We are all researchers: the co-creation experience of the IV course on social sciences for conservation at the Cocha Cashu Biological Station in Manu National Park, Peru

1 Introduction

Tropical forests, and the Amazon in particular, face severe challenges associated with high rates of deforestation and degradation (Flores et al., 2024; Berenguer et al., 2024; Lapola et al., 2023). This brings us dangerously close to what the scientific community has warned of as an ecological tipping point — that is, the threshold at which large proportions of the Amazon may be converted into permanent savannas, with severe consequences for biodiversity, regional hydrological cycles, and the well-being of local populations (Lovejoy and Nobre, 2018; Brando et al., 2025). These risks are strongly exacerbated by climate change and threaten the continuity of the forest’s vital functions (Marengo et al., 2018; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change et al., 2022).

Although the conservation movement has been driving changes, evidence shows that the pace of these actions is insufficient to reverse the global trend of destruction (Vancutsem et al., 2021; Bourgoin et al., 2024; Turubanova et al., 2018; Pendrill et al., 2022; Móstiga et al., 2024). One of the fundamental critiques of this movement is that it has historically been constructed from the most privileged sectors of society, systematically excluding the voices of minorities and, in particular, those of indigenous peoples (Domínguez and Luoma, 2020; Layden et al., 2025; Murdock, 2021; Rudd et al., 2021; Youdelis et al., 2021). This has overlooked the fact that, in most cases, it is local and indigenous populations who end up bearing the high costs of conservation — or protection — while having little to no agency in the policies and management of their own territories (Camargo, 2014; Green et al., 2018; Tauli-Corpuz et al., 2018; Dawson et al., 2021).

Manu National Park (MNP), a globally emblematic site for the conservation of its extraordinary biodiversity, reflects this scenario. Various analyses have highlighted the limited incorporation of indigenous participation in the area’s governance, as well as a concerning lack of attention to the well-being of populations living within the park and in its buffer zone — populations that maintain active claims over their ancestral territorial rights (Shepard et al., 2010; Zanabria, 2018; Salazar, 2025; Rodríguez and Balbín, 2023).

The MNP represents a context of enormous complexity, as it is home to indigenous populations in isolation and in initial contact. The lack of assertive responses from past administrations is due, in large part, to a limited institutional capacity to understand and devise viable solutions to the challenges of local livelihoods and inclusive governance. This reflects a long-standing historical tradition within protected natural areas, whose management has been delegated almost exclusively to professionals in biology or agricultural engineering. Under this dynamic, park management has centered on control, surveillance, and biological diversity, sidelining indigenous populations and relegating their relationships with the environment to a secondary plane.

Although the critical need to integrate the social sciences into conservation practice has gained recognition in recent debates (Bennett et al., 2017a, 2017), this gap had been identified more than three decades ago in the region. During the implementation of the Conservation-Based Development Program in Tambopata (PRODESCOT) (Figure 1) in the mid-1990s, within the framework of a pioneering co-management arrangement between Conservation International and the Federation of Farmers of Madre de Dios (FADEMAD), the limited engagement between the natural and social sciences in managing protected natural areas in alignment with human needs was diagnosed.

Recognizing this need, between 2018 and 2024 San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance Perú, together with the Frankfurt Zoological Society and the Centro Bartolomé de las Casas, carried out three editions of a course on Social Sciences for Conservation (known as the Varese Course, in honor of the legacy of anthropologist Stefano Varese). This course was aimed at final-year university students in the social sciences and humanities, seeking to strengthen their competencies to effectively support improved management of Amazonian territory.

Building on the accumulated lessons from those editions, several key actors who, three decades ago, first developed the idea of integrating the social sciences, the arts, and the humanities in service of nature and local well-being set ourselves a new challenge, in collaboration with the Cocha Cashu Biological Station (CCBS). Thus, in 2025, San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance Perú joined the Grupo de Análisis para el Desarrollo to design and implement the fourth edition of the Social Sciences for Conservation course — a landmark step that introduced an unprecedented hybrid modality. Matsigenka indigenous youth from the MNP were incorporated, sharing the learning space with university students from diverse disciplines and regions of the country. Their involvement profoundly transformed not only the syllabus but the very spirit of the training and the perspectives of all participants.

