408 J. Montana et al.
P.0.05), general trends perspective (F(3, 196)= 0.498, P.0.05) or autonomous idealist (F(3, 196)= 0.093, P.0.05), there was a significant relationship with identify- ing as natural scientist, social scientist, or both, on human- focused research (F(3, 196)= 33.863,P,0.001), relativist (F(3, 196)= 7.319,P,0.001) and nature and society separ- ation (F(3, 196)= 3.487,P,0.05). Post-hoc tests, with Hochberg’sGT2, showed that
for human-focused research, social scientists (M= 3.79, SD = 0.78) scored significantly higher (P,0.001) than people who identified as both (M= 3.03,SD= 0.92) and than those who identified as natural scientists (M= 2.12, SD = 0.77). A higher score demonstrates greater interest in people and society than in ecosystems, and those who iden- tified as both also scored significantly higher (P,0.001) than natural scientists. For relativist tendencies, social scientists (M= 3.67,SD= 0.70) scored significantly higher (P,0.05) than natural scientists (M= 3.22,SD= 0.75), and the both category (M= 3.48,SD= 0.69) scored higher than the natural scientists, but this difference was not sig- nificant. For nature and society separation, natural scientists (M= 1.99,SD= 0.87) scored significantly higher (P,0.05) than people who identified as both (M= 1.68,SD= 0.62), and although both scored higher than social scientists (M= 1.56,SD= 0.53), occupying an intermediate position, this difference was not significant. For this factor the differ- ence between natural scientists and social scientists was, however, close to significance, at P = 0.051.
Discussion
FIG. 1 Spider diagrams of results for respondents identifying as (a) natural scientist only, (b) both natural and social scientist, and (c) social scientist only. Grey lines represent individual respondents to show spread, and the black line represents the average of all responses.
across the factors, there were significant differences between the categories across some but not all of the six factors (Fig. 2). Although there was no significant relationship with tendencies for impact driven (F(3, 196)= 1.573,
This research had the dual purpose of creating a question- naire that could analyse diversity in the research preferences of conservation research communities and also be used to help multi-disciplinary teams of conservation researchers better appreciate each other’s approaches to research. The results illustrate the potential of this questionnaire to examine diversity within communities of conservation researchers. The questionnaire identified a diversity of research preferences both within the categories of natural and social scientist, and between them. In general, the re- sults show a statistical difference between the categories of social and natural sciences for the factors of human-focused research, nature and society separation, and the relativist worldview. But the results also show that respondents from these self-defined categories also exhibit high variability within the same factors. Self-identifying as a natural scien- tist did not preclude one from achieving a high score on the relativist factor, and vice versa. This perhaps reflects the known diversity of disciplinary approaches (from theoretic- al biology to bioinformatics, and from anthropology to eco- nomics) within the broad categories of the natural and social sciences in conservation (Bennett et al., 2017), and reinforces
Oryx, 2021, 55(3), 404–411 © The Author(s), 2019. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S003060531900067X
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
