Masters Dissertation Example

3.3 Practitioner interviews 
The question as to whether conservation practitioners consult primary literature when making 
management decisions was addressed qualitatively through semi-structured interviews 
(Drever, 2003) with conservation practitioners during a staff meeting at the Durrell Wildlife 
Conservation Trust in Jersey.
Although Durrell is a science-based conservation institution, the practitioners interviewed are 
involved in every day conservation action and have a ‘real world’ view of practical 
conservation. Although all interviewees were employees of the same institution, the meeting at 
Durrell offered a unique opportunity to obtain the views of practitioners based in various 
countries and with varying scientific backgrounds; some more involved in aspects of scientific 
research, and others more involved in conservation management. This is an example of a 
situation in which the lines between practitioner and researcher are blurred, but comparisons 
are no less valid, and indeed facilitated a more rounded analysis 
It was important to get a wider view of the topic, rather than relying solely on the author 
perceptions; and to assess from the opposite viewpoint the issues of whether research is 
addressing the areas that practitioners believe to be most important, and how they believe it 
can best be disseminated. 
 
3.3.1 Interview structure 
A total of 10 practitioners from Durrell’s conservation programmes in Mauritius, Madagascar, 
India, the Caribbean, and the Galapagos Islands were interviewed, along with staff members 

---

29 
based in the UK. They were involved in a variety of single species conservation actions, such 
as translocation, but also in wider biodiversity and legislative issues.
Questions were designed so as to complement the author survey, and with reference to similar 
studies (Pullin et al, 2004; Sutherland et al, 2004; Lach et al, 2003). General questions were 
asked initially, followed by a series of more focused prompts and probing questions to be 
asked dependent upon response (Drever, 2003) 
The interviews (Appendix II) were approximately 15-30 minutes long and addressed three 
main areas: 
1)
The background of the interviewee and their role within the institution 
2)
Their views on the use and availability of scientific information 
3)
The reporting of information
Interviewees were asked what role research has to play in practical conservation action (a 
distinction was made between ‘in house’ research and external research), the type of research 
they found most useful in implementing conservation action, and what sources of information 
they consulted in the design or implementation of an action. They were asked in more detail 
about the role of publication in conservation action, and the particular journals that they read. 
They were then asked about their own methods of dissemination of conservation outcomes, 
and what forms of dissemination they felt, as conservation practitioners, were most useful in 
terms of influencing conservation action on the ground. Interviews were recorded using a 
Dictaphone and transcribed in full for qualitative analysis. 

---

30