Introduction There is a fundamental difference – a clash of paradigms – in the way in which researchers and community groups regard nature conservation issues. The gulf arises in the models, patterns and ideals in contemporary thinking about biodiversity conservation, and the difference is so deep-seated that it is causing major problems for conservation by fracturing the links between specialists and managers, land-owners and government agencies, and community groups and researchers. It is also widening the rural-urban divide by locking out city- based university and government specialist researchers and leaving vital matters such as planning, experimental design and long-term monitoring to local project managers on short-term funding. The Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) and similar funds have become so anti-intellectual and partial in their recognition of issues and solutions that the funding bias has itself become a threatening process in biodiversity conservation. The importance of research to biodiversity conservation Research is fundamental to understanding the processes of decline in biodiversity because it defines the problem and proposes options for management, as well as assessing the effectiveness of management programs, extracting the principles and applying the results elsewhere. The proper identification and management of threatening processes, such as land clearing, fire, logging, pollution, water extraction, over grazing or housing development are not possible without research, which involves a rigorous design of the study, an informed interpretation of the results, and a clearly expressed report of the work. Community-based research: where are the rewards? Daniel Lunney and Alison Matthews NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, PO Box 1967, Hurstville, NSW 2220 ABSTRACT In this paper we advocate community-based research, that is, the integration of community knowledge and support into research programs aimed at solving conservation problems.The rewards for researchers include obtaining an economical source of data, including historical information, access to private lands and a high impact of research results when the community supports and helps to implement the recommendations. For the community, the rewards are that its concerns are taken into account by researchers, that management actions are more likely to succeed, and the community will gain a better understanding of the findings of the ecological research. While this appears to be a mutually beneficial partnership, there is a conflict. Some researchers do not accept that community knowledge can contribute to scientific endeavour and will not consider incorporating community information into their programs. Thus, a major aspiration of involving the community in biodiversity conservation will not be fulfilled. By the same token, some communities are rejecting the inclusion of scientific research when dealing with conservation problems.The Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), for example, receives massive funding which is, in our opinion, being allocated by the community to the community without any obligation to involve research scientists. This matters because the NHT is by far the biggest pool of funding for a better environment for Australia in the 21st Century. The consequence is that the gap between research scientists and community groups working on biodiversity issues will widen to an unbridgeable gulf unless both parties acknowledge the clash of paradigms and work to overcome them, rather than entrench them. Pp 8 - 19 in A clash of paradigms: Community and research-based conservation, edited by Daniel Lunney, Chris Dickman and Shelley Burgin 2002. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman.