A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists

From disagreements to dialogue: unpacking the Golden Rice debate

Transgenic Golden Rice has been hailed as a practical solution to vitamin A deficiency, but has also been heavily criticized. To facilitate a balanced view on this polarized debate, we investigated existing arguments for and against Golden Rice from a sustainability science perspective. In a structured literature review of peer-reviewed publications on Golden Rice, we assessed to what extent 64 articles addressed 70 questions covering different aspects of sustainability. Using cluster analysis, we grouped the literature into two major branches, containing two clusters each. These clusters differed in the range and nature of the sustainability aspects addressed, disciplinary affiliation and overall evaluation of Golden Rice. The 'biotechnological' branch (clusters: 'technical effectiveness' and 'advocacy') was dominated by the natural sciences, focused on biophysical plant-consumer interactions, and evaluated Golden Rice positively. In contrast, the 'socio-systemic' branch (clusters: 'economic efficiency' and 'equity and holism') was primarily comprised of social sciences, addressed a wider variety of sustainability aspects including participation, equity, ethics and biodiversity, and more often pointed to the shortcomings of Golden Rice. There were little to no integration efforts between the two branches, and highly polarized positions arose in the clusters on 'advocacy' and 'equity and holism'. To explore this divide, we investigated the influences of disciplinary affiliations and personal values on the respective problem framings. We conclude that to move beyond a polarized debate, it may be fruitful to ground the Golden Rice discourse in facets and methods of sustainability science, with an emphasis on participation and integration of diverging interests.

Breaking Through Disciplinary Barriers: Human-Wildlife Interactions and Multispecies Ethnography

One of the main challenges when integrating biological and social perspectives in primatology is overcoming interdisciplinary barriers. Unfamiliarity with subject-specific theory and language, distinct disciplinary-bound approaches to research, and academic boundaries aimed at "preserving the integrity" of subject disciplines can hinder developments in interdisciplinary research. With growing interest in how humans and other primates share landscapes, and recognition of the importance of combining biological and social information to do this effectively, the disparate use of terminology is becoming more evident. To tackle this problem, we dissect the meaning of what the biological sciences term studies in "human-wildlife conflict" or more recently "human-wildlife interactions" and compare it to what anthropology terms "multispecies ethnography." In the biological sciences, human-wildlife interactions are the actions resulting from people and wild animals sharing landscapes and resources, with outcomes ranging from being beneficial or harmful to one or both species. In the social sciences, human-nonhuman relationships have been explored on a philosophical, analytical, and empirical level. Building on previous work, we advocate viewing landscapes through an interdisciplinary "multispecies lens" in which humans are observed as one of multiple organisms that interact with other species to shape and create environments. To illustrate these interconnections we use the case study of coexistence between people of the Nalu ethnic group and Critically Endangered western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Cantanhez National Park in Guinea-Bissau, to demonstrate how biological and social research approaches can be complementary and can inform conservation initiatives at the human-primate interface. Finally, we discuss how combining perspectives from ethnoprimatology with those from multispecies ethnography can advance the study of ethnoprimatology to aid productive discourse and enhance future interdisciplinary research.

Creating institutional flexibility for adaptive water management: insights from two management agencies

Adaptive management is an experimental approach used by water management agencies around the world to manage and restore aquatic ecosystems. The effectiveness of the approach can often be constrained by inflexible institutional arrangements. In this paper we compare two cases where agencies have implemented adaptive management to manage and restore aquatic ecosystems. Our aim was to understand practitioners' perceptions of how institutional flexibility can be created for adaptive management. We interviewed 14 adaptive management practitioners working in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia and 14 practitioners in Southern Florida, United States of America. We found that in both cases, just enough flexibility was created to enable experimentation, but informal institutional arrangements tended to constrain adaptive management. We also found that adaptive management was effective when an agency adopted collaborative and distributed leadership, but these leadership styles were difficult to sustain, and not always appropriate when attempting to create institutional flexibility. Our results illustrate how agencies, stakeholders and researchers can develop a shared understanding of how to manage and restore aquatic ecosystems, which in turn, helps create institutional flexibility for an agency to manage adaptively.

Multidisciplinary studies of wildlife trade in primates: Challenges and priorities

Wildlife trade is increasingly recognized as an unsustainable threat to primate populations and informing its management is a growing focus and application of primatological research. However, management policies based on ecological research alone cannot address complex socioeconomic or cultural contexts as drivers of wildlife trade. Multidisciplinary research is required to understand trade complexity and identify sustainable management strategies. Here, we define multidisciplinary research as research that combines more than one academic discipline, and highlight how the articles in this issue combine methods and approaches to fill key gaps and offer a more comprehensive understanding of underlying drivers of wildlife trade including consumer demand, enforcement patterns, source population status, and accessibility of targeted species. These articles also focus on how these drivers interact at different scales, how trade patterns relate to ethics, and the potential effectiveness of different policy interventions in reducing wildlife trade. We propose priorities for future research on primate trade including expanding from multidisciplinary to interdisciplinary research questions and approaches co-created by research teams that integrate across different disciplines such as cultural anthropology, ecology, economics, and public policy. We also discuss challenges that limit the integration of information across disciplines to meet these priorities.

