Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods
Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods
复制标题
通过哲学、方法论和方法的参与扩大社会科学在保护中的作用
DOI：
10.1111/2041-210x.13126
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
6.6
通讯作者：
C. Wyborn
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Katie Moon;D. Blackman;V. Adams;R. Colvin;Federico Davila;M. Evans;S. Januchowski‐Hartley;N. Bennett;H. Dickinson;C. Sandbrook;K. Sherren;F. S. St. John;L. van Kerkhoff;C. Wyborn
由萨瑟兰，迪克斯，Everard和Geneletti（方法生态学和进化，9，7-9，2018）领导的专题旨在强调“定性方法”对保护的重要性。这一意图是受欢迎的，收藏作出了许多重要贡献。然而，这些文章对该领域的观点有限，重点是客观主义和工具方法，忽略了对社会科学研究至关重要的一些更广泛的哲学和方法论考虑的讨论。因此，该专题有可能缩小社会科学研究的范围，并可能降低其质量和有用性。在这篇文章中，我们试图通过对社会科学研究哲学、方法论和方法的讨论，来建立特色文章的优势。我们首先简要讨论了将数据视为定性数据的价值（即，文本、图像或数字）或定量（即，数字），而不是方法或研究。将方法视为定性方法可能会模糊研究设计的许多重要方面，因为这意味着“定性方法”在某种程度上体现了一套特定的假设或原则。研究人员可以在他们的研究设计中使用类似或非常不同的假设，无论他们收集的是定性数据还是定量数据。我们澄清了广泛的概念，包括哲学，方法论和方法，解释他们在社会科学研究设计中的作用。这样做为我们提供了一个机会，以检查跨专题文章使用的一些术语（例如，偏见），揭示了它们的使用方式可能被解释为与它们在社会科学的一些应用中的使用不一致。我们提供了社会科学研究如何被设计为收集定性数据的工作例子，这些数据不仅理解决策过程，而且还理解决策过程发生的独特社会生态环境。这些例子表明了哲学、方法论和研究设计方法之间的一致性的重要性，以及在整个研究过程中反身性的重要性。最后，我们鼓励保护社会科学家探索更广泛的定性研究方法，为生态和保护社会科学方法的选择和应用提供指导。
The Special Feature led by Sutherland, Dicks, Everard, and Geneletti (Methods Ecology and Evolution, 9, 7–9, 2018) sought to highlight the importance of “qualitative methods” for conservation. The intention is welcome, and the collection makes many important contributions. Yet, the articles presented a limited perspective on the field, with a focus on objectivist and instrumental methods, omitting discussion of some broader philosophical and methodological considerations crucial to social science research. Consequently, the Special Feature risks narrowing the scope of social science research and, potentially, reducing its quality and usefulness. In this article, we seek to build on the strengths of the articles of the Special Feature by drawing in a discussion on social science research philosophy, methodology, and methods. We start with a brief discussion on the value of thinking about data as being qualitative (i.e., text, image, or numeric) or quantitative (i.e., numeric), not methods or research. Thinking about methods as qualitative can obscure many important aspects of research design by implying that “qualitative methods” somehow embody a particular set of assumptions or principles. Researchers can bring similar, or very different, sets of assumptions to their research design, irrespective of whether they collect qualitative or quantitative data. We clarify broad concepts, including philosophy, methodology, and methods, explaining their role in social science research design. Doing so provides us with an opportunity to examine some of the terms used across the articles of the Special Feature (e.g., bias), revealing that they are used in ways that could be interpreted as being inconsistent with their use in a number of applications of social science. We provide worked examples of how social science research can be designed to collect qualitative data that not only understands decision‐making processes, but also the unique social–ecological contexts in which it takes place. These examples demonstrate the importance of coherence between philosophy, methodology, and methods in research design, and the importance of reflexivity throughout the research process. We conclude with encouragement for conservation social scientists to explore a wider range of qualitative research approaches, providing guidance for the selection and application of social science methods for ecology and conservation.
影响因子：
6.6
作者：
Nyumba, Tobias O.;Wilson, Kerrie;Mukherjee, Nibedita
通讯作者：
Mukherjee, Nibedita
影响因子：
6.6
作者：
Huge, Jean;Mukherjee, Nibedita
通讯作者：
Mukherjee, Nibedita
影响因子：
6.6
作者：
Young, Juliette C.;Rose, David C.;Mukherjee, Nibedita
通讯作者：
Mukherjee, Nibedita