Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods

Moon, K; Blackman, DA; Adams, VM; Colvin, RM; Davila, F; Evans, MC; Januchowski-Hartley, SR; Bennett, NJ; Dickinson, H; Sandbrook, C; Sherren, K; St. John, FAV; van Kerkhoff, L; Wyborn, C

Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods

Moon, K

Blackman, DA Adams, VM

Colvin, RM Davila, F

Evans, MC Januchowski-Hartley, SR

Bennett, NJ

Dickinson, H Sandbrook, C

Sherren, K St. John, FAV van Kerkhoff, L Wyborn, C

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2019, 10 (3), pp. 294 - 302
Issue Date:: 2019-03-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published VersionAdobe PDF (673.78 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Moon, K https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2538-9262	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Blackman, DA	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Adams, VM https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3509-7901	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Colvin, RM	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Davila, F https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6899-1854	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Evans, MC	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Januchowski-Hartley, SR https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1661-917X	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Bennett, NJ https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4852-3401	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Dickinson, H	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sandbrook, C https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9938-4934	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sherren, K	en_US
dc.contributor.author	St. John, FAV	en_US
dc.contributor.author	van Kerkhoff, L	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Wyborn, C https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4314-347X	en_US
dc.date.issued	2019-03-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2019, 10 (3), pp. 294 - 302	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/129786
dc.description.abstract	© 2019 The Authors. Methods in Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society The Special Feature led by Sutherland, Dicks, Everard, and Geneletti (Methods Ecology and Evolution, 9, 7–9, 2018) sought to highlight the importance of “qualitative methods” for conservation. The intention is welcome, and the collection makes many important contributions. Yet, the articles presented a limited perspective on the field, with a focus on objectivist and instrumental methods, omitting discussion of some broader philosophical and methodological considerations crucial to social science research. Consequently, the Special Feature risks narrowing the scope of social science research and, potentially, reducing its quality and usefulness. In this article, we seek to build on the strengths of the articles of the Special Feature by drawing in a discussion on social science research philosophy, methodology, and methods. We start with a brief discussion on the value of thinking about data as being qualitative (i.e., text, image, or numeric) or quantitative (i.e., numeric), not methods or research. Thinking about methods as qualitative can obscure many important aspects of research design by implying that “qualitative methods” somehow embody a particular set of assumptions or principles. Researchers can bring similar, or very different, sets of assumptions to their research design, irrespective of whether they collect qualitative or quantitative data. We clarify broad concepts, including philosophy, methodology, and methods, explaining their role in social science research design. Doing so provides us with an opportunity to examine some of the terms used across the articles of the Special Feature (e.g., bias), revealing that they are used in ways that could be interpreted as being inconsistent with their use in a number of applications of social science. We provide worked examples of how social science research can be designed to collect qualitative data that not only understands decision-making processes, but also the unique social–ecological contexts in which it takes place. These examples demonstrate the importance of coherence between philosophy, methodology, and methods in research design, and the importance of reflexivity throughout the research process. We conclude with encouragement for conservation social scientists to explore a wider range of qualitative research approaches, providing guidance for the selection and application of social science methods for ecology and conservation.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Methods in Ecology and Evolution	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1111/2041-210X.13126	en_US
dc.title	Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	3	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	10	en_US
utslib.for	0602 Ecology	en_US
utslib.for	0603 Evolutionary Biology	en_US
utslib.for	0502 Environmental Science and Management	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (Research)
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (Research)/Institute For Sustainable Futures
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	3	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	10	en_US

Abstract:

© 2019 The Authors. Methods in Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society The Special Feature led by Sutherland, Dicks, Everard, and Geneletti (Methods Ecology and Evolution, 9, 7–9, 2018) sought to highlight the importance of “qualitative methods” for conservation. The intention is welcome, and the collection makes many important contributions. Yet, the articles presented a limited perspective on the field, with a focus on objectivist and instrumental methods, omitting discussion of some broader philosophical and methodological considerations crucial to social science research. Consequently, the Special Feature risks narrowing the scope of social science research and, potentially, reducing its quality and usefulness. In this article, we seek to build on the strengths of the articles of the Special Feature by drawing in a discussion on social science research philosophy, methodology, and methods. We start with a brief discussion on the value of thinking about data as being qualitative (i.e., text, image, or numeric) or quantitative (i.e., numeric), not methods or research. Thinking about methods as qualitative can obscure many important aspects of research design by implying that “qualitative methods” somehow embody a particular set of assumptions or principles. Researchers can bring similar, or very different, sets of assumptions to their research design, irrespective of whether they collect qualitative or quantitative data. We clarify broad concepts, including philosophy, methodology, and methods, explaining their role in social science research design. Doing so provides us with an opportunity to examine some of the terms used across the articles of the Special Feature (e.g., bias), revealing that they are used in ways that could be interpreted as being inconsistent with their use in a number of applications of social science. We provide worked examples of how social science research can be designed to collect qualitative data that not only understands decision-making processes, but also the unique social–ecological contexts in which it takes place. These examples demonstrate the importance of coherence between philosophy, methodology, and methods in research design, and the importance of reflexivity throughout the research process. We conclude with encouragement for conservation social scientists to explore a wider range of qualitative research approaches, providing guidance for the selection and application of social science methods for ecology and conservation.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/129786