In this article, we present and analyze the methodological experience developed over the course’s ten months, which facilitated a genuine process of knowledge co-creation. We argue that recognizing that “we are all researchers” is not merely a pedagogical device, but a firm epistemological and political stance that repositions indigenous epistemologies at the center of conservation practice. By examining how these diverse knowledge systems interacted, engaged in dialogue, and co-produced solutions, our work seeks to contribute to ongoing debates aimed at consolidating approaches to biodiversity conservation that are more inclusive, equitable, and firmly grounded in the territorial realities of the Amazon.

2 Context

2.1 Course structure and objectives

The 4th Course on Social Sciences for Conservation was conceived as a comprehensive training program that integrates academic and intercultural approaches to address conservation challenges in the Manu Landscape. Its design combines two complementary modalities: one aimed at young social scientists in training and the other at young Matsigenka indigenous leaders, which gradually converge in a shared space for learning, dialogue, and knowledge production. This structure aims to foster a horizontal dialogue between academic and local knowledge, promoting the joint development of new ways to understand and practice the conservation of natural areas.

The central objective of the course is to contribute to the development of more equitable and effective conservation models through the integration of scientific and indigenous knowledge. To this end, the course seeks, on the one hand, to train young social science professionals with the critical, theoretical, and methodological skills to approach conservation from an interdisciplinary perspective. On the other hand, it aims to strengthen the research and leadership capacities of young indigenous people so that they can analyze their own territories, contribute to community management, and engage in dialogue with external actors on more equitable terms.

2.2 Selection of participants and group diversity

The application process was designed to differentiate between the various categories. For the category of young social scientists, a nationwide open call for applications was conducted, based on the evaluation of academic profiles and research proposals. In the case of young Matsigenka people, the selection was carried out in coordination with community leaders from the national park and its buffer zone, incorporating criteria such as territorial ties and the applicants’ motivation. As a result of this process, 10 university students and 8 young indigenous Matsigenka people were ultimately selected.

The selected participants have a wide variety of educational and life backgrounds. The university students come from various disciplines, such as anthropology, political science, economics and international relations, and from both public and private universities; while the young Matsigenka people belong to communities both within the PNM (Tayacome, Yomibato, and Tsirerishi) and in its buffer zone (Palotoa Teparo and Shipetiari), with varying leadership experiences in their territories and diverse educational backgrounds. This diversity represents not only a pedagogical challenge but also a fundamental opportunity to build a learning space where different ways of understanding, inhabiting, and analyzing the Amazon can engage in dialogue.

3 Detail to understand key programmatic elements

3.1 Training modalities

The training program was structured into three complementary stages: an initial phase of independent work for each modality, a shared in-person phase in which both programs come together in a single learning space, and a final phase of virtual support aimed to consolidate the participants’ research projects.

For social science students, online learning serves as the foundation, through modules on ecology, ethnobiology, conservation governance, indigenous territorial governance, approaches to “good living” and indigenous economies, and gender in the Amazon. Together, these topics provide conceptual and methodological tools for understanding socio-environmental processes from an integrated perspective. Building on this foundation, students refine their research proposals with guidance from the faculty in an iterative process that extends into subsequent phases of the course and incorporates feedback from their indigenous peers.

In contrast, the Matsigenka youth program takes a practical, context-based approach. The process began with an in-person opening workshop that introduced the course’s key concepts (territory, economy, conservation, and governance), basic qualitative research tools, and five lines of inquiry related to the Matsigenka household economy: family and communal history; communal rules for access to and use of natural resources; commercial relationships; interaction with the state; and perceptions of threats and the future. Building on this, participants engaged in a progressive process of inquiry within their communities through interviews and conversations, with ongoing virtual support. This process precedes and extends beyond the shared in-person phase (Figures 2, 3).

