WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF YOUR RESEARCH? A FRAMEWORK FOR CLEAR ECOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32435/envsmoke.2022537-12Keywords:
Research Relevance, Ecology, Theory, Methodology, ApplicabilityAbstract
How to clarify the relevance of research is a challenge for ecologists since this is not a trivial question for any scientist but may be especially difficult for early-career researchers, who often find more difficulty in providing answers that are synthetic, logical, and cogent. However, a clear answer to this question is critical for obtaining funding and is increasingly required by journal editors in order to send papers to review, let alone to attract readers to the published paper. Here, we argue that relevance should in fact appear in all steps of ecological research, including project preparation (e.g., for funding requests), manuscript submissions, oral communications, and also in media releases. Herein we discuss a framework for ecological relevance based on five key elements: clear connections with theory, knowledge gap, novelty, methodological innovation, and applicability. There are different ways of combining these elements, but in order to make the relevance of a study clear, ecologists should make explicit how these elements are connected with their main research question. Journal editors and grant agencies or donors decide on the relevance of the submitted works or proposals. We argue that categorically deciding whether or not an article is relevant is a delicate issue, particularly if one considers how scientific works can range from a gradient of no relevance to extreme relevance. We hope that with this simple “must-have argument list”, ecologists, especially in early careers, can enhance and show the relevance of their work in improving the field of ecology and, ultimately, human society.
Downloads
References
BLAND, L.; BIELBY, J.; KEARNEY, S.; ORME, C.D.L.; WATSON, J.E.M.; COLLEN, B. Toward reassessing data-deficient species. Conservation Biology, Washington, v. 31, n. 3, p. 531–539, 2017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12850.
CARTON, G.; MOURICOU, P. Is management research relevant? A systematic analysis of the rigor-relevance debate in top-tier journals (1994–2013). M@n@gement, Sceaux, v. 20, n. 2, p. 166, 2017. Available from: https://management-aims.com/index.php/mgmt/article/view/3869. Accessed on: 5 dec. 2022.
COREN, S. Is relevance relevant in research? American Psychologist, Washington, v. 25, n. 7, p. 649–650, 1970. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037873.
DA SILVA, J.A.T.; TSIGARIS, P. The relevance of James Lovelock’s research and philosophy to environmental science and academia. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, Beijing, v. 17, n. 3, art. 39, 2023. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-023-1639-7.
DALOSTO, M.M.; PALAORO, A.V.; SANTOS, S.; COSTA, J.R. Aggressiveness and life underground: The case of burrowing crayfish. Behaviour, Leiden, v. 150, n. 1, p. 3–22, 2013. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539x-00003034.
GU, Y.; HU, L.; ZHANG, H.; HOU, C. Innovation ecosystem research: Emerging trends and future research. Sustainability, Basel, v. 13, n. 20, art. 11458, p. 1-21, 2021. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011458.
KELLY, C.D. Rate and success of study replication in ecology and evolution. PeerJ, San Diego and London, v. 2019, n. 9, 2019. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7654.
KHAN, K.S.; KUNZ, R.; KLEIJNEN, J.; ANTES, G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, London, v. 96, p. 118-121, 2003. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680309600304.
MARQUET, P.A.; ALLEN, A.P.; BROWN, J.H.; DUNNE, J.A.; ENQUIST, B.J.; GILLOOLY, J.F.; GOWATY, P.A.; GREEN, J.L.; HARTE, J.; HUBBELL, S.P.; O’DWYER, J.; OKIE, J.G.; OSTLING, A.; RITCHIE, M., STORCH, D.; WEST, G.B. On theory in ecology. BioScience, Herndon, v. 64, n. 8, p. 701–710, 2014. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu098.
PICKETT, S.T.A.; KOLASA, J.; JONES, C.G. Ecological understanding: The nature of theory and the theory of nature. 2. ed. Burlington: Academic Press, 2007. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-554522-8.X5001-8.
PICZAK, M.L.; ANDERTON, R.; CARTWRIGHT, L.A.; LITTLE, D.; MacPHERSON, G.; MATOS, L.; McDONALD, K.; PORTISS, R.; RIEHL, M.; SCISCIONE, T.; VALERE, B.; WALLACE, A.M.; YOUNG, N.; DOKA, S.E.; MIDWOOD, J.D.; COOKE, S.J. Towards effective ecological restoration: Investigating knowledge co-production on fish–habitat relationships with Aquatic Habitat Toronto. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, London, v. 3, n. 4, art. e12187, p. 1-10, 2022. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12187.
SERROUYA, R.; SEIP, D.R.; HERVIEUX, D.; McLELLAN, B.N.; McNAY, R.S.; STEENWEG, R.; HEARD, D.C.; HEBBLEWHITE, M.; GILLINGHAM, M.; BOUTIN, S. Saving endangered species using adaptive management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Washington, v. 116, n. 13, p. 6181–6186, 2019. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816923116.
SHAW, D.M.; ELGER, B.S. The relevance of relevance in research. Swiss Medical Weekly, Basel, v. 143, n. 1920, p. w13792 (1-4), 2013. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2013.13792.
SUTHERLAND, W.J.; FRECKLETON, R.P.; GODFRAY, H.C.J.; BEISSINGER, S.R.; BENTON, T.; CAMERON, D.D.; CARMEL, Y.; COOMES, D.A.; COULSON, T.; EMMERSON, M.C.; HAILS, R.S.; HAYS, G.C.; HODGSON, D.J.; HUTCHINGS, M.J.; JOHNSON, D.; JONES, J.P.G.; KEELING, M.J.; KOKKO, H.; KUNIN, W.E.; LAMBIN, X.; LEWIS, O.T.; MALHI, Y.; MIESZKOWSKA, N.; MILNER-GULLAND, E.J.; NORRIS, K.; PHILLIMORE, A.B.; PURVES, D.W.; REID, J.M.; REUMAN, D.C.; THOMPSON, K.; TRAVIS, J.M.J.; TURNBULL, L.A., WARDLE, D.A.; WIEGAND, T. Identification of 100 fundamental ecological questions. Journal of Ecology, London, v. 101, n. 1, p. 58–67, 2013. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12025.
SWISS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Loi fédérale relative à la recherche sur l’être humain, LRH [Federal Act
on Research involving Human Beings]. Available from: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2013/617/fr. Accessed on: 8 dec. 2022.
TERWILLIGER, R.F. To what relevance is research relevant? American Psychologist, Washington, v. 25, n. 12, p. 1174–1175, 1970. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037907.
Van GRUNSVEN, R.H.A.; LIEFTING, M. How to maintain ecological relevance in ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, London, v. 30, n. 10, p. 563–564, out. 2015. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.07.010.
WADGYMAR, S.M.; LOWRY, D.B.; GOULD, B.A.; BYRON, C.N.; MACTAVISH, R.M.; ANDERSON, J.T. Identifying targets and agents of selection: innovative methods to evaluate the processes that contribute to local adaptation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, London, v. 8, n. 6, p. 738–749, 2017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12777.
WYCKHUYS, K.A.G.; LU, Y.; ZHOU, W.; COCK, M.J.W.; NARANJO, S.E.; FERETI, A.; WILLIAMS, F.E.; FURLONG, M.J. Ecological pest control fortifies agricultural growth in Asia–Pacific economies. Nature Ecology & Evolution, London, v. 4, n. 11, p. 1522–1530, 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01294-y.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Yuri Costa, José A.C.C. Nunes, Charbel Niño El-Hani, Francisco Barros
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The copyright for manuscripts published in Environmental Smoke belongs to the author, with first publication rights for the journal. The published articles are of total and exclusive responsibility of the authors.
