20
Similar issues, however, are also prevalent approaching it
from the institutional side
(Sutherland et al, 2004; Pullin & Knight, 2005), as practitioners may exaggerate their use of
research in the same way, and the data collected must necessarily be from only a limited range
of institutions.
Similarly, examining the research that goes into action plans (Boersma et al,
2001; Harding et al, 2001) involves a certain amount of bias in that an action plan has to have
been produced for the species in question in the first place, and such
plans are largely tools
used in the developed world or by specialist groups at a larger policy scale, with the level of
actual implementation unknown (Fuller et al, 2003). These limitations are inherent in
undertaking any self-reporting
based assessment, and largely the reason as to why no study
has properly contextualized the issue as yet.
Surveying the literature has the advantage of assessing the utility
of the peer-reviewed
literature across a wide range of situations and on a global scale. It also facilitates quantitative
analysis of the factors facilitating uptake. Ideally, the respondent would provide exact details
of the claimed implementation, providing information by which each response could be cross
checked at source. Realistically, this is not possible and the results
must naturally be treated
with a certain amount of caution. Every effort was taken in the design of the survey, however,
to ensure that responses could be validated (section 3.2.4)
Dostları ilə paylaş: