PART-NERS principles for engaging local communities described by Mishra et al. (2017). Trust is essential for building relationships with landowners and managers for effective biodiversity management (Young, et al., 2016). Trust is synergistic with other successful aspects of partnership, including effective communication, transparency, joint knowledge production, and shared responsibilities (Sterling et al., 2017). However, deep trust can be difficult to gain in the Global South as relationships between actors are redefined in the context of the decolonization of conservation (Whyte, 2020).
The case studies revealed challenges for students working on biodiversity conflicts. For instance, a doctoral project can contribute through generation of a new theoretical framework, and it permits focused collection of systematic data, but fieldwork must be completed within a certain period. The case studies showed that students sometimes step into precarious situations and have little opportunity to develop trust and invest in longterm relationships if not supported by a wider collective or program.

Tools, tasks, and topics
The programs in our case studies all sought to overcome longstanding, violent, or entrenched conflict to deliver better conservation outcomes and livelihood options, but each focused on different tools, tasks, and topics.
Wildlife can be used as a tool to achieve multiple outcomes. Charismatic species have long been used to attract attention, resources, and effort in particular areas (Albert et al., 2018). The jaguar was an entry point to conservation in the tropical forests of southern Mexico and the savannas of the Gran Chaco, and the Andean cat was used as a flagship species for the conservation of the high Andes unique wildlife. Perhaps this was seen most clearly in the Grevy's zebra project; this species offered a leverage point for peacebuilding and overall attempt to systematically reduce violent interethnic conflict.
Although funded project-level topics and tasks determined potential collaborations, actors who engaged with researchers also determined tasks on which to focus in the next project, evidencing a participatory action research cycle of learning and action (e.g., Andean cats) (Kindon et al., 2007). Innovation, creativity, and empathy facilitated engagement (e.g., Grevy's zebra). Successful engagement requires empathy and open mindedness, but also needs early engagement to lead to genuine involvement in later decision-making (Mishra et al., 2017;Sterling et al., 2017).
Interdisciplinarity is often framed as a combination of particular disciplines (Brister, 2016), but our case studies demonstrated a more diffuse and organic deployment of approaches and tools from different disciplines as appropriate. Although 1 conservation biologist expressed frustration at different priorities held by other academics, none explicitly articulated the epistemological incompatibilities that can arise (Brister, 2016;White, 2013). Either such philosophical aspects are of less importance or less obvious in practice or in our case stud-ies conservation biologists were sufficiently open-minded to accommodate them.

Transformation
Our case studies show the possibility of more effective implementation of biodiversity conservation through partnership approaches. However, they also lend legitimacy to a new paradigm for biodiversity conservation (Gavin et al., 2018). If conservation biology is normative in its pursuit of conservation (Soulé & Orians, 2001), different perspectives on conservation must be negotiated and accommodated theoretically and practically in local contexts. Hence, conservation professionals must genuinely engage local partners in pluralistic debates around goals and how to achieve them (Lele et al., 2010;Mishra et al., 2017;Vermeulen & Sheil, 2007;Whyte, 2020). These debates may incorporate justice as well as biological outcomes of conservation, in line with notions of sustainable development (Lecuyer, White, Schmook, Lemay, et al., 2018) and the social and political nature of conservation (Lele et al., 2010). The case studies showed how to engage diverse partners across sectors and at different scales. However, when paradigmatic transformation is required, it can be difficult to determine where and with whom to draw project boundaries. We, the casestudy authors, experienced frustration or other emotions and expended significant effort in engaging additional actors (e.g., jaguars in Gran Chaco, Grevy's zebra, lobster fishing).
More dialogical, pluralistic forms of conservation can also generate personal transformation. All of us were passionate about our cases and willing to learn new approaches. Several of us had deep, personal shifts in views-an epistemological transformation. Working in partnership can require transformation in the way one perceives actors, for example, perceiving local communities as being part of the solution rather than the problem (Vermeulen & Sheil, 2007). Epistemological incompatibility can arise (White, 2013) because scientists are expected to be objective and produce excellent, rigorous research to support evidence-based policy, yet human interactions demand recognition of subjectivities, emotions, and values (Mishra et al., 2017). Transformative learning may occur, supporting development of competencies for critical, strategic, and future thinking, but also for collaboration, self-awareness, and normative and cultural awareness (Giangrande et al., 2019). Personal transformative learning can derive from diverse experiences. All of us adopted hybrid identities. Hence, many of us were both academic (e.g., scientist) and nonacademic (e.g., NGO leader); long-term resident (e.g., resident of the Global South for 30 years) and foreign (e.g., born and raised in another country); and expert (e.g., well published) and learning (e.g., gaining new knowledge from local people). Partners in biodiversity conservation can draw on multiple cultural experiences and identities (Cocks, 2006).

