About

Dr. Zoe Nyssa is an Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology at Purdue University within the College of Liberal Arts. She specializes in expert decision-making and technical cultures, with a focus on environmental and climate policy and practice, anthropology of science and technology, applied anthropology, organizational strategy, and global challenges. Her research combines traditional ethnographic and qualitative methods with techniques from computational social science, such as text mining and topic modeling, to study the relationships between knowledge practices, governance, and issues of risk and justice. Dr. Nyssa has been funded by various organizations and has held positions as a Predoctoral Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for History of Science in Berlin and as a Ziff Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Harvard University Center for the Environment and the Program on Science, Technology and Society at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. She has conducted research and served as an adviser for leading scientific and environmental organizations. Additionally, she is co-developing a new Master's track in Applied and Practicing Anthropology at Purdue. She advises graduate students in multiple programs on projects related to expert and technical cultures, environmental science, policy, governance, climate, biodiversity, and employs mixed methods with computational approaches. Dr. Nyssa holds an Hon. B.Sc. in physics and astronomy from the University of Toronto, an M.A. from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, and a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago.

Research topics

• Computer Science
• Political Science
• Social Science
• Public relations
• Sociology
• Psychology
• Law
• Environmental resource management
• Library science
• History
• Geography
• Public administration
• Ecology

Selected publications

• La spécialisation dans les sciences biologiques et la recherche biomédicale

  Éditions de la Sorbonne eBooks · 2025-01-01

  book-chapterOpen accessSenior author

  Dans cet article, nous nous concentrons sur la tendance à la spécialisation dans les sciences biologiques. Ce domaine d’études représente un cas intéressant en soi, mais aussi davantage que cela. Les sciences biologiques et biomédicales représentent collectivement le domaine de recherche le plus important et le mieux financé, ainsi que le lieu de nombreuses discussions sur l’interdisciplinarité (par exemple, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2011). La première partie est consacrée à la délimitation du large éventail de spécialisations qui relèvent des sciences biologiques et de la recherche biomédicale. Des preuves de la tendance continue à l’augmentation de la spécialisation dans ce domaine sont également présentées. L’article se focalise sur le cas des États-Unis, qui restent la plus grande source de programmes et de financement de la recherche dans ce domaine, mais la portée et le dynamisme des sciences biologiques aux États-Unis ont des implications pour les universités et les unités de recherche du monde entier. La deuxième partie de ce document examine la relation entre le degré élevé et croissant de spécialisation et les discussions sur l’interdisciplinarité. Si la spécialisation est incompatible avec certains scénarios interdisciplinaires, elle est tout à fait compatible avec d’autres.

  PublisherDOI

• Enhancing disciplinary diversity and inclusion in conservation science and practice based on a case study of the Society for Conservation Biology

  Conservation Biology · 2024-11-25 · 4 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Effective conservation requires a variety of perspectives that center on different ways of knowing. Disciplinary diversity and inclusion (DDI) offers an important means of integrating different ways of knowing into pressing conservation challenges. However, DDI means more than multiple disciplinary approaches to conservation; cognitive diversity and epistemic justice are key. In 2020, the Disciplinary Inclusion Task Force was formed via a grassroots movement of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) to assess the extent of DDI and to chart a path to increase DDI. First, we assessed past and present SCB governance documents. Next, we surveyed current SCB members (n = 577). Finally, we surveyed nonmember conservationists (n = 213). Members who were not biological scientists perceived SCB as less diverse (21.4% vs. 16%) and not equitable (21.8% vs. 161%), and, although the majority (44) of nonmembers reported that their work aligned reasonably well with the mission of the SCB, they thought the organization focused on biological sciences. Despite SCB's mission to be diverse and inclusive, realizing this mission will likely require diverse epistemological perspectives and shifting from top-down models of knowledge transfer. In centering on DDI, SCB can achieve its aspirations of connecting members across disciplines and ways of knowing to foster diverse perspectives and practices. We recommend that SCB and other organizations develop mechanisms to increase recruitment and retention of diverse members and leadership as well as expand strategic partnerships to flatten disciplinary hierarchies and promote inclusivity.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• A framework for promoting disciplinary diversity and inclusion through epistemic justice