3.2 Mutual learning and knowledge co-creation at the biological station

The collaboration between the two programs was established through a three-week in-person session at the Cocha Cashu Biological Station (EBCC), bringing together university students and young Matsigenka individuals for participatory activities, research exercises, and continuous feedback. This stage centered on three shared learning objectives: strengthening intercultural dialogue, developing research competencies, and enhancing the analytical capacity to formulate contextually relevant proposals. By integrating indigenous territorial knowledge with social science approaches, the initiative fostered critical thinking and ensured that research processes were anchored in the needs of the Manu’s native communities.

This training phase combined academic instruction with collaborative work and forest immersion. Participants engaged in guided walks in mixed-group settings to explore diverse ecosystems, a process that fostered a spontaneous exchange of knowledge and experiences. This approach aligned with the embodied and practical styles of indigenous pedagogy, where the intersubjective relationships mediating the learning process are as vital as the content itself (Belaunde, 2010). Within this context, the forest acted as a catalyst, evoking dialogues and memories that traditional academic settings often fail to elicit with the same intensity.

Furthermore, extracurricular activities—such as animal sound imitation contests, photography, and wildlife observation—offered a deeper understanding of the daily lives and essential survival skills of indigenous families. A key component included hikes led by a Matsigenka elder and medicine man, which promoted the use of the native language and intergenerational dialogue. As a result, the young indigenous participants produced audiovisual materials in the Matsigenka language to share knowledge about the forest with future generations.

In parallel, targeted activities were conducted to design and strengthen research capacities. University students shared their research projects, receiving valuable feedback from the Matsigenka participants. Simultaneously, the Matsigenka youth were introduced to the structure of social science research through a curriculum that merged theoretical content with practical exercises based on self-defined community problems. This process involved adapting academic components—such as the “state of the art” and conceptual frameworks—using local knowledge to translate academic categories into frameworks rooted in territorial experience (Figure 4). Finally, both groups collaborated in mixed teams to design data collection tools while reflecting on the ethical and practical aspects of research in indigenous contexts, laying the groundwork for the subsequent fieldwork phase.

The work conducted at the EBCC was complemented by three days of fieldwork in two Matsigenka communities located within the Manu National Park buffer zone: Shipetiari and Palotoa Teparo. Participants were organized into mixed groups across both communities, working in close coordination with local leaders and with the support of students who belonged to these territories. During this phase, students formed sub-groups to accompany families in their daily activities, aiming to collect data related to the course’s five thematic lines.

This immersion involved applying research tools in real-world contexts, requiring participants to adapt their inquiry strategies to the rhythms and dynamics of communal life. Information was generated through observation and dialogue within the flow of daily situations, effectively bridging academic theory with lived experience. This process was further enriched by a visit to the Pusharo petroglyphs (Figure 5), which added a vital historical and cultural dimension to the learning developed during the residential phase.

The data gathered during this phase was subsequently synthesized into two collective reports. This exercise enabled participants to put the various stages of the research process into practice, sharpening their primary data collection skills and bridging the gap between theoretical frameworks and concrete, lived realities. Ultimately, the fieldwork proved instrumental in cultivating both methodological competencies and a nuanced, context-specific understanding of the territorial dynamics and indigenous communities associated with the protected area.

3.3 Final research outputs and follow-up

Following the residential phase, the course returned to its parallel structure during a final period of virtual support, where each student focused on developing a final project. The social science students produced refined versions of their research proposals, integrating the knowledge acquired throughout the course and the invaluable feedback provided by both the teaching staff and their Matsigenka peers. These final versions underwent a peer-review process, which encouraged academic exchange and further bolstered their critical analysis skills.

Meanwhile, the Matsigenka youth advanced in the design and execution of community-based research projects. This process included formulating objectives, developing research instruments, and conducting data collection under the continuous guidance of the teaching team. The results were subsequently systematized into five concept notes (one for each community) that synthesized the primary findings. Ultimately, both tracks concluded the training program with tangible outputs that consolidated the core learning objectives: strengthening intercultural dialogue, developing research skills, and enhancing analytical capacity for contextually relevant proposals.

