Masters Dissertation Example

6.4 Does the research published in the literature meet conservation needs? 
It has been suggested that scientific research does not take into account the practicalities of 
implementation on the ground (Meijaard & Shiel, 2007), and that research diverts funds from 
conservation action (Sheil, 2001) and can be a low priority in the field (Linklater, 2003). A 
thorough assessment is therefore needed of the utility of the research that is currently being 

---

74 
conducted in relation to real world conservation needs. It has already been established that 
research is biased towards the developed world. The taxonomic bias towards mammals and 
birds (section 3.1) has also been seen in numerous other studies (Dudgeon, 2003; Bini et al, 
2005; France & Rigg, 1998; Levin & Kochin, 2004), although there was no taxonomic bias in 
implementation of findings. 
The lack of relationship between type of research and implementation of findings (fig. 15), 
supported in the interviews by the varying preferences of practitioners for the different kinds 
of research (section 5.1.2), is in line with the assertion that the type of information necessary 
in the implementation of a conservation action is very much situation dependent (Linklater, 
2003). Arguments as to whether scientific research is providing the type of information that is 
needed could therefore be considered slightly circular, as it depends upon the level of current 
knowledge and the conservation needs of the species. This is given an extra dimension when 
information required by policy makers is considered, as broad questions are often favoured 
ahead of narrow (Sutherland et al, 2006) in contrast to information required by practitioners. 
An assessment of the type of research in relation to the species conservation needs is beyond 
the scope of this study. However, the main research focus reported here was upon threats, as 
Harding et al (2001) and Meijaard & Sheil (2007) have suggested is most needed in species 
conservation. 
Research incorporating socio-economic factors as well as biology was less common and more 
likely to have been implemented, but perhaps surprisingly considering the growing 
relationship between conservation biology and social sciences (Kleiman et al, 2000; Brooks et 
al, 2006) and the need for practitioners to consider such factors (Salafsky et al, 2002) this was 
not a main explanatory variable. This was perhaps not accounted for adequately in the survey 
(Q13, appendix I), as recommendations may have been set in the context of socio-economic 
factors even though the research did not specifically take this into account.