  Conservation Biology · 2024-11-25 · 7 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Integrating diverse disciplines and knowledge practices into conservation offers new insights into the complex socioecological dynamics of conservation challenges and how to address them. Integration, however, is not simple; disciplines differ widely in their epistemic and professional commitments, theories, methods, applications, practices, and codes of ethics. Using an epistemic justice approach, we examined how and why different forms of disciplinary and social diversity are connected and offer a framework for promoting disciplinary diversity for conservation science and practice. This framework draws on a literature review and open-ended responses from surveys of Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) members (n = 577) and nonmembers (n = 213) on experiences of professional and disciplinary exclusion and inclusion collected by SCB's Disciplinary Inclusion Task Force. We propose 4 steps conservation organizations and projects can take to promote disciplinary diversity and inclusion: know your history; understand power dynamics; listen to underrepresented voices; and operationalize disciplinary diversity and inclusion. As members of a highly interdisciplinary and diverse task force, we illustrated this framework through reflections on our shared experiences working together and the challenges and opportunities we faced.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Mapping social conflicts to enhance the integrated management of white‐tailed deer ( <i>Odocoileus virginianus</i> )

  Conservation Science and Practice · 2024-02-21 · 4 citations

  articleOpen access

  Abstract Understanding the social feasibility of wildlife conservation approaches is essential to reducing social conflicts over wildlife and public backlash toward wildlife agencies and organizations. The Potential for Conflict Index 2 (PCI 2 ) and geospatial analyses of conflict can help wildlife practitioners strategically engage their publics, but these two tools have yet to be combined. Using data from a 2021 survey about white‐tailed deer in Indiana ( n = 1806), we analyzed conflict levels among stakeholder self‐identities and political ideologies regarding the acceptability of six possible management methods, three lethal and three nonlethal. We then conducted a hotspot analysis of gridded PCI 2 values to map areas of high and low social conflicts across the state. Conflict potentials showed more consistent covariation with political ideologies than with stakeholder self‐identities, aligning with urban–rural divides in wildlife experiences. Data on political leanings and residency may thus be more reliable than stakeholder categories to predict social conflicts over wildlife management. Hotspots of conflict over lethal methods clustered around urban areas, indicating that agencies should focus on engaging urban residents about deer management. Our conflict hotspots can be combined with other spatial data to create social units of analysis, which can help practitioners develop targeted and socially accepted strategies for wildlife conservation and management.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• A decision framework for the management of established biological invasions

  FACETS · 2023-01-01 · 2 citations

  articleOpen access

  In some cases, managing an established invasive species may do more harm to an ecosystem than allowing the invader to persist. Given limited resources available to land managers and the realities of conservation triage, we recognized the need for systematic guidance for management decisions made at the “late end” of the invasion curve. We gathered an interdisciplinary group of experts and practitioners to address the question of “under what circumstances is the active management of an established aquatic invasive species warranted?” Our working group identified three key dimensions to this question: (1) the efficacy of available management options; (2) the net benefits of management actions weighed against the null scenario of no control; and (3) the socio-ecological context that defines management goals, a manager’s ability to achieve said goals, and perceptions of management outcomes. These considerations were used to structure a consensus decision tree that supports a multi-criteria approach to decision-making. Our approach promotes interdisciplinarity and systems thinking and emphasizes the need to consider costs and benefits comprehensively, for example by considering the persistence or reversibility of impacts from both the invasive species and from efforts to suppress or eradicate it.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Complex human-deer interactions challenge conventional management approaches: the need to consider power, trust, and emotion

  Ecology and Society · 2022 · 22 citations

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Geography
  • Environmental resource management

