Ibbett Harriet, Jones Julia P G, Dorward Leejiah, Kohi Edward M, Dwiyahreni Asri A, Prayitno Karlina, Sankeni Stephen, Kaduma Joseph, Mchomvu Jesca, Saputra Andie Wijaya, Sabiladiyni Humairah, Supriatna Jatna, St John Freya A V
School of Natural Sciences, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI), Arusha, Tanzania.
People Nat (Hoboken). 2023 Aug;5(4):1245-1261. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10501.
Conservationists increasingly aim to understand human behaviour to inform intervention design. However, obtaining information from people about their behaviour can be challenging, particularly if the research topic is considered sensitive. Topic sensitivity may raise methodological, ethical, political and legal concerns which, if poorly addressed, can have significant impacts on research participants, the research process, data quality and the success of conservation outcomes that are informed by research findings. While considerable effort has been invested in developing techniques for reducing bias when collecting data on sensitive topics, less attention has been focused on identifying if, and why, a topic is sensitive.We use a mixed methods approach to explore how willing people are to discuss topics that could be considered sensitive (e.g. illegal wildlife hunting). Collecting data from people living near protected areas in Indonesia ( = 362) and Tanzania ( = 345), we developed and tested a psychometric scale to measure topic sensitivity at the respondent level and conducted group exercises (free-lists and pile sorts) to gain a deeper understanding of peoples' willingness to discuss different topics.The perceived sensitivity of topics varied both within and between the two focal contexts, with more topics being perceived as sensitive in Tanzania than Indonesia. Participants' knowledge of rules, and their experiences of living alongside protected areas affected how sensitive they considered topics to be.Mixed methods approaches can provide holistic and nuanced understanding of topic sensitivity. However, recognising that in-depth studies are not always feasible to implement, we demonstrate that methods, such as our Sensitivity Index, can easily be adapted for different contexts and deployed to rapidly obtain valuable insights on topic sensitivity, to help inform conservation research and practice.
保护主义者越来越致力于了解人类行为,以为干预措施的设计提供依据。然而,从人们那里获取有关其行为的信息可能具有挑战性,特别是如果研究主题被认为敏感的话。主题敏感性可能引发方法、伦理、政治和法律方面的问题,如果处理不当,可能会对研究参与者、研究过程、数据质量以及基于研究结果的保护成果的成功产生重大影响。虽然在开发用于减少收集敏感主题数据时的偏差的技术方面已经投入了大量精力,但较少关注识别一个主题是否敏感以及为何敏感。我们采用混合方法来探索人们在多大程度上愿意讨论可能被视为敏感的主题(例如非法捕猎野生动物)。我们从印度尼西亚(n = 362)和坦桑尼亚(n = 345)保护区附近的居民那里收集数据,开发并测试了一种心理测量量表,以在受访者层面测量主题敏感性,并进行了小组练习(自由列举和分类),以更深入地了解人们讨论不同主题的意愿。两个重点背景下以及背景内部,主题的感知敏感性都有所不同,坦桑尼亚被视为敏感的主题比印度尼西亚更多。参与者对规则的了解以及他们在保护区周边的生活经历影响了他们认为主题有多敏感。混合方法可以提供对主题敏感性的全面而细致入微的理解。然而,认识到深入研究并不总是可行的,我们证明,诸如我们的敏感性指数之类的方法可以很容易地适用于不同背景,并用于快速获得有关主题敏感性的宝贵见解,以帮助为保护研究和实践提供信息。