.

Teaching and Learning Resource (TLR)

1. Title

Guidelines for ‘Investigative’ Environmental Research

2. Keywords

‘Investigative’ research; contested ‘knowledge claims’; in-depth interviewing; focus groups; secondary sources; interdisciplinarity.

3. Introduction

Student dissertations and other projects in EHE show a tendency to favour statistical (inferential) analyses, based on relatively large data sets derived from field observation, laboratory experimentation, social surveys or archival work. This preference is frequently reflected in written guidelines provided to candidates and - it is strongly suspected - in the informal guidance and less explicit ‘messages’ conveyed by many tutors, to their students, about what constitutes rigorous and relevant environmental research.

There are perfectly sound educational reasons why EHE students should be supported and encouraged in undertaking research based on the ‘classical’ scientific - including social scientific - model. At the same time, these traditions clearly do not exhaust the educationally-worthwhile possibilities for environmental project work. Indeed, in some areas of EHE provision, very different kinds of projects are also accommodated; some of these alternatives may be tentatively referred to as ‘investigative’ environmental research.

As defined here, ‘investigative’ environmental research does not involve students in generating large-scale primary data sets via laboratory experimentation, fieldwork or other methods. Rather it depends particularly on a combination of:

These methods are widely used by environmental practitioners - for example, to ‘investigate’ incidents and issues of environmental concern; and to inform the policy decisions of NGOs, private sector organisations and public sector bodies. Likewise they permit students to undertake the multi-faceted examination of topics for which a single data set is not appropriate (and whose scale may preclude student research based mainly on primary evidence) - including many environmental impact assessments, audits and policy analyses. In particular, they provide a methodological basis for exploring the following kinds of academic research questions - which, however, are not characteristic of the uses to which investigative research is put by non-academic environmental practitioners:

  1. Examination of contested environmental issues - either where the contestation applies to scientific interpretations of a given question, and/or where there are political, ethical or philosophical disagreements. In many such cases, informed evaluation of the competing ‘knowledge claims’ advanced by academics, NGOs, politicians, business interests and/or other ‘elite’ groups (i.e. those ‘privileged’ in terms of their access to knowledge and their ability to advance credible knowledge claims) would probably constitute the core research objective.
  2. Examination of ‘public’ or ‘lay’ (i.e. non-elite) understandings of environmental questions - especially those of a controversial and ‘high profile’ nature, and where policy decisions may be particularly sensitive to public opinion. It is increasingly recognised, however, that opinion polls (i.e. based on large scale sample surveys) may not be the most effective means of revealing, and making sense of, public understandings in areas such as these. Some alternatives to opinion polls include:

Some examples of topics which could be approached in this way are:

Many such topics are inherently interdisciplinary, to the extent that they focus in some way on the social (including political, economic and cultural) context of scientific knowledge ‘claims-making’. Hence the research skills required for work of this kind are potentially scientific and non-scientific. Amongst the former would be included an ability to:

  1. evaluate data quality (e.g. for sampling methodology, validity of surrogates and taxonomies); and
  2. evaluate quality of reasoning (e.g. for underlying assumptions, judgements made in the interpretation of evidence, recognition of scientific uncertainty and of alternative interpretations).

Amongst the latter would count an ability to:

  1. conduct in-depth interviews and, conceivably, ‘focus groups’;
  2. evaluate the ‘credibility’ (e.g. qualifications, expertise, authoritativeness) and ‘commitments’ (e.g. political, philosophical, commercial) of claims-makers (including authors, publishers, employers and sponsors); and
  3. consider the styles of reasoning and choice of language used (e.g. use of metaphor, rhetoric or highly specialised language), and their intended or unintended effects.

The rationale for ‘investigative’ student research derives in part from a rejection of the widely-held scientific view, namely that reliance on secondary sources permits little more than an essay-type review of existing knowledge (i.e. with limited scope for a distinctive contribution from the student). This need not be the case, however, if one or more of the following applies:

The TLR is intended for use, not as a ‘free-standing’ activity, but rather:

It includes an introductory note - mainly for use by students - which provides a rationale, along with some broad methodological and other guidance, for carrying out ‘investigative’ environmental research projects (see Appendix).

