Abstract
Understanding the state of research, and its effectiveness, in a predominantly Life Sciences sphere requires an assessment of knowledge growth dynamics, and the associated scientific and bibliometric impacts. We aim to create and evaluate, in a systematic review process, a macro-structure of the science generated in lion research in South Africa (SA) from 1990 to 2018. First, we classified the evidence architecture of lion research data extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection. Then, we identified prominent features that the datasets reveal in terms of authorship and ownership, as defined by first author affiliation, geographical location. Fifteen sub-disciplines were identified to characterize the topics. From 2000 onwards, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary contributions started to emerge, catering for research problems defined at the interface of the academic-practitioner domains. These included social and economics components, and were aligned with conservation framings that seek to evaluate conservation within market-based versus people-based approaches. Study areas were concentrated within SA (61.8%) and the remainder was either conducted in the rest of Africa (22.9%), or in various combinations of geographical focus. Author affiliation indicated that 63.1 % of first authors had a South African affiliation. The rest of Africa was poorly represented at 2.4%. The majority (57.1%) of the first authors was male, but from 2014 to 2018, female researchers outnumbered males; however, male first authors continued to be cited more frequently. Furthermore, we provide a systemic analysis of the way in which research contributes to lion conservation. Overall, three voices dominate this area. Firstly, Mode 1 research has been driving research output in a ‘vicious circle’, motivated by researchers’ quest for accumulating academic rewards. Secondly, the citation impact shows a gender disparity against the recognition of female researchers. Lastly, a power imbalance against authors from the rest of Africa became apparent, whereby their role is mainly shaped towards being team contributors. This research shows that effective conservation requires appropriate knowledge to be generated, and this to be effectively translated into practical applications, with all perspectives providing the opportunity for balanced contribution and influence. Imbalances such as revealed are here likely to prevail more broadly.
Highlights
Conservation provides an interesting discipline space in which to consider how we go about doing research, because it has evolved both in terms of the methodologies as well as the socio-political dimensions, and in how its importance is defined by society (Fazey et al, 2005; Kareiva and Marvier, 2012)
Conservation has a history of plural views that continue to co-exist: starting with the seminal concept in which emphasis was placed on species/habitats/wildlife ecology (Nature for itself) which gradually shifted to ecosystems level through population biology/natural management (Nature despite itself) and, ecosystem functions/environmental economics (Nature for people) (Mace, 2014)
We use lion research based in South Africa as a case study to understand the following questions: (1) What is the approach that has been taken, and how has that changed over time? (2) What are the sub-discipline areas that are researched? (3) Does the work focus on lions, or multiple species? (4) Who is leading the research, and in which sub-disciplines? (5) How can we assess the inclusion of social science methodologies to evaluate “people and conservation” issues, and economic approach to evaluate “capitalist conservation” issues? For each of these areas, we evaluate how this has changed over the three decades from 1990
Summary
Conservation provides an interesting discipline space in which to consider how we go about doing research, because it has evolved both in terms of the methodologies as well as the socio-political dimensions, and in how its importance is defined by society (Fazey et al, 2005; Kareiva and Marvier, 2012). The approach used to conceptualize an issue significantly impacts the ways in which it is perceived and framed, and, defines the types of responses, and solutions that actors involved in the process create to address it (Nisbet and Scheufele, 2009; Newell et al, 2014) This means that conceptualizations reveal both how we “know,” and the future knowledge that can be shaped. Conservation has a history of plural views that continue to co-exist: starting with the seminal concept in which emphasis was placed on species/habitats/wildlife ecology (Nature for itself) which gradually shifted to ecosystems level through population biology/natural management (Nature despite itself) and, ecosystem functions/environmental economics (Nature for people) (Mace, 2014) These different framings guide the ways through which conservation is defined, and define the purposes it serves. The most recent “People and Nature” conservation framing attributes a great significance to interdisciplinary, social, and ecological sciences (Mace, 2014), paving the way for a more strategic research agenda with various configurations to create knowledge and understanding for both researchers and practitioners
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
