https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/32867 Wed, 21 Oct 2026 06:06:31 GMT 2026-10-21T06:06:31Z https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/34034 Title: ‘Why didn't you bring us a pumpkin?’ Relational recognition of caste, class, and tribe in rural Andhra Pradesh, India Authors: Herzmark, Thomas Abstract: This article analyses the ways characteristics associated with the ‘Schedule Tribe’ (‘ST’) category in India shape situated acts of relating to others with either deference or assumed superiority. Ethnography shows how within an indigenous Adivasi community the traits that determine identification within the group generate feelings of entitlement and stigma, and provide frameworks for ascribing status distinctions to others, as equal, superior, or inferior. The ethnography of interaction between members of an ‘ST’ community captures the interpellative process of social actors continually placing each other into subjectively constituted maps of association and relatedness that are informed by longer discourses of classification. The material illuminates how characteristics associated with ‘ST’ identities that are valorized in one context may be stigmatized in another, suggesting that literatures on politics of recognition must be more attentive to the contextual variability of such frameworks in different spaces.; L'article analyse comment des caractéristiques associées au statut de « Scheduled Tribe » (ST) en Inde orientent des actes relationnels situés soit vers la déférence envers son vis-à-vis, soit vers un a priori de supériorité. L'ethnographie montre comment, dans une communauté autochtone adivasi, les traits qui déterminent l'identification au sein du groupe génèrent des sentiments de privilège et de stigmatisation et créent un cadre pour établir les différences de statut assignées à autrui : égalité, supériorité ou infériorité. L'ethnographie des interactions entre des membres d'une communauté « ST » met en lumière le processus interpellatif d'acteurs sociaux qui passent leur temps à se situer mutuellement sur des schémas d'association et de parenté constitués subjectivement et influencés par des discours de classification plus anciens. Le matériel éclaire la manière dont les caractéristiques associées aux identités « ST » qui sont valorisées dans un contexte peuvent être stigmatisées dans un autre, ce qui suggère que la littérature sur la politique de la reconnaissance doit accorder davantage d'attention à la variabilité de ces cadres en fonction du contexte dans différents espaces. Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/34034 2026-09-03T00:00:00Z https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33977 Title: Factors influencing the use of scientific evidence in conservation practice and policy: Insights from a systematic map Authors: Martin, Philip A; Amirmohammedi, Fereshteh; Barreto, Carlos; Berger, Iris; Bissessur, Prishnee; Christie, Alec P; Donoso, Isabel; Furlan, Violeta; Grainger, Matthew J; Hartup, James; Keith, Aidan M; Ki, Tiffany LT; Littlewood, Nick A; Luke, Sarah H; Matos, Catia; Moser, Valentin; Mukherjee, Nibedita; Martínez de Birgara, Eñaut; Moreno Martín, Álvaro; Ollard, Isobel; Oswald, Alice M; Perea, Santiago; Taberer, Tabitha R; Takola, Elina; Thornhill, Ian; Zafra‐Calvo, Noelia; Walsh, Jessica C; Oliver, Kathryn Abstract: 1. Evidence-based conservation has the potential to improve biodiversity outcomes. Yet many conservation decisions do not explicitly incorporate scientific evidence, despite efforts to promote its use. To strengthen the role of scientific evidence in informing conservation decisions, it is vital to understand which factors influence its use by decision makers. However, to date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to characterise the scientific literature on this topic. 2. To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic map to synthesise the literature on factors that impact evidence use in conservation decision-making, including identifying where research has been conducted and which actors have been studied. Our searches and screening identified 169 relevant primary studies. 3. We identified an apparent bias in the evidence use literature towards English-speaking countries in the Global North. Few studies reported focal ecosystems, or threats, but those that did often focused on marine, forest or freshwater systems. The majority of studies investigated practitioners and researchers as actors, with relatively few studies focused on policymakers or other actors. 4. The most commonly reported factors influencing evidence use were relationships between scientists and decision makers, the relevance of evidence and the capacity and resources of conservation organisations. Factors relating to the characteristics of evidence and practitioners/policymakers, including their organisations and decision contexts, were frequently referenced. However, few studies identified factors relating to researchers and research organisations. 