Masters Dissertation Example

6.4.1 Applied versus basic research 
To further take up the issue of ‘applied vs. basic’ research; the more applied research focus of 
‘evaluation of the efficacy of conservation measures’ had a higher proportion of 
implementation than the more basic ‘investigating species biology for improved general 

---

75 
understanding’, and this was only marginally non-significant (fig. 15). Again, the importance 
of each depends upon how much is already known about the species and the urgency of the 
situation. Assessments of HCPs in the US have identified a lack of knowledge of the basic 
biology of many species (Harding et al, 2001), and species distributions (Tear et al, 1995) and 
it is argued by some that no action should be launched without a basic knowledge and 
thorough assessment (Caughley & Gunn, 1996). However, the question as to ‘how much is 
enough?’ (Tear et al, 2005) is unanswerable.
It is perhaps more prevalent in a discussion of the utility of conservation science research, 
however, to think in terms of the concept defined by Linklater (2003) as ‘targeted’ research. 
This is similar to that referred to by one practitioner as ‘applied science’, and it was the 
consensus amongst the interviewees (section 5.1.1) that this middle ground is missing in 
conservation biology; encompassing studies incorporating any type of research with a sound 
scientific basis, but tailored towards an issue of direct conservation relevance.
This was addressed in the survey by the question of the motivation behind the research project. 
Research focused on management issues has historically been more difficult to publish in peer 
reviewed journals than general ecological research (Fleishman et al, 1999). However, there 
was a higher proportion of implementation amongst respondents who had either addressed 
conservation management issues or had the aim of informing decision making, and indeed this 
was one of the main explanatory variables (table 6). Academics are often incentivised to 
conduct research that has relevance on a wider scale (Fazey et al, 2004), but the results from 
the practitioner interviews, and the inclusion of species level research as a main determinant of 
uptake of findings, provides empirical support to suggestions that targeted and ‘lower impact’ 
research has more practical relevance and should be given more importance in peer-review 
science (Aplet et al, 1992; Sheil, 2001; Prendergast et al, 1999). This issue is particularly 
important in relation to the fact that conservation has limited funding (Ferraro & Pattanayak, 
2006), which perhaps should be directed towards the research with practical application (Sheil, 
2001). 
The fact that the majority of studies addressed ‘targeted’ science suggests that this is 
necessarily gaining importance, but again this could be a function of a biased sample rather 
than the general state of scientific publication; made more likely by the fact that species based 

---

76 
studies will be by definition more targeted than the biodiversity and ecosystem based studies 
not controlled for in this analysis. However, if there was a bias in the sample towards those 
whose findings have been implemented, this would only serve to emphasise the importance of 
targeted research.