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

Katie Moon, Deborah A. Blackman, Vanessa M. Adams, Rebecca M. Colvin, Federico Davila, Megan C. Evans, Stephanie R. Januchowski-Hartley, Nathan J. Bennett, Helen Dickinson, Chris Sandbrook, Kate Sherren, Freya A.V. St. John, Lorrae van Kerkhoff, Carina Wyborn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)294-302
Number of pages9
JournalMethods in Ecology and Evolution
Volume10
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2019

Fingerprint

social sciences
methodology
qualitative analysis
research methods
ecology
method
social science
decision making
researchers

Cite this

Moon, K., Blackman, D. A., Adams, V. M., Colvin, R. M., Davila, F., Evans, M. C., ... Wyborn, C. (2019). Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10(3), 294-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13126
Moon, Katie ; Blackman, Deborah A. ; Adams, Vanessa M. ; Colvin, Rebecca M. ; Davila, Federico ; Evans, Megan C. ; Januchowski-Hartley, Stephanie R. ; Bennett, Nathan J. ; Dickinson, Helen ; Sandbrook, Chris ; Sherren, Kate ; St. John, Freya A.V. ; van Kerkhoff, Lorrae ; Wyborn, Carina. / Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods. In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2019 ; Vol. 10, No. 3. pp. 294-302.
@article{fafc3456e0b443a1913d5148cb7e4af1,
title = "Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "conservation social science, decision-making, focus groups, guideline, interviews, policymaking, qualitative data, surveys",
author = "Katie Moon and Blackman, {Deborah A.} and Adams, {Vanessa M.} and Colvin, {Rebecca M.} and Federico Davila and Evans, {Megan C.} and Januchowski-Hartley, {Stephanie R.} and Bennett, {Nathan J.} and Helen Dickinson and Chris Sandbrook and Kate Sherren and {St. John}, {Freya A.V.} and {van Kerkhoff}, Lorrae and Carina Wyborn",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1111/2041-210X.13126",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "294--302",
journal = "Methods in Ecology and Evolution",
issn = "2041-210X",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons",
number = "3",

}

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 2019, 'Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods', Methods in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 294-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13126

Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods. / Moon, Katie; Blackman, Deborah A.; Adams, Vanessa M.; Colvin, Rebecca M.; Davila, Federico; Evans, Megan C.; Januchowski-Hartley, Stephanie R.; Bennett, Nathan J.; Dickinson, Helen; Sandbrook, Chris; Sherren, Kate; St. John, Freya A.V.; van Kerkhoff, Lorrae; Wyborn, Carina.

In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 10, No. 3, 03.2019, p. 294-302.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods

AU - Moon, Katie

AU - Blackman, Deborah A.

AU - Adams, Vanessa M.

AU - Colvin, Rebecca M.

AU - Davila, Federico

AU - Evans, Megan C.

AU - Januchowski-Hartley, Stephanie R.

AU - Bennett, Nathan J.

AU - Dickinson, Helen

AU - Sandbrook, Chris

AU - Sherren, Kate

AU - St. John, Freya A.V.

AU - van Kerkhoff, Lorrae

AU - Wyborn, Carina

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - conservation social science

KW - decision-making

KW - focus groups

KW - guideline

KW - interviews

KW - policymaking

KW - qualitative data

KW - surveys

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062760746&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/expanding-role-social-science-conservation-through-engagement-philosophy-methodology-methods

U2 - 10.1111/2041-210X.13126

DO - 10.1111/2041-210X.13126

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 294

EP - 302

JO - Methods in Ecology and Evolution

JF - Methods in Ecology and Evolution

SN - 2041-210X

IS - 3

ER -