New Studies Aim to Boost Social Science Methods in Conservation Research

Below is a press release about the Methods Special Feature ‘Qualitative Methods for Eliciting Judgements for Decision Making‘ taken from the University of Exeter.

Scientists have produced a series of papers designed to improve research on conservation and the environment.

A group of researchers have contributed to a Special Feature of the journal Methods in Ecology and Evolution to examine commonly used social science techniques and provide a checklist for scientists to follow.

Traditional conservation biology has been dominated by quantitative data (measured in numbers) but today it frequently relies on qualitative methods such as interviews and focus group discussions. The aim of the special issue is to help researchers decide which techniques are most appropriate for their study, and improve the “methodological rigour” of these techniques.

Qualitative techniques are an important part of the curriculum for most undergraduate, graduate and doctoral studies in biodiversity conservation and the environment,” said Dr Nibedita Mukherjee, of the University of Exeter, one of the key authors for the Special Feature, “Yet the application of these techniques is often flawed or badly reported.”

©Brocken Inaglory

Dr Mukherjee, of the Centre for Ecology and Conservation of Exeter’s Penryn Campus in Cornwall, added: “In putting together this Special Feature, we urge greater collaboration across the disciplines within conservation, incorporating rigorous use of qualitative methods. We envisage a future in which conservation scientists test, modify and improve these techniques, so that they become even more relevant and widely used.”

The five papers in the special feature include one – ‘A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research‘ – which examines the use of interviews as part of research into conservation decision-making. It found that researchers do not always justify their use of interviews, or report on their use fully enough for readers to make informed judgements.

“While interview-based research might not always be reproducible, we should still leave the reader in no doubt about what was done,” said lead author Dr David Rose, formerly of the University of Cambridge but now at the University of East Anglia.

©Goche Ganas

Another paper – ‘The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation‘ –  looked at the use of focus groups. Lead author Tobias Nyumba, from the University of Cambridge, said focus groups are often used but many researchers are “not particularly keen on the process, from planning, execution, analysis to reporting. This paper is, therefore, a must read if focus groups must form part of your research toolkit,” he said.

A third paper looked at the nominal group technique (NGT). In ‘The nominal group technique in ecology & conservation: Application and challenges‘ lead author Dr Jean Huge (of Université Libre de Bruxelles) said: “While conservation conflicts are on the rise worldwide, NGT provides a simple yet systematic approach to prioritise management options and could help reduce conflict.”

This could inform the choice of criteria in the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis as observed by Dr Blal Adem Esmail (of Università degli Studi di Trento) in his paper ‘Multi‐criteria decision analysis for nature conservation: A review of 20 years of applications.

The special feature is a collaboration between universities listed above as well as the Universiteit Gent, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, the University of QueenslandUniversidad Central del Ecuador and the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment.

To find out more, read the Methods in Ecology and Evolution Special Feature ‘Qualitative Methods for Eliciting Judgements for Decision Making‘. 

All articles in the Special Feature will be freely available throughout 2018 – No Subscription Required.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s