Cutting through the complexity to aid evidence synthesis. A response to Haddaway and Dicks

Carly N. Cook, Susan J Nichols, Angus Webb, Richard A. Fuller, Rob RICHARDS

    Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

    1 Citation (Scopus)

    Abstract

    We thank Haddaway and Dicks (2017) for their interest in our recent paper: “Simplifying the selection of evidence synthesis methods to inform environmental decisions: A guide for decision makers and scientists” (Cook et al., 2017). Their response reflects a long standing tension that many conservation scientists face, between emphasising complexity and nuance, and potentially turning practitioners off; or simplifying, at the risk of constraining people's thinking. In fact, this tension has been one of the primary reasons for the development of evidence synthesis methods. The large, complex pool of literature frequently yields conflicting and contradictory results that leave end users confused and frustrated (Cochrane, 1972; Pullin and Knight, 2001). The role of evidence synthesis is to integrate that complexity and condense it to answer the essential questions of “what works?” and “under what circumstances?”. In this way, evidence synthesis can cut through the complexity and variability and provide some general guidance to decision makers
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)291-292
    Number of pages2
    JournalBiological Conservation
    Volume218
    Early online dateDec 2017
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2018

    Fingerprint

    aid
    synthesis
    decision
    cutting (process)
    methodology
    method

    Cite this

    Cook, Carly N. ; Nichols, Susan J ; Webb, Angus ; Fuller, Richard A. ; RICHARDS, Rob. / Cutting through the complexity to aid evidence synthesis. A response to Haddaway and Dicks. In: Biological Conservation. 2018 ; Vol. 218. pp. 291-292.
    @article{a0a1e79796014b7e83517b6312277c6d,
    title = "Cutting through the complexity to aid evidence synthesis. A response to Haddaway and Dicks",
    abstract = "We thank Haddaway and Dicks (2017) for their interest in our recent paper: “Simplifying the selection of evidence synthesis methods to inform environmental decisions: A guide for decision makers and scientists” (Cook et al., 2017). Their response reflects a long standing tension that many conservation scientists face, between emphasising complexity and nuance, and potentially turning practitioners off; or simplifying, at the risk of constraining people's thinking. In fact, this tension has been one of the primary reasons for the development of evidence synthesis methods. The large, complex pool of literature frequently yields conflicting and contradictory results that leave end users confused and frustrated (Cochrane, 1972; Pullin and Knight, 2001). The role of evidence synthesis is to integrate that complexity and condense it to answer the essential questions of “what works?” and “under what circumstances?”. In this way, evidence synthesis can cut through the complexity and variability and provide some general guidance to decision makers",
    author = "Cook, {Carly N.} and Nichols, {Susan J} and Angus Webb and Fuller, {Richard A.} and Rob RICHARDS",
    year = "2018",
    month = "2",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.005",
    language = "English",
    volume = "218",
    pages = "291--292",
    journal = "Biological Conservation",
    issn = "0006-3207",
    publisher = "Elsevier BV",

    }

    Cutting through the complexity to aid evidence synthesis. A response to Haddaway and Dicks. / Cook, Carly N.; Nichols, Susan J; Webb, Angus; Fuller, Richard A.; RICHARDS, Rob.

    In: Biological Conservation, Vol. 218, 01.02.2018, p. 291-292.

    Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Cutting through the complexity to aid evidence synthesis. A response to Haddaway and Dicks

    AU - Cook, Carly N.

    AU - Nichols, Susan J

    AU - Webb, Angus

    AU - Fuller, Richard A.

    AU - RICHARDS, Rob

    PY - 2018/2/1

    Y1 - 2018/2/1

    N2 - We thank Haddaway and Dicks (2017) for their interest in our recent paper: “Simplifying the selection of evidence synthesis methods to inform environmental decisions: A guide for decision makers and scientists” (Cook et al., 2017). Their response reflects a long standing tension that many conservation scientists face, between emphasising complexity and nuance, and potentially turning practitioners off; or simplifying, at the risk of constraining people's thinking. In fact, this tension has been one of the primary reasons for the development of evidence synthesis methods. The large, complex pool of literature frequently yields conflicting and contradictory results that leave end users confused and frustrated (Cochrane, 1972; Pullin and Knight, 2001). The role of evidence synthesis is to integrate that complexity and condense it to answer the essential questions of “what works?” and “under what circumstances?”. In this way, evidence synthesis can cut through the complexity and variability and provide some general guidance to decision makers

    AB - We thank Haddaway and Dicks (2017) for their interest in our recent paper: “Simplifying the selection of evidence synthesis methods to inform environmental decisions: A guide for decision makers and scientists” (Cook et al., 2017). Their response reflects a long standing tension that many conservation scientists face, between emphasising complexity and nuance, and potentially turning practitioners off; or simplifying, at the risk of constraining people's thinking. In fact, this tension has been one of the primary reasons for the development of evidence synthesis methods. The large, complex pool of literature frequently yields conflicting and contradictory results that leave end users confused and frustrated (Cochrane, 1972; Pullin and Knight, 2001). The role of evidence synthesis is to integrate that complexity and condense it to answer the essential questions of “what works?” and “under what circumstances?”. In this way, evidence synthesis can cut through the complexity and variability and provide some general guidance to decision makers

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85039058294&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.005

    DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.005

    M3 - Letter

    VL - 218

    SP - 291

    EP - 292

    JO - Biological Conservation

    JF - Biological Conservation

    SN - 0006-3207

    ER -