Masters Dissertation Example

6.5.2 Dissemination of findings reported in the scientific literature 
In terms of dissemination of findings to promote evidence-based conservation, most of the 
discourse to date has centred around developing means to collate and synthesise all of the 
information available in the literature to make it more accessible to, and usable by, 
practitioners (Pullin & Knight, 2005; Fazey et al, 2004; Sutherland et al, 2004). Indeed, the 
low levels of uptake reported in this study for findings not further disseminated, and the 
consensus amongst interviewed practitioners that they are not able to access all of the 
available literature, provides further empirical support that this is an issue in conservation.
The process of systematic review, similar to the system used in medicine, has been purported 
to be the potential solution (Sutherland et al, 2004; section 2.5.1). This would certainly help to 

---

79 
alleviate some of the issues identified by Pullin & Knight (2005), and cited by practitioners 
(section 5.2.3) as barriers to their use of literature of accessibility, time frames, and cost of 
journals. Indeed, two of the practitioners interviewed suggested that the internet would be the 
ideal way in which to disseminate findings. However, it would be a huge undertaking to assess 
all of the relevant information, and brings with it some of the problems of peer-review such as 
complexity. 
It would seem that the development of such a mechanism would be beneficial in terms of 
making information available to the wider conservation community. This is important in its 
own right, particularly for widely applicable research with a methodological basis. However, it 
is perhaps not addressing the root of the problem in that it is debatable as to whether it would 
have any impact on the ground, particularly in developing countries where the situation is 
most critical. It is also doubtful that practitioners would be inclined to read lengthy reviews if 
there are time issues involved, and such a review would also exacerbate the time lag between 
publication and potential implementation.