410 J. Montana et al.
nature of concepts and terms used in the questionnairemay lead some respondents to feel that the factors do not accur- ately reflect their worldviews we seek to emphasize that such reflections are perfectly valid. The sharing and discussion of these concerns through a group dialogue process is an in- tended outcome of this work. To further explore the chal- lenges of applying the questionnaire methodology for this purpose, future research could empirically examine the way in which different researchers relate to the questionnaire as a tool for reflection and facilitated dialogue. As part of this, it would be valuable to understand the extent to which the questionnaire meaningfully reflects the general preferences of respondents, or if a different approach is needed to capture the preferences of increasingly pragmatic researchers that are accustomed to adapting their research methods and approaches to the changing nature of research problems. Nevertheless, there is ample scope for further research
into the potential contributions that social psychology could offer the conduct of conservation research itself. Further testing is required to examine whether facilitated dialogue about disciplinary differences can change a re- searcher’s understanding of themselves and others in col- laborative teams. Previous research suggests that critical examination of worldviews and philosophies can trans- form individual, organizational and group capacity as well as inform the ways in which other skills are deployed in pursuit of conservation science goals (O’Brien et al., 2013; Binder et al., 2015). Interventions that challenge researchers to externalize and justify their research preferences, such as the questionnaire presented here, are opportunities to build a greater appreciation for the range of different approaches to research that coexist within the conservation field.
Acknowledgements We thank two anonymous reviewers for comments, Jonathan Hutton for contributing to the initial concep- tual development, and the organizers of the Cambridge Student Conference on Conservation Science and members of the University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, who assisted with the recruitment of participants. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, or commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Author contributions Study design: JM, CS, ER, MR; data collection: JM; data analysis: ER, JM; writing: JM, ER, MR, CS.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This research abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards and was conducted with ethical approval from the Department of Geography, University of Cambridge (Research Ethics Assessment ID 402, approved 9 February 2017).
References
ADAMS,W.M. (2007) Thinking like a human: social science and the two cultures problem. Oryx, 41, 275–276.
BENNETT, N.J., ROTH, R., KLAIN, S.C., CHAN, K., CHRISTIE,P., CLARK, D.A. et al. (2017) Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93–108.
BENNETT, N.J., ROTH, R., KLAIN, S.C., CHAN, K.M.A., CLARK, D.A., CULLMAN, G. et al. (2016) Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conservation Biology, 31, 56–66.
BERKES,F. & FOLKE,C.(1998) Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
BINDER, C.R., ABSENGER-HELMLI,I. & SCHILLING,T.(2015) The reality of transdisciplinarity: a framework-based self- reflection from science and practice leaders. Sustainability Science, 10, 545–562.
BLACKFORD,S. (2010) A qualitative study of the relationship of personality type with career management and career choice preference in a group of bioscience postgraduate students and postdoctoral researchers. International Journal for Researcher Development, 1, 296–313.
BRIDGES,W.(2010) The Character of Organizations: Using Personality Type in Organization Development. Davies-Black, London, UK.
CAMPBELL, L.M. (2005) Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conservation Biology, 19, 574–577.
COLLOFF, M.J., LAVOREL, S., VAN KERKHOFF, L.E.,WYBORN, C.A., FAZEY, I., GORDDARD, R. et al. (2017) Transforming conservation science and practice for a postnormal world. Conservation Biology, 31, 1008–1017.
COX,M. (2015) A basic guide for empirical environmental social science. Ecology and Society, 20, 63.
DÍAZ, S.,DEMISSEW, S., JOLY, C., LONSDALE,W.M. & LARIGAUDERIE, A. (2015) A Rosetta stone for nature’s benefits to people. PLOS Biology, 13,e1002040.
DOUTHWAITE, B., KUBY,T., VAN DE FLIERT,E.&SCHULZ,S.(2003) Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agricultural Systems, 78, 243–265.
EIGENBRODE, S.D., O’ROURKE, M.,WULFHORST, J.D., ALTHOFF, D.M., GOLDBERG, C.S., MERRILL, K. et al. (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience, 57, 55–64.
EISER,J.(1986) Social Psychology: Attitudes, Cognition and Social Behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
FIELD,A. (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd edition. Sage Publications, London, UK.
FOX, H.E., CHRISTIAN, C., NORDBY, J.C., PERGAMS, O.R.W., PETERSON, G.D. & PYKE, C.R. (2006) Perceived barriers to integrating social science and conservation. Conservation Biology, 20, 1817–1820.
KAISER, H.F. (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.
LATOUR,B.(1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA.
MACE,G. (2014) Whose conservation? Science, 345, 1558–1560. MARGULIES, J.D., MAGLIOCCA, N.R., SCHMILL, M.D. & ELLIS, E.C. (2016) Ambiguous geographies: connecting case study knowledge with global change science. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106, 572–596.
MASCIA, M.B., BROSIUS, J.P., DOBSON, T.A., FORBES, B.C., HOROWITZ, L., MCKEAN, M.A. et al. (2003) Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation Biology, 17, 649–650.
MEINE, C., SOULÉ, M. & NOSS, R.F. (2006) “A mission-driven discipline”: the growth of conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 20, 631–651.
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