3.4 Pedagogical approach and challenges

The course was designed with an intercultural and participatory pedagogical approach, aimed at promoting situated learning, horizontal dialogue among different forms of knowledge, and the joint construction of knowledge. This approach involved recognizing the diversity of participants’ backgrounds, experiences, and forms of knowledge, as well as developing methodologies that integrate theoretical content with practical experiences in specific local contexts. In this regard, the design combined strategies such as working in mixed-group settings, immersion in the local environment, problem-based learning, and the progressive development of research projects, with the aim of strengthening both analytical capacities and relational skills.

Implementing the course presented a number of challenges. The diversity of participants’ backgrounds—in terms of academic training, life experiences, and language—required adapting teaching strategies to ensure the effective participation of all attendees. Additionally, the hybrid format posed limitations related to unequal access to internet connectivity and the need to coordinate different learning paces between the two formats. Finally, the intercultural nature of the process demanded a sustained effort to foster an environment of trust, mutual respect, and recognition of the legitimacy of different forms of knowledge, while avoiding the reproduction of hierarchies between academic and local knowledge.

4 Discussion

4.1 Results

A first fundamental result of the training process was the formation of strong interpersonal bonds among participants with deeply diverse trajectories and backgrounds. Beyond strictly academic spaces, the course created conditions for everyday encounter, open exchange, and mutual recognition, fostering the development of meaningful relationships among participants from both modalities. This trust-building process functioned as an enabling condition for intercultural dialogue, insofar as it allowed participants to share knowledge, questions, and perspectives from a place of respect and openness between the two course formats. Among the Matsigenka youth reflections emerged regarding differences in communal dynamics and experiences of interaction with external actors, aspects that in several cases proved novel even to the participants themselves. Similarly, among the university students, enriching dialogues arose across disciplines, bringing to light distinct approaches and ways of engaging with conservation problems. Thus, trust-building not only facilitated exchange between groups but also promoted processes of internal reflection, broadening participants’ perspectives and laying the groundwork for genuinely shared learning.

A second key result of the course process was the consolidation of an effective intercultural dialogue, reflected in a horizontal exchange of knowledge and experiences among participants from both modalities. This dialogue was grounded in the previously established conditions of trust, mutual respect, and recognition of the legitimacy of different ways of knowing, which enabled interaction spaces — both academic and everyday — to become spaces of shared learning. In this context, Matsigenka students were able to appropriate conceptual categories and tools from the social sciences for the design of their own research projects, through which they began to apply analytical frameworks to their own territories and communal dynamics. Complementarily, social science students were able to “ground” their theoretical frameworks and research projects by confronting them with concrete realities and with the contributions of their Manu peers. Debates and exchanges allowed them to deepen their understanding of conservation by incorporating practical dimensions informed by their peers’ experiences and viewpoints. Thus, intercultural dialogue enriched the perspectives of both groups and also operated as a central mechanism in the co-creation of knowledge — understood as a relational process in which the transformation of ways of knowing, interpreting, and problematizing reality makes it possible to incorporate the standpoint of the Other.

A third result, particularly valued by participants, was the creation of a space for knowledge exchange within the indigenous modality itself. By bringing together Matsigenka youth from communities both inside the Manu National Park and its buffer zone, the course made it possible to render visible and discuss differences in their territorial realities, including living conditions, access to services, economic opportunities, and relationships with the market. This type of exchange, rarely available in other contexts, proved significant even to the participants themselves, who highlighted the opportunity to learn about and reflect on the internal diversity of the Matsigenka people. Knowledge-sharing spaces were also established with Matsigenka elders and leaders, in which dialogue in the indigenous language was encouraged, addressing knowledge of medicinal plants, the forest, and narratives associated with Matsigenka ancestral ways of life. These exchanges allowed participants to recognize both variations across communities and shared elements in their ways of understanding and relating to the forest. Taken together, these experiences evidenced the richness and diversity of this traditional knowledge and also surfaced shared concerns about its intergenerational loss, reinforcing the importance of taking action for its transmission and preservation.

A fourth result was the strengthening of Matsigenka youth as agents and researchers both within and beyond their communities. The experience contributed to overcoming initial apprehensions associated with participation in academic settings by generating an environment perceived as safe — one in which their opinions and knowledge were heard and valued. As a result, participants reported greater confidence in engaging both within their communities and in external spaces, as well as an enhanced capacity to develop their own research processes. Throughout this process, research ceased to be regarded as a practice reserved for outside actors, giving way to a recognition of participants’ own role in the production of knowledge about their communities. Participants also noted that through conducting research they had developed a deeper understanding of their history and social dynamics, as well as greater legitimacy to engage in dialogue with external actors.

