Masters Dissertation Example

6.3 Geographical determinants of research and implementation 
6.3.1 Is scientific research directed towards the areas in which it is most required?
Of the studies included in the sample, only 40% were based in developing countries. Of the 
developing country studies, only 37% had a resident corresponding author, although 70% had 
at least one author resident to the area. This perhaps reflects the assertion by practitioners in 
countries such as Madagascar and India (section 5.1.4) that there is no importance attached to 
the publication of research locally, and that language barriers and finance inhibit local 
researchers (Foster, 1993; Dudgeon, 2003). This statistic does not appear to have improved 
over the six years of the survey period, despite increased recognition that this is an issue 
(Dudgeon, 2003; Dahbouh-Guebas et al, 2003). 
The figures of authorship reported here are similar to those reported by Fazey et al (2005) and 
Dahbouh-Guebas et al (2003), suggesting that the sample was representative of the literature 
in this respect, although Fazey et al (2005) reported a lower percentage of studies in lower 
income countries (28%). This discrepancy could be due to the inclusion of Oryx in this 
sample, which had a large proportion of research based in developing countries (fig. 26), 
suggesting that the 40% figure is due to journal level attributes and could even be an 
underestimate of the literature as a whole. It would seem, therefore, that although there are 

---

72 
some exceptions, the scientific literature does not adequately cater for the research 
requirements of conservation in developing countries (France & Rigg, 1998; Dudgeon, 2003; 
Fazey et al, 2005). 
6.3.2 Implementation of research in developing countries 
The slightly lower levels of implementation in developing countries (50%) suggest that the 
literature surveyed had some conservation impact in these areas, but not as much as would be 
anticipated in areas harbouring the majority of biodiversity (Fazey et al, 2005). 
Although it has been hypothesised that conservation research in developing countries would 
benefit from the incorporation of resident authors with the capacity to build networks (Getz et 
al, 1999), and with knowledge of local socio-economic factors and information sources (Fazey 
et al, 2005; Kremen et al, 1998; Foster, 1993), a sentiment echoed by the practitioners 
interviewed; this was not reflected in the findings reported from the author survey. There were 
no differences in levels of implementation in developing countries when the corresponding 
author was non-resident or indeed when there was no resident author (fig. 27). Similarly, 
author affiliations had no influence on the uptake of findings. Whilst it is not surprising that 
different factors affect implementation in developing and developed countries, this is an 
interesting statistic. One potential explanation would be that NGOs have less of an influence 
in developing countries than developed, and that governments are less inclined or able to act. 
It is more likely the latter than the former, as there was still a significantly higher level of 
implementation when co-authors were affiliated to local NGOs in developing countries 
(although this did not appear significant in the minimum adequate model), whereas the 
influence of local government as a funding agency became non-significant (see section). 
NGOs have also previously been identified as the dominant force in such areas (da Foncesa, 
2003; Foster, 1993) 
The same study by Fazey et al (2005) identified that 80% of research in developing countries 
relied on some form of international funding. This perhaps suggests that it is beneficial to 
incorporate authors from affluent countries (Foster, 1993), as they bring with them funding, 
which is likely to influence levels of implementation when capacity is low. This is supported 

---

73 
by the finding upon further analysis that when only the corresponding authors were resident to 
the country, there was low implementation of findings (although the sample size was small). 
To add to this, although author capacity was not significant as a single variable in developing 
countries, there were significantly higher levels of uptake when the corresponding author was 
affiliated to an international NGO. Similarly, the lack of importance of local governments in 
implementation of findings, a decrease in importance of local NGO funding, and an increase 
in that of international NGO funding in multivariate analysis (table 10) lends further support to 
this. It is likely that in developing countries the issue of low local capacity outweighs the 
importance of author characteristics.
The best combination with regards to implementation in developing countries appears to be 
when the corresponding authors are international and co-authors resident, suggesting a need 
for capacity building in these areas in order to increase local researcher involvement (Foster, 
1993; Durant et al, 2007) and enable them to attract international funding. Capacity building 
could therefore be an important role for international scientific researchers, and there was 
some evidence of this seen from the survey responses. A study by Frid (2001) led to the 
conversion of one former poacher involved in the research to a park warden, and an important 
part of the research by Seddon et al (2003) on the Arabian oryx was to train local co-workers 
and develop their ability to conduct and publish independent research (survey response). 
The above discussion would suggest that there are different factors driving implementation in 
developing countries, such as lower capacity and political climate, not controlled for in this 
study. There was also support for the hypothesis that there is an added value for long term 
research in developing countries to build trust and networks (Bergerhoff Mulder et al, 2007; 
Durant et al, 2007; Meijaard & Shiel, 2007). It appears that NGOs, in particular international 
NGOs, drive the implementation of findings in developing countries.