Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHinsley, A
dc.contributor.authorKeane, A
dc.contributor.authorSt John, FAV
dc.contributor.authorIbbett, H
dc.contributor.authorNuno, A
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-20T10:09:48Z
dc.date.issued2018-12-17
dc.description.abstract1.Researchers and practitioners are increasingly using methods from the social sciences to address complex conservation challenges. This brings benefits but also the responsibility to understand the suitability and limitations of these methods in different contexts. After years of use in other disciplines, the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT) has recently been adopted by conservation scientists to investigate illegal and socially undesirable human behaviours. Here we provide guidance for practitioners and researchers on how to apply UCT effectively, and outline situations where it will be most and least appropriate. 2.We reviewed 101 publications in refereed journals that used UCT to draw conclusions on its use to date and provide recommendations on when and how to use the method effectively in conservation. In particular, we explored: type of studies undertaken (e.g. disciplines; behaviour being studied; rationale for using UCT); survey administration (e.g. sample size, pilot studies, administration mode); UCT outcomes (e.g. type of analyses, estimates, comparison with other methods); and type of recommendations. 3.We show that UCT has been used across multiple disciplines and contexts, with 10 studies that focus on conservation and natural resource use. The UCT has been used to investigate topics falling into five categories: socially undesirable behaviours, socially undesirable views, illegal or non‐compliant behaviours, socially desirable behaviours; and personal topics (e.g. being HIV positive). It has been used in 51 countries and is suitable to several situations, but limitations do exist, and the method does not always improve reporting of sensitive topics. 4.We provide best‐practice guidance to researchers and practitioners considering using UCT. We highlight that alternate methods should be considered if sample sizes are likely to be small, the behaviour in question is likely to be extremely rare, or if the behaviour is not particularly sensitive. UCT can be a useful tool for estimating the extent of non‐compliance within a conservation context, but as with all scientific investigation, careful study design, robust sampling and consistent implementation are required in order for it to be effective.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipOxford Martin Programme on the Illegal Wildlife Tradeen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Environment Research Council (NERC)en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipDarwin Initiativeen_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 17 December 2018en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/2041-210X.13137
dc.identifier.grantnumberNE/N001370/1en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/35222
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWiley for British Ecological Societyen_GB
dc.rights.embargoreasonUnder embargo until 17 December 2019 in compliance with publisher policy
dc.rights© 2018 Wileyen_GB
dc.subjectconservation regulationsen_GB
dc.subjectconservation social sciencesen_GB
dc.subjectindirect questioningen_GB
dc.subjectmonitoring and evaluationen_GB
dc.subjectrule‐breakingen_GB
dc.subjectsensitive questionsen_GB
dc.subjectsocial desirability biasen_GB
dc.subjectspecialized questioning techniquesen_GB
dc.subjectunmatched count techniqueen_GB
dc.titleAsking sensitive questions using the Unmatched Count Technique: Applications and guidelines for conservationen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2018-12-20T10:09:48Z
dc.identifier.issn2041-210X
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.descriptionData accessibility: All data used in the analyses are freely available in the University of Oxford research archive at this link: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:556a8a97-2d3d-4bf2-8fc1-359ce9786986. Data were gathered from 101 English language publications that empirically tested the UCT method. For each paper, information on 17 variables was collected, including the context (e.g. discipline, behaviour studied, rationale for using UCT, location), details of survey administration (e.g. whether a pilot study was conducted, whether design assumptions were checked), type of analysis, and comparisons to other methods (e.g. direct questions). Full data collection protocol and citations for all 101 reviewed publications are included in Appendix III and IV.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalMethods in Ecology and Evolutionen_GB
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-11-30
rioxxterms.versionAMen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2018-12-17
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2018-12-19T09:26:27Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record