5. Synthesis and applications. Researchers should move from characterising factors impacting scientific evidence use to identifying and testing interventions to facilitate its use by conservation decision makers. Since these factors are interlinked, implementation and testing of actions that tackle multiple barriers should be prioritised. Decision makers and researchers should engage with each other early on when defining management, policy and research synthesis questions, define knowledge needs clearly and, where possible, invest in mechanisms to facilitate dialogue and interpretation of evidence. Together, these approaches offer the potential to promote evidence-based conservation practice and policy, resulting in improved biodiversity outcomes.. Description: Data Availability Statement: All data and code for the study are available on Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.22032391 (Martin et al., 2026). Sun, 27 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33977 2026-09-27T00:00:00Z https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33964 Title: Reframing informal disclosures of sexual violence as ‘an ongoing conversation’: how victim-survivors discuss victimisation with friends, family and partners Authors: Bloomfield-Utting, Jade; Skinner, Tina Abstract: Sexual violence (SV) is more likely to be disclosed to friends, family members and partner(s) (ONS, 2021), though less is known regarding these informal disclosure experiences compared to formal disclosures (for example, to the police). This victim-survivor-led study explored the ways in which victim-survivors of SV disclosed and discussed victimisation with friends, family and partners. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 31 victim-survivors of child sexual abuse, sexual assault and rape in the UK, demonstrating the gradual nature of disclosure. The findings highlight the various ways in which victim-survivors make others aware of their experiences, including: disclosing as memories emerge, disclosing as awareness emerges, disclosing multiple aspects of victimisation, disclosure gradually becoming limited, partially disclosing, attempting to disclose, and enlisting the support of others to disclose to specific people. In addition to disclosing victimisation experiences, victim-survivors also discuss the impact of victimisation, including the ways in which they were responded to by others. Various factors influence the way in which victim-survivors disclose, including victim-survivor identities, victimisation experiences, acknowledgement status, previous responses and feared responses. The findings indicate that informal disclosure is a complex and ever-shifting process through which victim-survivors attempt to speak about victimisation and impact(s) via numerous conversations with multiple people, potentially over the life course. Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33964 2025-10-16T00:00:00Z https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33936 Title: A Sociological Approach to the Rights and Dignity of Nature: Towards a Shared Rights Framework Authors: Malik, Sarita; Peck, Mika Abstract: This article offers a sociological analysis of the global Rights of Nature movement, positioning dignity, repair, and socio-ecological justice at its heart. While Rights of Nature has gained traction across environmental law, Indigenous politics, and ecological science, Sociology has largely overlooked its implications, despite the deeply social origins and unequal consequences of ecological harm. To address this, the article integrates Cultural Sociology with decolonial scholarship and Indigenous relational philosophies, situating Lauren Berlant’s concepts of slow death and cruel optimism alongside the Andean philosophy of Buen Vivir . It reframes ecological degradation as an ongoing violation of dignity affecting both human communities and ecosystems. Recognising nature as a rights-bearing subject challenges foundational assumptions about the human-nature binary in rights discourse, presenting an opportunity to broaden sociological research, society–environment knowledge, and socio-political activism. The article makes three core contributions: first, it establishes the Rights of Nature as a necessary object of sociological analysis, showing that existing anthropocentric frameworks are insufficient for understanding contemporary ecological crisis; second, it demonstrates that sociological concepts, particularly those concerning representation, inequality, coloniality, and governance, provide essential tools for analysing and strengthening Rights of Nature frameworks; and third, it develops an original socio-(eco)logical rights framework grounded in dignity and reparations, including a socio-ecological forensics toolkit that enables the diagnosis of harm and the articulation of reparative pathways across human and more-than-human worlds. Together, these contributions reposition Sociology as central to understanding and advancing socio-ecological justice in the context of the global ecological crisis. Description: Data availability statement: This study did not generate or analyse any datasets, as it is based entirely on conceptual and theoretical reasoning. Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33936 2026-09-09T00:00:00Z