4. Aim

This TLR is designed to assist students and their tutors - who may be more comfortable (respectively) conducting and supervising projects which fit the classical scientific (including social scientific) model - in expanding their repertoire of environmental research topics and methods. Specifically it aims to provide a rationale, along with some broad methodological and other guidance, for carrying out ‘investigative’ environmental research.

5. Learning outcomes

Students who have engaged with the guidance provided by this TLR will be:

6. Pre-requisites

Given the inherent interdisciplinarity of many amongst the richest research opportunities afforded by ‘investigative’ environmental research, optimal benefit can probably be derived by using this TLR in the context of programme-wide learning experiences which are themselves tending towards interdisciplinarity. In particular, students who are accustomed to examining (theoretically and/or via case studies) the social context of scientific and other knowledge claims will tend more readily to recognise ‘investigative’ environmental research opportunities and to implement them successfully.

7. How to use TLR

As indicated above, the TLR is intended for use, not as a ‘free-standing’ activity, but rather:

8. Instructions to students

See Appendix.

9. Stimulus Material

The activity is self-contained, and no additional materials are required.

10. Degree stage

Given the preferred educational context within which this TLR is intended for use (see Introduction, Pre-requisites and How to Use TLR, above), its effective use will be mainly confined to undergraduate levels 2 and above.

11. Resource requirements

No specific resources are prescribed by this TLR. However, use of the investigative research methods advocated here will tend to be reliant upon student access to portable audio-recording facilities and to such secondary sources as may be required for the conduct of individual projects.

12. Preparation

See Introduction, Pre-requisites and How to use TLR, above.

13. Links with other TLRs

The most closely related TLR is In-Depth Interviewing for Investigative Environmental Research, which provides an introduction to one of the key methods associated with this kind of research. However the following TLRs also share a concern for the critical examination of contested knowledge claims:

More generally, the aims and/or learning outcomes of this TLR are related to those of other TLRs listed in the following 'thematic cluster':

14. Follow-up activities

No specific follow-up activities are recommended, though student research of the kind proposed here may particularly lend itself to oral examination (i.e. where students can be cross-examined about their choice of sources and claims-makers, and about their evaluation of those claims etc).

15. Recommended reading

1. ‘Investigative’ Research: General

Study skills and research methods texts written specifically for scientists are almost entirely silent on questions concerning the examination of knowledge claims, and on the use of in-depth interviews and documentary sources. Conversely most social research methods texts and general (i.e. subject-free) study skills guides do include material of potential relevance to this TLR (e.g. on the use of documents and/or on in-depth interviewing). However the ‘investigative’ and interdisciplinary approaches to research, which are advocated in this TLR, are not explicitly recognised by most authors (though some accounts of ‘case study’-based and ‘multi-method’ research are of limited relevance). Furthermore, most (general) study skills guides and some social research methods texts (including several which might otherwise be thought appropriate for non-specialists in this field) entirely fail to acknowledge the ‘problematic’ nature of knowledge, including the frequently-contested nature of knowledge claims.

Similarly, while most books on ‘critical thinking’ include some potentially relevant material, especially on the evaluation of arguments - including questions which should be asked about the reliability of ‘experts’ and other authorities - they characteristically depart from the view taken here, in assuming that:

Based on these criteria, the following sources are considered accessible and relatively informative (*):

* Conversely, the following are examples of widely-used social research methods texts and study skills guides that are not recommended, based on these same criteria:

2. Documentary Sources

Amongst social research methods texts, the following is recommended:

Amongst study skills texts, the following are recommended, specifically for their listings/classifications - and in some cases, for their descriptive (but not, usually, evaluative) accounts - of documentary sources:

Amongst critical thinking texts, see particularly:

3. In-Depth Interviewing

Most of the more accessible social research methods books contain some useful advice of a practical nature, e.g. on recording of interviews. However few deal explicitly with the specific applications of in-depth interviewing that are of concern here; and many subsume guidance on ‘in-depth’ and questionnaire-based interviewing within a single chapter or section - thereby blurring the distinction between the uses of questioning in two very different methodological contexts. Once again, the recommended source is:

