Masters Dissertation Example

5.2.2 Most important forms of dissemination to practitioners 
Six interviewees suggested that local forms of communication were most important, through; 
forums, direct communication, local guidelines, manuals, training of staff, workshops, 
seminars, contacts, and media, described by one respondent as ‘practical tools informed by 
solid science’. Two respondents specifically stated that the publication of the paper allows 
them to locate the research, but that they still required direct communication if it was to be 
used. Three respondents mentioned that local and more specialised journals had a better 
chance of reaching practitioners. 
Two practitioners felt that the internet, although not currently practical, would be the best form 
of dissemination because primary and grey literature reaches only a limited audience. One 
practitioner suggested that focused conferences were most important, and another the 
scientific literature. 
.
5.2.3 Barriers to personal use of scientific research
All respondents felt that there was a gap between research and practice, with some suggesting 
that one of the major issues was the lack of publication of conservation failures. One 
respondent felt that the main barrier was the fact that much of the relevant information has not 
been published, rather than inappropriate dissemination of existing information.
Issues of accessibility and finance were mentioned by every respondent. Most also mentioned 
time lags, with the requirement for immediate action making it implausible to wait for 
publication of research. The enormity of searching was also a time issue. One respondent cited 
bureaucracy in their country as a barrier, with officials not open to new research. 
 

---

67 
6. Discussion 
6.1 The conservation impact of scientific research 
The levels of implementation reported in this study (57%) are remarkably similar to the 
figures reported by Flashpohler et al (2000) and Ormerod et al (2002) of 57% and 54% 
respectively. These estimates had previously been considered over-optimistic, particularly 
with reference to the low figures of institutional uptake of research findings reported by Pullin 
et al (2004) and Sutherland et al (2004) However, whilst it is likely that researchers would 
over-report rather than under-report the use of their findings, 60% of the ‘yes’ responses were 
qualified by relatively detailed further comments (Box 1). It should be emphasised that Pullin 
et al (2004) incorporated only the use of the actual literature, not the possibility that the 
research had been disseminated and incorporated in other forms, and more positive figures 
have been reported for species action plans in the US (Boersma et al, 2001; Clark et al, 2002). 
Interestingly, the levels of implementation were highest when the corresponding author was 
from Australasia, similar to the findings of Pullin & Knight (2005), suggesting that there are 
certain areas in which conservation managers are more amenable to the use of scientific 
literature. 
It is also worth noting that the figures reported here constitute responses from only 33% of the 
appropriate literature included in the initial sample. This figure could therefore incorporate 
some element of respondent bias towards those whose findings had been implemented, rather 
than self reporting. However, validation of the author and research characteristics with a 
sample of non-respondent papers showed attributes to be similar (section 4.8).
It could be suggested that the 47 % of findings implemented in practical conservation action 
(table 2) rather than policy (table 3) is a more accurate figure, but there is justification for 
including these responses as a ‘yes’ in the majority of the analysis, as the findings taken up are 
being used to develop species action plans and policy, or by specialist groups such as the 
IUCN. Even if this is not immediate practical action, studies have suggested that this has 
practical use (Fuller et al, 2003; Boersma et al, 2001; Lunquist et al, 2002) 

---

68 
It is perhaps a sign of the scale of the issues surrounding conservation science that, given the 
current state of biodiversity (Bini et al, 2005) and taking into account that the research 
examined was from five of the major conservation journals over a six year period, a roughly 
50% level of implementation could be seen as optimistic. These journals provide the main 
forum for the best quality conservation research, on which it is widely agreed that 
conservation actions should be based (Smallwood et al, 2000). Equally disturbing is that this 
figure has not increased since the studies by Ormerod et al (2002) and Flashpohler et al 
(2000), despite the increasing recognition of the need for better links between researchers and 
practitioners (Meffe, 1998; Fazey et al, 2004; Prendergast et al, 1999; Underwood, 1995; 
Pullin et al, 2004; Sutherland et al, 2004). It is also entirely possible that the research findings 
played less of a role in implementation that the authors are aware, and indeed 15% thought 
that it had played only a minor role.