From participation to partnership
Participation and partnerships described in our case studies functioned differently across diverse scales: spatial (local to international); human (one champion to large teams); organi-zational (small NGO to large research institution); and unit of action or research (a few dollars to support a feasibility survey to multimillion dollar investment in habitat conservation). There were mismatches in time scales, such as the difference in rhythm of research and conservation management. In all cases, there were recognized benefits of participation (Table 1) in line with those of Blackstock et al. (2007) and strong motivations for empowerment of local actors, but this intention was not always easy to implement in practice. Partnerships in the case studies were dynamic relationships developing through social learning and collaborative action. Learning that occurs in individuals, groups, and organizations is critical for successful participation and adaptation (Sterling et al., 2017). Sharing research results with local communities is an important aspect of action research to minimize knowledge imperialism (Jones & Luhe, 2021).
Although there has been a welcome trend toward more collaborative, empowering forms of participation in conservation (Davies & White, 2012), there is concern regarding possible power asymmetry, poor representation, and lack of capacity , and increasing neoliberalism of conservation (Corson, 2010). However, in our cases, partnerships were mainly at the local or regional level, with some national engagement. In these cases, the advantages of local NGOs included specificity, local expertise, and embeddedness in place, and international NGOs offered access to financial resources, possibilities for awareness campaigns, and (sometimes) wider legitimacy or leverage. In developing countries, nascent local NGO voices can be overcome by international, more politically astute, and well-resourced organizations (Mercer, 2003). There are also situations when less intense forms of participation  are appropriate for practical or ethical reasons.
Although all our case studies were based in the global South, in 4 of the 7 the lead researchers were based in institutions in the global North. The politics of knowledge influences knowledge integration for biocultural conservation approaches (Gavin et al., 2018). This is a significant challenge. de Sousa Santos (2015) calls for researchers from the global North to recover and recognize the epistemologies of the global South through "cognitive justice," which appreciates ecologies of knowledge and intercultural translation. The capacity of academics and nonacademics in the global South must be released for collaborative conservation efforts, and their different ways of knowing will be essential to coproduce solutions to global crises (Whyte, 2020;de Sousa Santos, 2015). Global North-South collaborations can leverage additional resources and forms of expertise, but resource asymmetry can lead to agenda setting by global North actors (N'Da & Fokou, 2021) or extractive relationships in which researchers from the global North publish research based on data mined in the global South (Jones & Luhe, 2021). Exchanges among global South researchers can support postcolonial conservation approaches (de Sousa Santos, 2015). However, defining individual academics as being of the global North or global South is oversimplistic. We are individuals from the global North who were resident and working in the global South and vice versa. Fluidity across these categories can support epistemological exchange, but epistemological respect and equality will only be achieved through active processes and relationships of consent and accountability (de Sousa Santos, 2015;Whyte, 2020).

Implications for conservation
There was no binary success or failure, but rather a longterm narrative for each case study that included highlights and setbacks. Our analysis enabled us to offer recommendations to conservation professionals seeking to work with others to enhance the outcomes of their conservation initiatives. Because each context is specific, we developed a series of guiding principles in association with development of competencies that support each principle (Table 2).
We shared our lived and critically analyzed experiences of working with others in conservation biology. The results raise several questions for the discipline. First, where are the boundaries of the discipline? As the boundaries of conservation become more porous (Meine et al., 2006), this influences how students are trained, how journals and conferences are structured, and how aspirations and methods are developed. Because conservation is a normative field of study, students may find employment in practice or in hybrid roles (as have several of us) but, currently, student training largely centers on research and rarely prepares graduates for the emotional investment in such work that comes from supporting intrapersonal competencies (see Giangrande et al., 2019) or from the time and effort collaborative research requires (White, 2013). Some programs develop graduate student interdisciplinary skills and support teams working on real-world issues with local stakeholders (e.g., Duchelle et al., 2009), but more such innovation is required.
Second, how can a rigorous academic discipline that includes effective interdisciplinary, participatory action research be supported? Academic incentives do not always reward interdisciplinarity (Campbell, 2005) or the time taken to establish trust and relationships. There are now some national (e.g., UKRI) and international (e.g., ORA) interdisciplinary funding calls and an increased emphasis on the outcomes of publicly funded research (e.g., UK research impact agenda) and on public engagement (White, 2013), but recruitment and promotion procedures also need to consider such achievements, and more integrated forms of teaching and learning need to be encouraged.
Third, should all conservation professionals and all conservation projects engage with nonprofessionals? Perhaps not all academics can conduct excellent ecological research while liaising with local communities and facilitating workshops, undertaking public engagement, and working with policy makers. A proposed "ecosystem of expertise" (Brand & Karvonen, 2007) acknowledges and celebrates different roles in sustainable development. However, if all such roles are not taken on individually, collaborative work with those who can will be needed.
Fourth, there is a need to continue to monitor and evaluate the theory of conservation approaches (e.g., Mace, 2014) and the practical impacts of conservation initiatives, not merely in species or habitat terms, but also in terms of livelihood outcomes, development measures, and social learning and capacity (e.g., Ferraro & Pressey, 2015). Although it can be difficult to assess impacts that are cumulative and serendipitous

