Masters Dissertation Example

4.8 Validation of response sample 
In a validation of 60 author responses for whether ‘recommendations’ had been made, 14 had 
answered ‘yes’ in the survey but had not made recommendations that the author believed to be 
‘concrete’. 
 
There was a slight yearly bias in the response sample, with responses received from only 23% 
of the 2000 sample compared to 32% in 2005. This is likely due to a higher proportion of 
changed email addresses from 2000, but there was no yearly difference in implementation (fig. 
2 (b)). Authors in 49% of the non-response sample papers had academic affiliations only, as 
was also the case in the response sample. There were also similar percentages of 
corresponding authors resident in all continents apart from Asia, which appears to have been 
under-represented in the analysis. 72% of the non-response papers were single species, 
compared to 67% in the response sample. Average Google Scholar citations were also similar, 
1.45 in the non response sample compared to 1.75 in the response sample. The response 
sample therefore seems to be representative of the sample as a whole in terms of attributes of 
the research paper. 

---

62 
5. Interviews with practitioners 
5.1 Use of information 
5.1.1 Role of Research in Conservation Action 
All practitioners interviewed believed that research plays a role in conservation action, but to 
varying degrees. The two interviewees most heavily involved in scientific research saw it as 
paramount, and emphasised the role of monitoring in conservation action. The eight 
respondents currently working as full time practitioners in the field thought that it was 
important to base conservation on good science and have a basic knowledge of the species, but 
that there is a certain point at which it can become research for research’s sake, rather than 
research to inform conservation action. An example was given of an invasive fly threatening a 
study species, and the research concentrated on its exact impacts rather than how to eliminate 
the threat, when it has already been proven that it was detrimental. One respondent likened 
research to ‘bullets in a gun’, and gave an example of research proving that a bird species 
nested in the mangroves, which had not been previously known. Two other interviewees gave 
it a non-essential role in that it is only useful if translated into practical use, and emphasised 
that existing information should be used only as a guideline, but acknowledged its role in 
gaining funding.