Credibility and advocacy in conservation science

Conservation Biology

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 23-32

  Horton, Cristi C ^a,b   Peterson, Tarla Rai ^b,c   Banerjee, Paulami ^b   Peterson, Markus J ^b  

^a TARLETON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO   (United States)

^c SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Advocacy; Communication; Content analysis; Credibility; Environmental policy; Grounded theory; Oblique component cluster analysis; Rhetoric

Indexed keywords

ADVOCACY; BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; EXPERT SYSTEM; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

BIODIVERSITY; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; POLITICS; PROCEDURES;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; POLITICS;

EID: 84954370837     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12558     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Alagona PS. 2008. Credibility. Conservation Biology 22:1365-1367.
2. Allen TFH, Tainter JA, Pires JC, Hoekstra TW. 2001. Dragnet ecology-"Just the facts, Ma'am": The privilege of science in a postmodern world. BioScience 51:475-485.
3. Aristotle. 4th century BCE/ 1991. On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Oxford University Press, New York.
4. Barry D, Oelschlaeger M. 1996. A science for survival: Values and conservation biology. Conservation Biology 10:905-911.
5. Blockstein DE. 2002. How to lose your political virginity while keeping your scientific credibility. BioScience 52:91-96.
6. Brosnan DM. 1995. Bridging gaps among ecology, law, and policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:333-337.
7. Brussard PF, Tull JC. 2007. Conservation biology and four types of advocacy. Conservation Biology 21:21-24.
8. Burke K. 1966. Language as symbolic action: essays on life, literature, and method. University of California Press, Berkeley.
9. Chan KMA. 2008. Value and advocacy in conservation biology: Crisis discipline or discipline in crisis? Conservation Biology 22:1-3.
10. Cohen J. 1968. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin 70:213-220.
11. Corbin J, Strauss A. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
12. Costanza R. 2001. Visions, values, valuation, and the need for an ecological economics. BioScience 51:459-468.
13. Cronkhite G, Liska J. 1976. A critique of factor analytic approaches to the study of credibility. Communication Monographs 43:91-107.
14. Decker DJ, Roland ES, Nielsen LA, Parsons GR. 1991. Ethical and scientific judgements in management: Beware of blurred distinctions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:523-527.
15. Freyfogle ET, Newton JL. 2002. Putting science in its place. Conservation Biology 16:863-873.
16. Frid A. 2015. Conservation value of paddy wagon currency: civil disobedience by scientists. ConservationBytes: 5 March 2015. Available from http://conservationbytes.com/2012/05/12/conservation-value-of-paddy-wagon-currency/#more-7147.
17. Frid A, Quarmby L. 2012. Take direct action on climate inaction. Nature 487:38.
18. Gill RB. 2001. Professionalism, advocacy, and credibility: A futile cycle? Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:21-32.
19. Goodwin J. 2012. What is responsible advocacy in science? Good advice. Pages 151-161 in Goodwin J, editor. Between scientists and citizens: proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University. Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation, Ames, IA.
20. Hansen J. 2012. Why I must speak out about climate change. TED: March. Available from https://www.ted.com/people/speakers (accessed March 2015).
21. Jaccard M. 2013. The accidental activist: How an energy economist and former government adviser found himself blocking a coal train. The Walrus. Available from http://thewalrus.ca/the-accidental-activist/ (accessed June 2015).
22. Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T. 1995. Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
23. Kao DT. 2013. The impacts of goal orientation, terminology effect, and source credibility on communication effectiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43:2007-2016.
24. Kennedy GA. 1999. Classical rhetoric and its Christian and secular tradition form ancient to modern times. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
25. Kinchy AJ, Kleinman DL. 2003. Organizing credibility: discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics. Social Studies of Science 33:869-896.
26. Krippendorff K. 2013. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
27. Lackey RT. 2007. Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology 21:12-17.
28. Leff MC. 1980. Interpretation and the art of the rhetorical critic. Journal of Applied Communication Research 44:337-349.
29. Macnab J. 1985. Carrying capacity and related slippery shibboleths. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:403-410.
30. Malshe A. 2010. How is marketers' credibility construed within the sales-marketing interface? Journal of Business Research 63:13-19.
31. McCroskey JC. 1997. An introduction to rhetorical communication. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
32. Meffe GK. 2007. Conservation focus: Policy advocacy and conservation science. Conservation Biology 21:11.
33. Meffe GK, Viederman S. 1995. Combining science and policy in conservation biology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:327-332.
