4.6 Article

Value Plurality among Conservation Professionals

Journal

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages 285-294

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01592.x

Keywords

attitudes to conservation; conservation policy; conservation values; Q methodology; strategies for conservation science; actitudes hacia la conservacion; estrategias para la ciencia de la conservacion; metodologia Q; politica de conservacion; valores de conservacion

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [PTA-026-27-1787]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Debate on the values that underpin conservation science is rarely based on empirical analysis of the values conservation professionals actually hold. We used Q methodology to investigate the values held by international conservation professionals who attended the annual Student Conference in Conservation Science at the University of Cambridge (U.K.) in 2008 and 2009. The methodology offers a quantitative means of examining human subjectivity. It differs from standard opinion surveys in that individual respondents record the way they feel about statements relative to other statements, which forces them to focus their attention on the issues they believe are most important. The analysis extracts the diverse viewpoints of the respondents, and factor analysis is used to reduce the viewpoints to a smaller set of factors that reflect shared ways of thinking. The junior conservation professionals attending the conference did not share a unifying set of core values; rather, they held a complex series of ideas and a plurality of opinions about conservation and how it should be pursued. This diversity of values empirically challenges recent proposals for conservation professionals to unite behind a single philosophy. Attempts to forge an artificial consensus may be counterproductive to the overall goals conservation professionals are pursuing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available