4. Focus Groups

Coverage of focus groups in the social research methods literature is mainly confined to more specialist and/or more recent publications. The following are recommended:

16. Users' comments

“High educational value - just what our level 2 students need to be thinking about!”
“This seemed a highly appropriate TLR from the point of view of an interdisciplinary approach to research.”
“Introductory notes were very helpful as were the recommended texts, rationale etc., particularly given the fact that so much material is hard to come by.”
“The ‘Guidance Notes for Students’ were ideal and just about the right length. However, I did add some extra material … in the section on topics, in order to cover the range of interests of our joint honours students.”
“The clear structure and outline to the TLR made my job a lot easier in terms of presenting the idea of a different approach [to research].”
“My impression is that [students in the group] would all now feel that they potentially had a wider range of research methods available to them and would be able to outline and support a rationale for such a method with reference to some of the material recommended in the TLR.”
“[The TLR] is aimed at supporting existing activities and the development of courses in environmental research methods. This is precisely the context in which I used it and I feel that it served its purpose.”

Appendix

‘Investigative’ Environmental Research: A Guidance Note for Students

Introduction

Student dissertations and other projects on environmental topics (e.g. in Environmental Studies/Science and Geography) are frequently based on statistical (‘inferential’) analyses of large data sets, derived either from field observation, or laboratory experimentation, or social surveys, or archival work.

There are perfectly sound educational reasons why students should be supported and encouraged in undertaking research based on the ‘classical’ scientific - including social scientific - model. At the same time, these traditions clearly do not exhaust the possibilities for environmental project work. Some of the alternatives may be tentatively referred to as ‘investigative’ environmental research.

What is ‘Investigative’ Environmental Research?

As defined here, ‘investigative’ environmental research does not involve students in generating large-scale primary data sets via laboratory experimentation, fieldwork or other methods. Rather it depends particularly on a combination of:

These methods are widely used by environmental practitioners - for example, to ‘investigate’ incidents and issues of environmental concern; and to inform the policy decisions of NGOs, private sector organisations and public sector bodies. Likewise they permit students to undertake the multi-faceted examination of topics for which a single data set is not appropriate (and whose scale may preclude student research based mainly on primary evidence) - including many environmental impact assessments, audits and policy analyses. In particular, they provide a methodological basis for exploring the following kinds of academic research questions - which, however, are not characteristic of the uses to which investigative research is put by non-academic environmental practitioners:

  1. Examination of contested environmental issues - either where the contestation applies to scientific interpretations of a given question, and/or where there are political, ethical or philosophical disagreements. In many such cases, informed evaluation of the competing ‘knowledge claims’ advanced by academics, NGOs, politicians, business interests and/or other ‘elite’ groups (i.e. those ‘privileged’ in terms of their access to knowledge and their ability to advance credible knowledge claims) would probably constitute the core research objective.
  2. Examination of ‘public’ or ‘lay’ (i.e. non-elite) understandings of environmental questions - especially those of a controversial and ‘high profile’ nature, and where policy decisions may be particularly sensitive to public opinion. It is increasingly recognised, however, that opinion polls (i.e. based on large scale sample surveys) may not be the most effective means of revealing, and making sense of, public understandings in areas such as these. Some alternatives to opinion polls include:

Some examples of topics which could be approached in this way are:

Many such topics are inherently interdisciplinary, to the extent that they focus in some way on the social (including political, economic and cultural) context of scientific knowledge ‘claims-making’. Hence the research skills required for work of this kind are potentially scientific and non-scientific. Amongst the former would be included an ability to:

  1. evaluate data quality (e.g. for sampling methodology, validity of surrogates and taxonomies); and
  2. evaluate quality of reasoning (e.g. for underlying assumptions, judgements made in the interpretation of evidence, recognition of scientific uncertainty and of alternative interpretations).

