Invasive species denialism (ISD) has emerged as a concern in invasion science. While some scholars argue ISD is increasing, others contend science denialism is being confused with broader forms of dissent including disagreement and skepticism. Despite attempts to clearly define ISD, most definitions remain subjective and overly reliant on rhetorical markers, creating uncertainty over how to distinguish science denialism from these other, more valuable, forms of dissent. We propose a conceptual framework which utilizes knowledge and porosity as variables to identify science denialism. In doing so, we highlight science denialism’s relationship to broader dissent (i.e., skepticism, disagreement, and unfamiliarity). To validate this framework, we conduct a thematic content analysis of media articles discussing the common coquí (Eleutherodactylus coquí) in Hawai‘i from 1980–2022. We find that while invasive species denialism builds from and amplifies other forms of dissent, it is nevertheless distinguishable within our framework. Moreover, our findings suggest that early and appropriate engagement with dissent can inhibit ISD. Beyond countering ISD, engagement with dissent is important to help mitigate challenges related to distrust of invasion science, issue-framing within public perception, and injustices generated from dismissal. Ultimately, we suggest that the Spectrum of Dissent framework can help scientists, managers, and environmental communication specialists build a healthy dialogue with the public, obtain productive feedback, and facilitate the success of invasive species initiatives.
