Masters Dissertation Example

4. Results 
4.1 Response sample 
A total of 474 respondents were included in the analysis, of which 462 completed the survey 
fully. 16 respondents dropped out before reaching the response variable and were excluded 
from analysis. This gave a response rate of 45% excluding emails returned as undeliverable 
(otherwise 33%).
Table 1 Response rate by journal 
Journal 
Original sample size 
Response rate 
AC 
BC 
BD 
CB 
OR 
113 
462 
147 
199 
128 
45% 
44% 
38% 
48% 
51% 
 
Fig 2. The number of responses received (a) by journal (b) by year of publication. Increasing number of 
responses by year is a function of increased sample size. 
There was both an author residence and taxonomic bias. Responses were received from 
authors based in North America (39%), Europe (37%), Australasia (11%), Asia (5%), South 
America (4%), and Africa (3%); representing a wide range of species of mammals (31%), 
birds (23%), plants (16%) amphibians/reptiles (12%), invertebrates (12%), and fish (5%). A 
further 1% of the sample was classified as ‘mixed’, involving species from more than one of 
the groupings. 

---

31 
4.2 The use of findings as a basis for conservation action 
Of the 474 respondents, 57% believed that their findings had been used in conservation action, 
31% were unsure, and 13% did not believe that their findings had been used (fig. 3 (a)). Based 
on further responses, answers were adjusted to form a binary response variable of ‘yes’ and 
‘no’ for analysis (fig.3 (b)). Upon examination of the 145 responses in the ‘Unsure’ category, 
8 responses were adjusted to ‘Yes’ and the remainder re-categorised into ‘No’. A total of 8 
responses were moved from the ‘Yes’ to ‘No’ category, having failed to provide qualification 
of the yes response other than that their findings were used as a ‘basis for future action’. 
Despite the alterations, the percentage of respondents who believed that their findings had 
been used in conservation action remained at 57%