  In the United States, the management of white-tailed deer (<em>Odocoileus virginianus</em>) has typically focused on improving hunting opportunities and mitigating human-deer conflicts. Yet the expansion and diversification of human communities and activities implies that human-deer interactions may also be diversifying. Approaches based on complex adaptive systems theories have been posited as a way to better attend to the diversity of these interactions between humans and wildlife. Using Indiana as a case, this study draws from the Integrated Adaptive Behavior Model (IABM) to understand human-deer interactions as a complex system. We use empirical social science to understand how citizens across Indiana perceive deer populations, what outcomes they desire, and how these perceptions could be integrated into Indiana’s deer management plan. In Indiana, neither wildlife managers nor researchers have assessed public perceptions of deer beyond hunting and farming stakeholders. From May to September 2019, we collected 59 semi-structured interviews and two focus groups (n = 14) with deer stakeholders including woodland owners, farmers, deer hunters, and urban area residents. Through mixed inductive-deductive coding, we found that Indiana citizens hold complex emotions toward deer regardless of their stakeholder identity. Factors influencing these emotions include past experiences, current livelihood and behavioral contexts, beliefs about responsibilities and ethics in deer management, and beliefs about other social groups. Our results suggest that the IABM, despite adding in much-needed complexity and realism to the analysis of human-wildlife interactions, still lacks explanatory power over several important dynamics that emerged from our interviews. Here, we discuss how mixed emotions, situational context, and power dynamics challenge conventional management approaches that focus narrowly on mitigating human-deer conflicts, and that reduce public interests to demographic categorizations. To better inform social-ecological governance, models of complex human behavior should account for power within management institutions and across management scales. Our work contributes a refined understanding of how multidimensional emotions and experiences influence public (dis)interest in natural resource management, and what this implies for managers who aim to balance competing social interests with ecological conditions.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI
• RETRACTED

  Withdrawal notice to “Why scientists succeed yet their organizations splinter: Historical and social network analyses of policy advocacy in conservation” [Environ. Sci. Policy 98 (2019) 88–94]

  Environmental Science & Policy · 2022-06-14

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Reckoning with Saving

  Journal for the Anthropology of North America · 2020 · 8 citations

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Computer Science
  • Library science
  • History
  PublisherDOI

• Surprise!

  Punctum Books · 2020-02-07

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Why scientists succeed yet their organizations splinter: Historical and social network analyses of policy advocacy in conservation

  Environmental Science & Policy · 2020 · 3 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Sociology
  • Public relations

  What does a science of environmental conservation look like? Though we often see it as a contemporary problem, engineering the interface of science and decision-making bodies has been a question since the founding of ecology. This study traces the creation of new conservation initiatives via the repeated splintering of the Ecological Society of America since the early 1900s and compares these against the results of a network analysis of contemporary scientists and their affiliations. Notwithstanding the new terminology of science-policy interfaces, brokers, and gaps, these questions often hinge on the same dilemmas as they did at the beginning of 20th century. The history of these groups shows how divisive distinctions between ecology and conservation, pure and applied research, science and politics, and facts versus values can quickly become integrated into the structure of organizations—even those that are created specifically to bridge gaps in what today would be called the science-policy interface. Meanwhile, a social network analysis of present-day scientists suggests that individual researchers are finding ways to informally “jump” across science-policy gaps at a sub-organizational level. Remarkably, these science-policy conflicts can pose major problems for organizations, even when the actual activities of members traverse these boundaries on an individual basis. When designing science policy interfaces, formal bridging mechanisms between organizations remain important but these should also support the ongoing, if under-the-radar, ways that individuals negotiate gaps between conservation research and policy advocacy.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Carly C. Sponarski

  3 shared

• Catherine A. Christen

  Smithsonian Institution

  2 shared

• Zhao Ma

  2 shared

• Sophia Winkler‐Schor

  University of Wisconsin–Madison

  2 shared

• Diele Lôbo

  University of Minnesota

  2 shared

• Andrew Wright

  University of Georgia

  2 shared

• Taylor R. Stinchcomb

  Wildlife Conservation Society

  2 shared

• Harold N. Eyster

  University of Vermont

  2 shared

Education

• M.A.

  University of Minnesota

• PhD, Conceptual and Historical Studies of Science

  University of Chicago

  2014

• Hon.B.Sc., Astronomy

  University of Toronto

  2003

Awards & honors

• Predoctoral Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for History o…
• Ziff Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Harvard University…