34. Meyer JL, Frumhoff PC, Hamburg SP, dela Rosa C. 2010. Above the din but in the fray: environmental scientists as effective advocates. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:299-305.
35. Moon K, Blackman D. 2014. A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conservation Biology 28:1167-1177.
36. Mooney HA. 2003. The ecology-policy interface. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:49.
37. Morrison ML, Block WM, Strickland MD, Collier BA, Peterson MJ. 2008. Wildlife study design. Springer, New York.
38. Murphy DD, Noon BR. 2007. The role of scientists in conservation planning on private lands. Conservation Biology 21:25-28.
39. Naess A. 1986. Intrinsic value: Will the defenders of nature please rise? Pages 504-515 in Soulé ME, editor. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
40. Nelson MP, Vucetich JA. 2009. On advocacy by environmental scientists: what, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology 23:1090-1101.
41. Newell SJ, Goldsmith RE. 2001. The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research 52:235-247.
42. Noss RF. 2007. Values are a good thing in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 21:18-20.
43. Peterson MJ. 2009. An ecologist's response to the SIU campaign: the role of natural scientists in environmental movements. Pages 361-387 in Endres D, Sprain L, Peterson TR, editors. Social movement to address climate change: local steps for global action. Cambria Press, Amherst, NY.
44. Peterson MJ, Silvy NJ. 1994. Spring precipitation and fluctuations in Attwater's prairie-chicken numbers: hypotheses revisited. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:222-229.
45. Peterson MJ, Silvy NJ. 1996. Reproductive stages limiting productivity of the endangered Attwater's prairie chicken. Conservation Biology 10:1264-1276.
46. Peterson MN, Peterson MJ, Peterson TR, Leong K. 2013. Why transforming biodiversity conservation conflict is essential and how to begin. Pacific Conservation Biology 19:94-103.
47. Peterson MN, Peterson TR, Birckhead JL, Leong K, Peterson MJ. 2010. Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters 3:74-82.
48. Peterson TR, Horton CC. 1995. Rooted in the soil: how understanding the perspectives of landowners can enhance the management of environmental disputes. Quarterly Journal of Speech 81:139-166.
49. Peterson TR, Witte K, Enkerlin-Hoeflich E, Espericueta L, Flora JT, Florey N, Loughran T, Stuart R. 1994. Using informant directed interviews to discover risk orientation: how formative evaluations based in interpretive analysis can improve persuasive safety campaigns. Journal of Applied Communication Research 22:199-215.
50. Platt JR. 1964. Strong inference: certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. Science 146:347-353.
51. Popper KR. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson, London.
52. Popper KR. 1962. Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Basic Books, New York.
53. Rhee EY, Fiss PC. 2014. Framing controversial actions: regulatory focus, source credibility, and stock market reaction to poison pill adoption. Academy of Management Journal 57:1734-1758.
54. Rudd MA. 2011. How research-prioritization exercises affect conservation policy. Conservation Biology 25:860-866.
55. Ruggiero LF. 2010. Scientific independence and credibility in sociopolitical processes. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1179-1182.
56. Rutberg AT. 2001. Why state agencies should not advocate hunting or trapping. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:33-37.
57. Sah S, Moore DA, MacCoun RJ. 2013. Cheap talk and credibility: The consequences of confidence and accuracy on advisor credibility and persuasiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121:246-255.
58. Sallenave R, Cowley DE. 2006. Science and effective policy for managing aquatic resources. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14:203-210.
59. Salzman JE. 1989. Scientists as advocates: The Point Reyes Bird Observatory and gill netting in central California. Conservation Biology 3:170-180.
60. SAS Institute. 2012. SAS 9.3. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.
61. Scott JM, et al. 2007. Policy advocacy in science: Prevalence, perspectives, and implications for conservation biologists. Conservation Biology 21:29-35.
62. Silvy NJ, Peterson MJ, Lopez RR. 2004. The cause of the decline of pinnated grouse: The Texas example. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:16-21.
63. Soulé ME. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35:727-734.
64. Soulé ME. 1986. Conservation biology and the real world. Pages 1-12 in ME Soulé, editor. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
65. Thompson B. 1995. Overcoming gaps in implementing policy: Influencing policy is just a means to an end, not the end! Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:317-318.
66. Tracy CR, Brussard PF. 1996. The importance of science in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 10:918-919.
67. Vohland K, Mlambo MC, Horta LD, Jonsson B, Paulsch A, Martinez SI. 2011. How to ensure a credible and efficient IPBES? Environmental Science & Policy 14:1188-1194.
68. Wilhere GF. 2012. Inadvertent advocacy. Conservation Biology 26:39-46.
69. Yamamoto YT. 2012. Values, objectivity and credibility of scientists in a contentious natural resource debate. Public Understanding of Science 21:101-125.