TABLE 2
Guiding principles to encourage and facilitate conservation engagement and partnerships by conservation scientists and the associated sustainability learning competencies (Giangrande et al., 2019;UNESCO, 2017) for each principle Principle

Associated learning competency
Commit for the long term while addressing crisis See project as part of a longer chain of projects in a program or initiative; can take decades to develop trust and relationships and shift behaviors or adapt cultural norms; may need to address the nature crisis and strive for quick solutions while longer term, evidence-based collaborative strategies are developed and agreed on Future thinking-use anticipatory skills (forecasting and backcasting) and consider intergenerational equity Integrate different knowledges Use sound science to develop an evidence base for conservation; develop interdisciplinarity with social scientists while respecting and integrating local, traditional, and practitioner knowledges; recognize epistemological differences and technical contributions Transdisciplinary competencies-use relevant academic disciplines, apply interdisciplinary work, integrate knowledges Local to global scales Situate conservation research and practice win a real-world setting, recognize local socioecological and stakeholder context and previous local conservation efforts; scale up from species to habitat to landscape when ready and not before; scale up collaborations from local to national government or international NGOs or agencies; scale up project or program to match resources to goals form and extent Develop appropriate engagement and participation approaches for the stage and aspect of your project and the stakeholders; in some cases, information, consultation, and involvement may be sufficient; empowering forms of participation, such as partnership, necessary in the long term Interpersonal competencies-collaborative skills, mediation skills, empathy, capacity for teamwork, knowledge of cooperation models Cultivate trust and relationships Understand biodiversity conflicts are human-human manifestations, relationships take investment, and trust takes time and commitment to develop; be aware of one's emotional investment and passion for conservation and acknowledge emotions and passions of others; nurture self-awareness

Interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies
Learn and adapt Learn new approaches and how to use new tools as required; adapt and respond to changes in context, knowledge, or serendipitous opportunities; learn from failure Critical thinking-capacities for critical reflection, analysis and skills for learning and adaptation Jointly monitor and evaluate Work with a joint reflexive action-learning cycle and thus plan with others; implement a collaborative workplan; celebrate and reflect together and then codesign the next project to support adaptation, maximize impact, and offer collaborative input in strategic and meaningful ways Strategic planning, decision-making strategies, awareness of success factors, obstacles to change, knowledge of behavioral change, organizational development skills Support future conservation biologists Create opportunities for student projects in a real-world framework; give students meaningful yet discrete questions to address and support them in learning collaborative practices and respect for others; share lessons learned, including failures Interpersonal, anticipatory, critical, futures, and strategic thinking competencies Strive for transformation Conservation biology seeks a sustainable future with diverse species, habitats, and ecosystems and associated functional processes; achieving this requires radical changes through biocultural approaches in human-nature relationships and in human-human relationships; transformative peace building, transformative programs, and transformative placemaking may be required; interaction with others may change one's worldview, possibly creating temporary dissonance and prompting personal transformation Intrapersonal competencies (cultivating self-awareness, capacities for connection, meaning making, and future thinking and normative competencies) (White, 2013), such approaches can support cyclical reflexive processes. Finally, our results suggest that the real-world, crisis-driven, and normative nature of conservation (Meine et al., 2006;Soulé & Wilcox, 2014) can generate insights regarding the nature of science and knowledge production, sharing, and implementation. As science becomes more participatory and democratic (Carolan, 2006), conservation biology can pioneer such adaptations. However, to do so properly, complex challenges, such as decolonization of conservation, epistemological plurality (de Sousa Santos, 2015), and restorative justice, will need to be addressed.
We concur with the framing of "nature and people" (Mace, 2014) in which many potential partners have emotional, rights-based, or livelihood connections to the land (with accompanying species, habitats, and ecosystems). We propose that conservation biologists work with others, but who these others are and how one works with them depends on a range of factors. Such collaborations can advance not only biodiversity conservation, but also wider sustainability goals.