A mixed methods approach for measuring topic sensitivity in conservation

1. 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. <br> 2. 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 (n=362) and Tanzania (n=345), we developed and tested a psychometric scale to measure topic sensitivity at the respondent level and conducted group exercises (free-listing and pile sorts) to gain a deeper understanding of peoples’ willingness to discuss different topics. <br> 3. 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. <br> 4. 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. <br> Here we include an anonymised dataset for the Sensitivity Index, along with the translated survey instruments used in Indonesia and Tanzania. These are presented as XLS forms, which can be uploaded into ODK or KoBoToolbox and then administered online or via mobile devices.1. 自然保护工作者愈发倾向于通过理解人类行为，为保护干预措施的设计提供依据。然而，从民众处获取其行为相关信息往往颇具挑战，尤其是当研究主题被视为敏感话题时。主题敏感度可能引发方法论、伦理、政治及法律层面的顾虑，若处理不当，将对研究参与者、研究流程、数据质量以及基于研究结果的保护项目成效造成显著负面影响。尽管学界已投入大量精力开发敏感话题数据收集时的偏差控制技术，但针对“某一主题是否具备敏感性、为何具备敏感性”的识别研究却相对匮乏。<br>2. 本研究采用混合研究方法，探究民众讨论敏感话题（例如非法野生动物狩猎）的意愿。研究团队从印度尼西亚（n=362）与坦桑尼亚（n=345）的保护区（protected areas）周边居民中收集数据，开发并验证了一套用于测量受访者层面主题敏感度的心理计量量表，并通过团体练习（自由列表法（free-listing）与堆分类法（pile sorts））深入了解民众对不同话题的讨论意愿。<br>3. 不同研究场景内部及两个聚焦场景之间，主题的感知敏感度均存在差异，坦桑尼亚境内被视为敏感的话题数量多于印度尼西亚。参与者对相关规则的认知，以及与保护区毗邻而居的经历，均会影响其对话题敏感度的判断。<br>4. 混合研究方法可实现对主题敏感度的整体性且精细化的理解。不过，考虑到深度研究并非总能顺利实施，本研究证明，诸如敏感度指数（Sensitivity Index）这类方法可轻松适配不同研究场景，并能快速部署以获取关于主题敏感度的宝贵洞见，从而为保护研究与实践提供参考。<br>本研究附带了敏感度指数（Sensitivity Index）的匿名化数据集，以及在印度尼西亚与坦桑尼亚使用的经翻译的调研工具。这些内容以XLS格式表格呈现，可上传至ODK或KoBoToolbox，随后通过线上或移动设备开展调研。