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers-ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity-to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy-influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science-one that includes the natural and social sciences-will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.

Biosocial Conservation: Integrating Biological and Ethnographic Methods to Study Human-Primate Interactions

Biodiversity conservation is one of the grand challenges facing society. Many people interested in biodiversity conservation have a background in wildlife biology. However, the diverse social, cultural, political, and historical factors that influence the lives of people and wildlife can be investigated fully only by incorporating social science methods, ideally within an interdisciplinary framework. Cultural hierarchies of knowledge and the hegemony of the natural sciences create a barrier to interdisciplinary understandings. Here, we review three different projects that confront this difficulty, integrating biological and ethnographic methods to study conservation problems. The first project involved wildlife foraging on crops around a newly established national park in Gabon. Biological methods revealed the extent of crop loss, the species responsible, and an effect of field isolation, while ethnography revealed institutional and social vulnerability to foraging wildlife. The second project concerned great ape tourism in the Central African Republic. Biological methods revealed that gorilla tourism poses risks to gorillas, while ethnography revealed why people seek close proximity to gorillas. The third project focused on humans and other primates living alongside one another in Morocco. Incorporating shepherds in the coproduction of ecological knowledge about primates built trust and altered attitudes to the primates. These three case studies demonstrate how the integration of biological and social methods can help us to understand the sustainability of human–wildlife interactions, and thus promote coexistence. In each case, an integrated biosocial approach incorporating ethnographic data produced results that would not otherwise have come to light. Research that transcends conventional academic boundaries requires the openness and flexibility to move beyond one’s comfort zone to understand and acknowledge the legitimacy of “other” kinds of knowledge. It is challenging but crucial if we are to address conservation problems effectively.

Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management

The conservation community is increasingly focusing on the monitoring and evaluation of management, governance, ecological, and social considerations as part of a broader move toward adaptive management and evidence-based conservation. Evidence is any information that can be used to come to a conclusion and support a judgment or, in this case, to make decisions that will improve conservation policies, actions, and outcomes. Perceptions are one type of information that is often dismissed as anecdotal by those arguing for evidence-based conservation. In this paper, I clarify the contributions of research on perceptions of conservation to improving adaptive and evidence-based conservation. Studies of the perceptions of local people can provide important insights into observations, understandings and interpretations of the social impacts, and ecological outcomes of conservation; the legitimacy of conservation governance; and the social acceptability of environmental management. Perceptions of these factors contribute to positive or negative local evaluations of conservation initiatives. It is positive perceptions, not just objective scientific evidence of effectiveness, that ultimately ensure the support of local constituents thus enabling the long-term success of conservation. Research on perceptions can inform courses of action to improve conservation and governance at scales ranging from individual initiatives to national and international policies. Better incorporation of evidence from across the social and natural sciences and integration of a plurality of methods into monitoring and evaluation will provide a more complete picture on which to base conservation decisions and environmental management.

Credibility and advocacy in conservation science

Conservation policy sits at the nexus of natural science and politics. On the one hand, conservation scientists strive to maintain scientific credibility by emphasizing that their research findings are the result of disinterested observations of reality. On the other hand, conservation scientists are committed to conservation even if they do not advocate a particular policy. The professional conservation literature offers guidance on negotiating the relationship between scientific objectivity and political advocacy without damaging conservation science's credibility. The value of this guidance, however, may be restricted by limited recognition of credibility's multidimensionality and emergent nature: it emerges through perceptions of expertise, goodwill, and trustworthiness. We used content analysis of the literature to determine how credibility is framed in conservation science as it relates to apparent contradictions between science and advocacy. Credibility typically was framed as a static entity lacking dimensionality. Authors identified expertise or trustworthiness as important, but rarely mentioned goodwill. They usually did not identify expertise, goodwill, or trustworthiness as dimensions of credibility or recognize interactions among these 3 dimensions of credibility. This oversimplification may limit the ability of conservation scientists to contribute to biodiversity conservation. Accounting for the emergent quality and multidimensionality of credibility should enable conservation scientists to advance biodiversity conservation more effectively.

Farmers' perception of the role of veterinary surgeons in vaccination strategies on British dairy farms

There is limited research investigating the motivators and barriers to vaccinating dairy cattle. Veterinary surgeons have been identified as important sources of information for farmers making vaccination and disease control decisions, as well as being farmers’ preferred vaccine suppliers. Vets’ perception of their own role and communication style can be at odds with farmers’ reported preferences. The objective of this study was to investigate how dairy farmers perceived the role of vets in implementing vaccination strategies on their farm. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 dairy farmers from across Britain. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. Analysis revealed that farmers perceive vets to have an important role in facilitating decision-making in all aspects of vaccination, including the aspects of vaccine distribution and advice on implementation. This important role is acknowledged by farmers who have regular veterinary contact, but also farmers with solely emergency veterinary contact. Given this finding, future work should investigate the attitudes of vets towards vaccination and how they perceive their role. Combining this knowledge will enable optimisation of vaccination strategies on British dairy farms.