Masters Dissertation Example

3.2.4 Survey design 
The survey (Appendix I) was designed in a closed question format so as to facilitate 
quantitative analysis of the data and online completion, with options for further comment. This 
gave the opportunity for respondents to validate previous responses and provide further 
qualitative information. Questions were multiple-choice, and many were also multiple-
response due to the potential for more than one option to apply. Some questions involved 
ranking of options, providing more in-depth responses for qualitative comment rather than 
quantitative analysis. Although questions were closed out of necessity, options were carefully 
designed and the survey piloted (section 3.2.5) so as to avoid issues with researcher 
preconceptions (Milner-Gulland & Rowcliffe, in press). The design of the questionnaire drew 
upon the open-ended responses reported in Ormerod et al (2002) and Flashpohler et al (2000) 
and detailed questionnaires reported in Harding et al (2001), Boersma et al (2001), and CCF 
(2007), 
The survey was designed so as to be applicable to all of the varying types of research paper 
identified, and some questions were answer-dependent. It was split into five main sections in 
which the questions were to be answered by all respondents. These contained questions 
addressing variables that could have an important impact upon the implementation of the 
findings, either as explanatory or confounding variables. 
a) Background to the research project 
This section addressed the nationality and institutional affiliations of the authors, involvement 
of funding bodies, the length and timing of the research project, whether or not the study was 
based in a particular area, and if the corresponding or co-authors were resident in the country 

---

23 
of study. It has been hypothesized that these factors could all influence the implementation of 
research findings (Fazey et al, 2005; Foster 1993; Durant et al, 2007) 
b) Motivation behind the research and its publication
It has been suggested that the perceived success of the research project can be determined by 
the motivation behind it (Fleishman et al, 1999), and therefore it was important to establish the 
motivation of the researchers; if they had a more applied focus or were investigating a 
scientific research question. It was also important for the purpose of this study to make the 
distinction between motivations behind the actual research project and the publication of the 
research, identifying the intended target audience of the publication 
c) Background to the type of research 
This section classified the research into broad categories by establishing the focus of the 
research, the major threats to the species, the scale of potential application of research 
findings, methodological novelty, and whether the research findings took socio-economic 
factors into account. These variables were not hypothesised to have an impact on a large scale, 
but could all potentially influence the levels of implementation on a case-by-case basis 
(Linklater, 2003; Kleiman et al, 2000) and were incorporated as such.
d) Recommendations
It was important to establish whether or not concrete recommendations had been made as to 
the potential application of the research findings in each case. Respondents were asked 
specific questions to this effect and to provide a summary of their main recommendations for 
validation. 
e) Dissemination 
Respondents were asked to indicate the importance that they placed on the paper as a means of 
dissemination, and if they had disseminated their findings through other channels. Further 
questions were incorporated in order to identify the specific forms and recipients of 
dissemination that could potentially be correlated with conservation impact. 

---

24 
3.2.4.1 Single species section 
Due to the wide interpretation of ‘species based’ papers it was necessary to separate out those 
research papers focusing on a single species. This enabled potentially important explanatory 
variables, such as the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2007) status of the species at the time of 
research, as a global measure of threat to the species, to be included. It also allowed for an 
assessment of the current status of the species for a crude investigation into the contribution of 
implementation of research findings to conservation success. 
3.2.4.2 Use of findings in conservation action 
As the purpose of the survey was to assess the levels of uptake of research published in the 
scientific literature, the question as to whether or not the findings of the respondent had been 
used as a basis for conservation action acted as the main response variable. In order to resolve 
the issues of ambiguity and subjectivity of the survey, respondents had the option to answer 
‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘unsure’. Each answer led the respondent down a separate path, in which 
qualifying questions were asked regarding the use of implementation, reasons for lack of 
implementation, and what was meant by ‘unsure’, respectively. 
3.2.4.3 Validation of a ‘yes’ response 
Respondents who believed that their findings had acted as a basis for conservation action were 
asked to further qualify their answer by stating exactly what ‘action’ they were referring to. 
This was split into three categories: practical implementation, integration into policy, and 
providing a basis for future action (Q22, Appendix I). Those respondents who answered ‘yes’ 
but then could only select options from the ‘providing a basis for future action’ category could 
then be modified to a ‘no’ response. Whilst this category has its own importance, it was not 
considered in this study to constitute a basis for conservation action. Similarly, this gave the 
option for the slightly dubious inclusion of ‘incorporation into policy’ as a ‘yes’ response 
(section 2.2.4) to be separated from actual ‘practical implementation’ of conservation action in 
further analysis. Open-ended responses were used to obtain details of the implementation, and 
further questions asked to identify factors facilitating the implementation. 

---

25 
Respondents were also asked about the role that their research played in any implementation, 
and if any discernible improvement had been made to the conservation status as a result of the 
action, a question adapted from Bini et al (2005). This was included to give a crude 
assessment of the ‘success’ or outcome of the implementation, and for use as a response 
variable for further analysis of factors facilitating conservation improvement. 
3.2.4.4 Validation of a ‘no’ response 
Respondents who did not believe that their findings had been used as a basis for conservation 
action were asked to identify the factors they believed to have acted as barriers to 
implementation. They were also given the option to state if their findings had been used as a 
basis for future action.
3.2.4.5 Validation of an ‘unsure’ response 
Respondents who answered ‘unsure’ were given a choice of four options specifying what was 
meant by ‘unsure’ (Q34, Appendix I), each with further clarifying questions. This was 
designed to enable a post-survey assessment of whether ‘unsure’ was a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. This 
category was included to ensure that respondents did not select ‘yes’ if they were at all unsure, 
but did not wish to answer ‘no’. It was thought that some respondents would not be sure, for 
example, if incorporation into policy or further research counted as ‘a basis for conservation 
action’, whereas some would assume that it did and answer ‘yes’. It was therefore an attempt 
to separate out the perceptions of authors from the reality of implementation and allow 
modification of response according to a pre-defined procedure.