N.M. was funded by the Fondation Wiener Anspach and the Scriven
post doctoral fellowship. J.H. is funded by the Belgian National
Fund for Research (FRS-FNRS) and the KLIMOS-ACROPOLIS project.
N.T.O. was funded by Cambridge Overseas Trusts, The Wildlife
Conservation Society, Wildlife Conservation Network and WildiZe
Foundation. B.A.E. is funded by EU Horizon 2020 ESMERALDA
Project, grant agreement no. 642007. W.J.S. is funded by Arcadia.
Pinaki Bhattacharya is thanked for proof-reading the manuscript.

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/2041-210X.12940

Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision-making

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03192043/document

Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: The example of economic costs of biological invasions

1.In a previous series of papers (Sutherland, Dicks, Everard, & Geneletti, 2018), we summarise the use of a range of social science methods in conservation decision‐making. Moon et al. (2019) claim that the special feature risks narrowing the scope of social science research and suggest that we presented a limited perspective on the field. They thereby criticise the special feature for not doing something that it never intended to do in the first instance. We did not claim that the list of articles covered in the special feature is a comprehensive list (which it obviously is not) and we are unclear why anyone would think it is. 
2.While we consider the Moon et al. (2019) paper to be a useful contribution for conservation scientists as a supplementary paper, it serves less as a critique to the special feature. Moon et al.('s (2019) paper makes very few direct and substantive criticisms of points raised in the special feature. We respond to areas of contention referring specifically to research philosophy, bias, and data reporting. 
3.Moon et al. (2019) criticise the set of papers for perpetuating an objectivist view of the world. We believe that it would be rather disconcerting for the research community if there were no social truths to discover. Rather, social science research methods conducted in specific places can be good ways of exploring how truths vary in different contexts. 
4.We also note that Moon et al. (2019) completely missed the point we were trying to make about psychological biases, which are quite different to the issues associated with researcher bias highlighted by them. 
5.We encourage readers to pay close attention to the use of social science methods in conservation science. We reiterate, however, that the main purpose of the special feature was to ensure that social science methodologies for decision‐making are accessible for all conservation scientists to use, regardless of disciplinary background.

/pdf/expanding-the-role-of-social-science-in-conservation-through-56rki7pvn4.pdf

Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology and methods

Technological advancement is seen as one way of sustainably intensifying agriculture. Scholars argue that innovation needs to be responsible, but it is difficult to anticipate the consequences of the ‘fourth agricultural revolution’ without a clear sense of which technologies are included and excluded. The major aims of this paper were to investigate which technologies are being associated with the fourth agricultural revolution, as well as to understand how this revolution is being perceived, whether positive or negative consequences are given equal attention, and what type of impacts are anticipated. To this end, we undertook a content analysis of UK media and policy documents alongside interviews of farmers and advisers. We found that the fourth agricultural revolution is associated with emergent, game-changing technologies, at least in media and policy documents. In these sources, the benefits to productivity and the environment were prioritised with less attention to social consequences, but impacts were overwhelmingly presented positively. Farmers and advisers experienced many benefits of technologies and some predicted higher-tech futures. It was clear, however, that technologies create a number of negative consequences. We reflect on these findings and provide advice to policy-makers about how to interrogate the benefits, opportunities, and risks afforded by agricultural technologies.

Perceptions of the Fourth Agricultural Revolution: What’s In, What’s Out, and What Consequences are Anticipated?

Impacts and responses to environmental change in coastal livelihoods of south-west Bangladesh.

1: Interviews are a widely used methodology in conservation research. They are flexible, allowing in- depth analysis from a relatively small sample size, and place the focus of research on the views of participants. While interviews are a popular method, several critiques have been raised in response to their use, including the lack of transparency in sampling strategy, choice of questions, and mode of analysis. 2: In this paper, we analyse the use of interviews in research aimed at making decisions for conservation. Through a structured review of 228 papers, we explore where, why, and how interviews were used in the context of conservation decision-making. 3: The review suggests that interviews are a widely used method for a broad range of purposes. These include gaining ecological and/or socio-economic information on specific conservation issues, understanding knowledge, values, beliefs or decision-making processes of stakeholders, and strengthening research design and output. The review, however, identifies a number of concerns. Researchers are not reporting fully on their interview methodology. Specifically, results indicate that researchers are: failing to provide a rationale as to why interviews are the most suitable method; not piloting the interviews (thus questions may be poorly designed), not outlining ethical considerations; not providing clear guides to analysis, nor critically reviewing their use of interviews. 4: Based on the results of the review, we provide a detailed checklist aimed at conservation researchers who wish to use interviews in their research (whether experienced in using the methodology or not), and journal editors and reviewers to ensure the robustness of interview methodology use.

/pdf/a-methodological-guide-to-using-and-reporting-on-interviews-129l8alqp8.pdf

Esha Marwaha

Papers

A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research