Finally, a fifth result — not anticipated in the original design — emerged from the training process itself. The Fourth Edition of the Varese Course did not yield a co-created knowledge product in the conventional sense. From the outset, it was agreed with the communities that the information-gathering exercises would not result in publications or documents about their territories, but would instead serve the development of the research capacities of the young participants. This practical component, central to the indigenous modality, responded to forms of producing and transmitting knowledge in which practice occupies a place that theory and abstraction cannot reach within conventional academic contexts. Nevertheless, the sustained space of exchange among modalities, instructors, and organizers gave rise to a process of knowledge co-creation that exceeded what had been planned. As intercultural dialogue deepened, the organizations involved in the course’s design — San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance Global Perú and the Group for the Analysis of Development (GRADE) — revisited their assumptions about how to develop the course, their approach to conservation, and the transmission and management of indigenous knowledge. What had previously been conceived as an encounter between two modalities with relatively defined roles was reconfigured in practice: by listening to and working alongside the Matsigenka youth, instructors and organizers also began to situate themselves from within the indigenous perspective, incorporating it not as a supplementary input but as a constitutive axis of the program. Particularly fundamental in this regard was the epistemic and linguistic translation carried out by the Matsigenka students, without whose engagement and willingness the course would not have yielded the same favorable outcomes.

While this intercultural dialogue has limitations that the course itself brought to light — and which it would be naïve to dismiss — such as the initial epistemic hierarchies that privileged a social science framework over Matsigenka epistemologies, and the use of Spanish as the dominant language throughout the course; these limitations reaffirmed the need to transcend the frameworks of a conservation paradigm conceived predominantly within academia and development cooperation organizations. Co-creation, then, was materialized in the transformation of the process itself, which deepened the ways of knowing and problematizing conservation within the course. It is from this standpoint that future editions are envisioned, sustained by a learning that this experience rendered tangible: that under adequate intercultural conditions, the generation of conservation knowledge can draw in equal measure from traditional and scientific knowledge alike — and that recognizing the strengths and limitations of both epistemic traditions constitutes the starting point for co-creating with the trust, honesty, and creativity required to generate genuine dialogue between them.

4.2 Analysis of the results

A first key aspect for understanding the results of this experience is the origin of the course and the expectations that shaped its design. The fourth edition was grounded in the academic trajectories of the two organizing institutions in conservation, the social sciences, and previous work in the Amazon. From this starting point, the course was conceived as a space of encounter between two distinct modalities: university students from different social science disciplines and Matsigenka youth with diverse trajectories and leadership roles in their communities, both within and outside the MNP. Although the proposal deliberately sought to promote intercultural dialogue, its initial formulation retained, to some extent, a logic of encounter between “two groups” previously defined through categories external to the territory.

However, once the period of shared living and exchange began, that logic started to shift. Everyday interactions, mutual listening, and the recognition of the value of Matsigenka knowledge partially reshaped the initial assumptions underlying the course design. Both university students and the teaching team moved away from frameworks constructed outside the territory toward a more situated understanding of Indigenous perspectives on conservation, the forest, community life, and relationships with external actors. In this sense, this experience resembled what organizational scholars have described as a process of ecological sensemaking (Whiteman and Cooper, 2000), through which sustained immersion in a territory transforms how people perceive, interpret, and relate to environmental realities. Likewise, although the course initially drew a clear distinction between instructors and students, these roles gradually became blurred: instructors also learned, while students assumed an active role in knowledge sharing, giving rise to reciprocal learning enriched by the young Indigenous leaders’ proficiency in Matsigenka and Spanish. In this sense, the course not only generated learning among students but also prompted those who had conceived it to reconsider their assumptions about how to teach, conduct research, and organize an intercultural space for dialogue on different perspectives of conservation.

This transformation was also reflected in the language used to refer to participants. During the course, the term Puñaruna—a Matsigenka term to refer to non-Matsigenka people—gained prominence. Far from being a mere descriptive label, this category made visible that those who had designed the course from outside also occupied, from an Indigenous perspective, the position of “the others.” The term came to be used to refer to university students and, to some extent, the organizing team as well. This expression reversed the usual direction of classification, showing that Indigenous peoples are not the only ones named through external categories, but that academic and institutional actors can also be named through Indigenous ones.

At the same time, the experience revealed the difficulty of naming both modalities without reproducing hierarchies. Apparently neutral categories—such as “university students” for one group or “youth from the Manu region” for the other—proved insufficient, as they reduced diverse trajectories and associated university education with formal knowledge and Indigenous territory with local experience. In addition, some Matsigenka students had completed technical and university-level studies. These tensions highlighted that co-creation involves not only sharing methodologies or outcomes, but also recognizing, contesting, and reconstructing the categories through which actors define themselves.

Taken together, the genesis and evolution of the course show that spaces for knowledge co-creation cannot be fully anticipated from initial designs and must remain open to transformation. Although the proposal originated from an externally conceived strategy, the encounter itself reconfigured meanings, relationships, and categories. This capacity of the process to transform those who organize it constitutes one of its most significant findings.

The results also highlight the need to rethink how protected area conservation is conceived, moving toward a broader and more integrative understanding. Since its inception, conservation has focused on biodiversity and ecosystem protection within imaginaries that frame nature and society as closed, mutually exclusive categories. Although this paradigm has shifted globally in recent decades, with growing recognition of the historical role of Indigenous Peoples in conservation, in countries such as Peru—where 18.64% of the national territory is under protected area status—conservation continues to render local populations largely invisible. In this context, this study argues that such a definition is insufficient to address the complexity of Amazonian territories, where Indigenous presence and agency are constitutive of the landscape.

In this regard, it is not sufficient to promote “participatory conservation” approaches understood as the inclusion of local actors within predefined frameworks. A reconceptualization is needed that recognizes Indigenous Peoples as knowledge producers and central actors in territorial governance. This shift requires questioning hierarchies that have privileged the natural sciences and moving toward a more horizontal dialogue between natural sciences, social sciences, and Indigenous knowledge systems.

Likewise, the findings reinforce the view that conservation cannot be detached from the living conditions of the populations inhabiting these territories. The sustainability of conservation efforts depends on their articulation with dignified livelihoods, inclusive governance, and the recognition of territorial rights. In the Peruvian context, where a substantial proportion of protected areas overlap with Indigenous territories or their zones of influence, such articulation is not optional but a structural condition for viability.

Taken together, the findings suggest that advancing toward more effective and equitable conservation models requires not only disciplinary integration, but also a transformation in how problems, actors, and forms of knowledge are conceived and governed. The experience analyzed shows that, under conditions of intercultural dialogue, mutual learning can be fostered, contributing to this transformation and opening pathways toward more inclusive, effective, territorially grounded, and epistemologically diverse conservation approaches.

5 Limitations

Among the course limitations, observed outcomes—such as Matsigenka students’ appropriation of research tools and concepts and their empowerment within their communities—require longer-term follow-up to assess their sustainability. A single training experience is insufficient to determine whether these changes will be sustained or lead to lasting transformations, although they represent valuable learning outcomes.

In addition, the results are not necessarily generalizable to other Amazonian contexts. This experience was shaped by factors that are difficult to replicate, including San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance Perú’s long-term presence through the CCBS and the trust established with communities in the MNP and its buffer zone before the course. These relationships were essential to the participation of the young people, which in turn depended on agreements with their communities.

Finally, we acknowledge that this co-creation process was limited by the absence of Indigenous Peoples during its formulation. We recognize the importance of developing processes in accordance with Indigenous ways of creating and sharing knowledge. In this regard, the organizing team’s lack of knowledge of the Matsigenka language and the predominance of certain epistemological approaches also constrained this process.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Joao Biehl, Princeton University, United States

Reviewed by: Marie-Noelle Guilbaud, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico

Beverly Banaken Laltoog, University of Baguio, Philippines