Masters Dissertation Example

6.5 Dissemination of scientific information 
It has been suggested that the major issue in the lack of evidence based conservation is the 
inadequate dissemination of research findings (Pullin & Knight, 2005; Sutherland et al, 2004; 
Fazey et al, 2004), and that the key to implementation is communication between academics 
and practitioners (Meffe, 1998). This was supported by the results of this study, as there were 
higher levels of implementation when the peer-reviewed publication was not the only form of 
dissemination, suggesting that the publication does not reach conservation practitioners and 
policy makers. Although there was some suggestion of a time lag in the use of information 
directly from scientific publication (fig. 20), this is not efficient as conservation action is often 
critical. However, whilst it has been suggested that practitioners are often left to locate and 
synthesise information (Fazey et al, 2004), the high levels of dissemination reported here 
suggest that this may not be the case and that many authors are taking it upon themselves to 
disseminate their findings to relevant stakeholders (or that the publication of the information 
was only one output envisaged from the start). 
6.5.1 Scientific publication as a form of dissemination 
There were lower levels of implementation when the purpose of the publication was to 
influence conservation practitioners than when the purpose was for scientific credibility and 
dissemination to policy makers (section 4.3.3). This could be because in the former case the 
respondents would likely be academics, whereas in the latter case they may themselves be 
practitioners. Regardless, it further emphasises that publication is not the best way to reach 
practitioners, an issue highlighted by further comments in the survey.
Although the practitioners interviewed did not themselves place much emphasis on 
publication as an indicator of the credibility of the research (section 5.1.4), as also found in a 

---

78 
study by Lach et al (2003), they indicated that this was important to influence funding bodies 
(Clark et al, 2002) and governments; the importance of whose involvement has already been 
established (section 4.3.2). An example of the importance of publication in giving research 
credibility was described in the survey, when a road project that would have been harmful to 
Spanish imperial eagles was withdrawn after a study by Bautista et al (2004) backed up work 
that had previously been dismissed as not scientifically sound. The EU blocked further 
attempts to build the road following distribution of the reprint (survey response). It is therefore 
perhaps not surprising that those highlighting credibility and dissemination to policy makers 
had similar high levels of uptake, as the two variables are not mutually exclusive; and again 
this suggests a role for the actual publication in influencing matters at the policy level rather 
than having immediate impact on the ground.
Whilst it is important to note that further dissemination was one of the main predictors of 
implementation of findings, 34% of those who did not disseminate their research further had 
findings implemented (20% when only academic affiliations), and 36% of those who had 
further disseminated did not. There therefore seems to be two main issues at stake. Firstly, 
how can the situation be improved so that those research findings imbedded in the literature be 
utilised in conservation; and secondly, how can research findings based on solid science that 
are of peer-review quality be best disseminated for practical implementation in conservation 
action.