Masters Dissertation Example

5.1.2 Type of Research 
When asked what type of research was most useful in conservation action, responses were 
varied. The basic ecological research covering distribution, abundance, and trends was 
mentioned by five respondents. Three respondents placed most value in methodological 
research papers, and two mentioned habitat requirements of the species. When probed as to 
whether they thought applied or basic research was more important to them, two answered 
applied, two both and the rest that it depended upon the situation. 
5.1.3 Routinely consulted sources of information 
All but one interviewee mentioned local sources, such as local communities and individuals 
who have information that is not available anywhere else. Five respondents specifically stated 
that this was the most important information source. Grey literature, reports, and local 

---

63 
scientists were also mentioned. Six interviewees regularly gained information through 
communication with experts and through networks. Internet searches for primary literature 
were mentioned by all interviewees, five of whom specifically mentioned Google. However, it 
was emphasised that this information was not always easy to obtain and that sometimes there 
was no relevant literature available. One respondent believed that the in house research was 
the most important information source. 
5.1.4 Role of published research in conservation action 
Every interviewee believed that publication had an important role to play in practical 
conservation action. Publications were given a major role in generating funding and raising 
awareness of species, with key papers believed to have had a huge impact in this respect. One 
respondent said it was important to enable comparisons of their research findings with those of 
others 
One respondent specifically answered that it depended upon the journal, and that they found 
the lower impact work more amenable to implementation in the field. Five further respondents 
similarly suggested that there is an issue in that some of the really relevant information, that 
may be more intuitive or speculative rather than based on robust sampling mechanisms, is not 
published in high impact journals, and that low impact journals are often more useful. One 
respondent suggested that national journals are a better forum for the low level management 
issues not published in peer-reviewed journals. Four practitioners suggested that there is a gap 
between the published ‘high level’ science and the lower level applied conservation research. 
It was suggested that if conservationists worked with the view to publishing their results, they 
would think more about the robustness of methodology and could bridge this gap to produce 
scientifically valid but applied research that needs to gain more importance in the conservation 
society. 
The low capacity of developing countries was a common theme, with some emphasis placed 
on the issue that managers would often not understand the information presented to them in 
journal papers, and that there is often a language barrier. It was suggested that the key 
messages and issues need to be simplified and translated into practical guidelines. It was the 
general consensus that conservation should be based on evidence, but that it needs to be 
disseminated in a form more accessible to practitioners. Two respondents stated that 
publications are often not turned into documents for managing species on the ground, and that 

---

64 
when foreign researchers take data out of the country for publication, it rarely feeds back into 
the country. One interviewee felt that the ‘publish and perish’ syndrome could detract from 
conservation in the field, and another suggested that the goals of researchers were not aligned 
with those of practitioners, spending long periods writing publications when ’99.9% of the 
managers’ in their country do not read journals. It was suggested that researchers need to be 
trained to use the grey literature, and practitioners to use primary literature. It was also 
suggested that there was a bias of research towards temperate countries. 
One interviewee suggested a role for publication in providing a solid scientific basis, but that it 
has to be practical, and suggested that ‘fire fighting’ was necessary rather than publishing. 
None of the other practitioners mentioned credibility, but when prompted they suggested that 
although it is a slightly academic viewpoint, governments will take it more seriously and it 
does provide validation. Five respondents said that it did not matter to them personally, and 
that fieldwork record is more important, but two respondents stated that they do feel 
comforted in the knowledge that there has been peer review. Most said it did not matter locally 
if the information was of peer review standard