Amongst the latter would count an ability to:

  1. conduct in-depth interviews and, conceivably, ‘focus groups’;
  2. evaluate the ‘credibility’ (e.g. qualifications, expertise, authoritativeness) and ‘commitments’ (e.g. political, philosophical, commercial) of claims-makers (including authors, publishers, employers and sponsors); and
  3. consider the styles of reasoning and choice of language used (e.g. use of metaphor, rhetoric or highly specialised language), and their intended or unintended effects.

The rationale for ‘investigative’ student research derives in part from a rejection of the widely-held scientific view, namely that reliance on secondary sources permits little more than an essay-type review of existing knowledge (i.e. with limited scope for a distinctive contribution from the student). This need not be the case, however, if one or more of the following applies:

Two Hypothetical Examples

In the boxes below, two hypothetical examples of topics which could be researched ‘investigatively’ are further developed, to show possible methods and sources.

Environmental and human health implications of organo-phosphate chemicals

Secondary sources:

  • ‘Quality’ journalistic output (e.g. TV and radio documentaries)
  • Scientific, medical and ‘trade’ (including health & safety) literature
  • Reports and other (e.g. press) statements issued by:
    • government;
    • other politicians and political parties
    • o-p manufacturers and their representative organisations
    • o-p users (including operatives and employers) and their representative organisations
    • campaign groups
    • prominent medical, scientific or other commentators

Primary sources:

  • Interviews and correspondence with (spokespersons for) any of the above
  • Interviews, focus groups and correspondence with alleged victims of o-p poisoning

.

Public understandings of genetically-modified foodstuffs

Secondary sources:

  • News bulletins, current affairs reports and ‘popular science’ accounts (including popular and quality journalism in the broadcast and print media)
  • Promotional literature etc issued by manufacturers, growers, processors and retailers
  • Campaign literature etc issued by pressure groups and other activists
  • Popular entertainment dialogue, e.g. words spoken by soap opera characters
  • Public opinion poll findings

Primary sources:

  • Interviews and correspondence with journalists and (spokespersons for) manufacturers, growers, processors, retailers, pressure groups and other activists
  • Focus groups with members of the public

Reading

1. ‘Investigative’ Research: General

Study skills and research methods texts written specifically for scientists are almost entirely silent on questions concerning the examination of knowledge claims, and on the use of in-depth interviews and documentary sources. Conversely most social research methods texts and general (i.e. subject-free) study skills guides do include material of potential relevance to this TLR (e.g. on the use of documents and/or on in-depth interviewing). However the ‘investigative’ and interdisciplinary approaches to research, which are advocated here, are not explicitly recognised by most authors (though some accounts of ‘case study’-based and ‘multi-method’ research are of limited relevance). Furthermore, most (general) study skills guides and some social research methods texts (including several which might otherwise be thought appropriate for non-specialists in this field) entirely fail to acknowledge the ‘problematic’ nature of knowledge, including the frequently-contested nature of knowledge claims.

Similarly, while most books on ‘critical thinking’ include some potentially relevant material, especially on the evaluation of arguments - including questions which should be asked about the reliability of ‘experts’ and other authorities - they characteristically depart from the view taken here, in assuming that:

Based on these criteria, the following sources are considered accessible and relatively informative:

2. Documentary Sources

Amongst social research methods texts, the following is recommended:

Amongst study skills texts, the following are recommended, specifically for their listings/classifications - and in some cases, for their descriptive (but not, usually, evaluative) accounts - of documentary sources:

Amongst critical thinking texts, see particularly:

3. In-Depth Interviewing

Most of the more accessible social research methods books contain some useful advice of a practical nature, e.g. on recording of interviews. However few deal explicitly with the specific applications of in-depth interviewing that are of concern here; and many subsume guidance on ‘in-depth’ and questionnaire-based interviewing within a single chapter or section - thereby blurring the distinction between the uses of questioning in two very different methodological contexts. Once again, the recommended source is:

4. Focus Groups

Coverage of focus groups in the social research methods literature is mainly confined to more specialist and/or more recent publications. The following are recommended:

go to the top of the page