实地调查结果,匿名性,罕见的观察和认知问题的方法,偏见和解释

In&Vertebrates Pub Date : 2023-03-09 DOI:10.52732/etpr9295
Gisela Kaplan
{"title":"实地调查结果,匿名性,罕见的观察和认知问题的方法,偏见和解释","authors":"Gisela Kaplan","doi":"10.52732/etpr9295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study of birds in the natural environment largely falls into two disciplines: ecology and ethology. At this time of substantial decline of bird species and numbers, it is argued that ecology cannot do without ethology, especially cognitive ethology, if real progress of saving species is to be made. The paper is concerned with problems of methodology, partly to do with lack of familiarity with behaviour and characteristics of the species (the anonymity problem) on one hand and partly to do with an underestimation of the effects of ‘an ecology of fear'. It will raise the question of sampling bias, express concern about the use of technological gadgets that may produce large data sets but often too little of value. It is not just an argument of quantitative versus qualitative data but of distortions, oversights, and insights that are not used. Studying cognition and emotional intelligence are as important hallmarks of an animal's ability to cope in the current wildlife crisis as are knowing about migration routes. Moreover, there is little doubt that systematic discussions in ethology rarely prepare one on how to respond to unexpected or incidental behaviour and to discuss the future of ethological fieldwork and cognitive studies. Examples of rare behaviour will also be provided to show how they can be pivotal in good science when momentary surprises in witnessing unusual behaviour can lead to new insight, and then to experiments and data. The paper will suggest, however, that new insights may only be possible when a robust methodology used in field research reflects a positive, non-invasive approach.","PeriodicalId":487865,"journal":{"name":"In&Vertebrates","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fieldwork results, anonymity, rare observations and cognition-questions of method, biases and interpretations\",\"authors\":\"Gisela Kaplan\",\"doi\":\"10.52732/etpr9295\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The study of birds in the natural environment largely falls into two disciplines: ecology and ethology. At this time of substantial decline of bird species and numbers, it is argued that ecology cannot do without ethology, especially cognitive ethology, if real progress of saving species is to be made. The paper is concerned with problems of methodology, partly to do with lack of familiarity with behaviour and characteristics of the species (the anonymity problem) on one hand and partly to do with an underestimation of the effects of ‘an ecology of fear'. It will raise the question of sampling bias, express concern about the use of technological gadgets that may produce large data sets but often too little of value. It is not just an argument of quantitative versus qualitative data but of distortions, oversights, and insights that are not used. Studying cognition and emotional intelligence are as important hallmarks of an animal's ability to cope in the current wildlife crisis as are knowing about migration routes. Moreover, there is little doubt that systematic discussions in ethology rarely prepare one on how to respond to unexpected or incidental behaviour and to discuss the future of ethological fieldwork and cognitive studies. Examples of rare behaviour will also be provided to show how they can be pivotal in good science when momentary surprises in witnessing unusual behaviour can lead to new insight, and then to experiments and data. The paper will suggest, however, that new insights may only be possible when a robust methodology used in field research reflects a positive, non-invasive approach.\",\"PeriodicalId\":487865,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"In&Vertebrates\",\"volume\":\"93 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"In&Vertebrates\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52732/etpr9295\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"In&Vertebrates","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52732/etpr9295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对自然环境中鸟类的研究主要分为两个学科:生态学和动物行为学。在鸟类种类和数量大幅减少的今天,有人认为,如果要在拯救物种方面取得真正的进展,生态学就离不开动物行为学,特别是认知动物行为学。这篇论文关注的是方法论问题,一方面与缺乏对物种行为和特征的熟悉(匿名问题)有关,另一方面与低估“恐惧生态”的影响有关。它将提出抽样偏差的问题,表达对使用可能产生大量数据集但往往价值过低的技术工具的担忧。这不仅仅是关于定量数据与定性数据的争论,而是关于未被使用的扭曲、疏忽和见解的争论。研究认知和情商与了解迁徙路线一样,都是动物应对当前野生动物危机能力的重要标志。此外,毫无疑问,动物行为学中的系统讨论很少准备如何应对意外或偶然的行为,并讨论动物行为学野外工作和认知研究的未来。我们还将提供一些罕见行为的例子,以说明它们在良好的科学研究中是如何发挥关键作用的,当目睹不寻常行为的瞬间惊喜可以带来新的见解,然后是实验和数据。然而,这篇论文将表明,只有在实地研究中使用一种强有力的方法,反映出一种积极的、非侵入性的方法时,新的见解才有可能出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fieldwork results, anonymity, rare observations and cognition-questions of method, biases and interpretations
The study of birds in the natural environment largely falls into two disciplines: ecology and ethology. At this time of substantial decline of bird species and numbers, it is argued that ecology cannot do without ethology, especially cognitive ethology, if real progress of saving species is to be made. The paper is concerned with problems of methodology, partly to do with lack of familiarity with behaviour and characteristics of the species (the anonymity problem) on one hand and partly to do with an underestimation of the effects of ‘an ecology of fear'. It will raise the question of sampling bias, express concern about the use of technological gadgets that may produce large data sets but often too little of value. It is not just an argument of quantitative versus qualitative data but of distortions, oversights, and insights that are not used. Studying cognition and emotional intelligence are as important hallmarks of an animal's ability to cope in the current wildlife crisis as are knowing about migration routes. Moreover, there is little doubt that systematic discussions in ethology rarely prepare one on how to respond to unexpected or incidental behaviour and to discuss the future of ethological fieldwork and cognitive studies. Examples of rare behaviour will also be provided to show how they can be pivotal in good science when momentary surprises in witnessing unusual behaviour can lead to new insight, and then to experiments and data. The paper will suggest, however, that new insights may only be possible when a robust methodology used in field research reflects a positive, non-invasive approach.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信