Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Given the wide range of approaches available when researching people's relation-
ships with their natural resources, it is especially important to define the research
question precisely in advance. There are far too many aspects to the problem of
over-exploitation for one study to attempt to address them all, and the disciplinary
framework that we use depends to a great extent on the questions to be answered
(Table 3.1).
One major issue is whether the study will be used for scientific inference, or
whether it rather requires the researcher to develop a deep qualitative understand-
ing of the issues. The conceptual divide between
qualitative and quantitative
research
is quite sharp in social science. So, for example, a study into the relation-
ship between poverty and natural resource use might choose to collect quantitative
data on income levels for a randomised sample of people, and correlate this with
their resource use patterns. Alternatively, it could focus on particular individuals
who have been through crises of extreme poverty, and aim to understand how they
adjusted their livelihood activities to cope with the situation. In practice, the two
approaches are not exclusive. A combination of approaches enables researchers to
gain insight from the strengths of each (Carvalho and White 1997), and often it is
useful to start with qualitative research as a way of informing a subsequent quanti-
tative study (Section 3.2.4.1). This can help you to understand the wider context
of the issue before focusing on the specific questions of interest to you.
A second determinant of the best methods to use is the extent to which the study
is linked to
conservation action
rather than being pure research. Data-gathering in
conservation projects often has a dual agenda so that while researching the situ-
ation, the researcher is also trying to raise public awareness about the issues and to
engage stakeholders in conservation. In this case, the tools for data collection are
likely to be more participatory and less focused on collecting quantitative data.
This dual agenda is often unspoken, but it needs to be considered, because there is
a danger that the neutrality and objectivity of data collection for research purposes
can be tainted by researchers approaching the issue with an underlying agenda for
action. Hence it is usually advisable to separate research and monitoring from con-
servation action as far as possible. Then the data collected can provide independent
feedback on the success of the action. For example, market monitoring is best car-
ried out by people unconnected to any conservation programme. Note that this
advice is contrary to the philosophy of much development research, which has a
strong participatory element such that research and action become intertwined
(Chambers 1992, see below). Which approach is best to take is case-specific, but
the decision needs to be explicit and well justified.
Third, there are some key divisions in the types of data that can be collected,
which influence the uses to which the data can be put. The first is between
percep-
tions and actions
. Any change in the behaviour of users towards their natural
resources has three components: their attitude changes; they act in a different way;
