EAGER: Collaborative Research: Comprehensive Analysis of Long Term Ecological Research Survey

Michigan State University, East Lansing MI

Investigators

Abstract

This project will analyze results from a survey completed by diverse researchers to identify the research community's perceptions of the value of, and the need for, long-term research. The use of a broad-based survey to assess future research directions is novel in both ecology and evolutionary biology. Analyses of this survey will advance fundamental research by identifying new questions that require long-term research, opportunities that will promote more long-term research in the future, and the barriers that prevent scientists from engaging in long-term research projects. Findings will direct future research and funding priorities. The project will support two early-career researchers whose interests lie in linking fundamental research to societal needs and benefits. A survey to assess researchers' opinions about long-term ecological research received nearly 1,200 responses from scientists nationwide. Responses represent the views of a large proportion of practicing researchers and scientists within the fields of ecology and evolutionary biology, including researchers who are not currently engaged in long-term research. Analyses of the resulting data will stimulate and redirect long-term ecological research within these fields. The researchers will conduct a comprehensive analysis of quantitative (ordinal and categorical) questions and qualitative (open-ended) questions using standard social science methods. Analyses will be primarily quantitative, including descriptive characterization of responses and comparison of mean responses among subgroups of respondents to test for differences. Open-ended questions used to solicit research priorities, opportunities, and barriers will be transformed into categorical variables using thematic coding; these variables will then be analyzed quantitatively. Survey analysis will include both a broad categorization of the views of the field as a whole as well as an exploration of differences in opinions and priorities based on respondent subfield, experience, institution type, and geographic focus.