Viewpoint
Four Common Problems In Environmental Social
Research Undertaken by Natural Scientists
VICTORIA Y MARTIN
W hy do natural scientists 
continue to conduct and review
environmental social science research
without training and experience in
the social sciences? Perhaps they have
come to realize that many of the envi-
ronmental challenges we face are, fun-
damentally, human problems. Perhaps
they assume that asking people ques-
tions is easy, or their well-intentioned
efforts are attempts to address the
long-standing calls for better integra-
tion of the social and natural sciences
(Heberlein 1988, Mascia et al. 2003,
Metzger and Zare 1999). Whatever
the reason, rather than working with
social scientists, many natural scien-
tists continue to “[step] over disciplin-
ary boundaries to conduct attitude
studies. And, this is a problem.” (p. 583;
Heberlein 2012). The problem is that
when researchers do not have ade-
quate training, knowledge, and experi-
ence, their social scientific studies are
often poorly designed, neglect vast
bodies of social scientific knowledge,
and are full of methodological flaws.
Ultimately, these problems lead to
misinterpretation of the results and
unsubstantiated conclusions.
The term social science encompasses
a large number of disciplines and sub-
disciplines, ranging from social psy-
chology to economics and law (Bennett
et al. 2017). Natural scientists have
been involved—without any train-
ing—in topics that extend well beyond
the “attitude studies” Heberlein (2012)
discussed, into areas such as behav-
ior change, education, and commu-
nication. Not all natural scientists do
this, of course. Many acknowledge
that social research is not their area of
expertise, which makes the mindset of
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience XXXX XXXX / Vol. XX No. X • BioScience 1
those who take a nescient approach to
doing social science confounding. If
the roles were reversed, natural scien-
tists would be horrified at the thought
of someone without adequate skills,
knowledge, and supervision coming
to their lab or doing whatever field
experiments they believed to be a good
idea, however they please to conduct
them.
Unqualified people also create prob-
lems in reviewing, approving, fund-
ing, and publishing social research,
which slows (and in some cases sets
back) the advancement of socioeco-
logical knowledge. For example, inter-
disciplinary journals that do not have
the capacity to review social research
adequately (Teel et al. 2018) continue
to publish questionable environ-
mental social studies or reject valu-
able research when reviewers do not
understand social scientific theories
and methods well. Publication of sub-
standard research encourages others
to conduct and publish research in
a similar way, which not only does
a disservice to environmental social
science but may also be hindering
our ability to understand and respond
effectively to some of the most serious
environmental issues we are now fac-
ing (Bonebrake et al. 2018, Stenseke
and Larigauderie 2018).
It is important to point out that
social scientists can also produce weak
research, especially when their work
suffers from excessive constraints or
as newly trained but inexperienced
researchers launch into their careers
or when researchers from other
fields move into social science in
postgraduate studies. Although this
article focuses on natural scientists
(specifically, those without any social
science training), clearly we all need to
ensure the social research that informs
our collective environmental knowl-
edge, policies and decisions is of the
highest possible standard.
Strong criticisms will sit uncomfort-
ably with some readers without further
explanations and examples, so in the
present article, I will briefly discuss
four common problems found in envi-
ronmental social research undertaken
by natural scientists. The issues are
often matters that are fundamental to
quality social research, which makes
it disturbing to see them persist. My
purpose is to open discussion about
problems that result when research-
ers naively delve into fields they are
unfamiliar with and to emphasize the
necessity of bringing different types
of expertise together to deepen our
understanding of environmental issues
and develop effective solutions.
To illustrate specific areas of con-
cern, I draw from many discussions
with researchers in social science net-
works around the world, reviews of
natural scientists’ social research, and
the lessons I have learned in my work
with natural scientists since the mid-
1990s. The examples considered here
are topics I am most familiar with
(environmental social psychology,
human behavior and communication),
however similar issues present them-
selves in other areas beyond my exper-
tise (e.g., environmental economics).
Problem 1: Oversight of the
literature
One factor driving numerous prob-
lems is unfamiliarity with the social
scientific literature. Surprisingly, many
Viewpoint
proposals and manuscripts written
by natural scientists provide a scant
review of (or completely overlook) the
relevant literature. This is particularly
concerning when large bodies of work
(some dating back more than 100
years—e.g., theories of human behav-
ior) have been ignored. Oversight
of the existing knowledge eventu-
ally leads to serious issues with the
methodology and subsequent prob-
lems with analysis and interpretation
of results.
For example, several manuscripts
by natural scientists described their
attempt to measure behavior change
following an intervention—for exam-
ple, participation in activities such as
litter removal, environmental restora-
tion work, or an educational event.
Because the researchers did not build
their study on behavior change lit-
erature, their research questions were
based on mistaken assumptions about
which factors were important. In doing
so, these studies failed to address any
of the well-known drivers of human
behavior or ask the participants appro-
priate questions. In the end, their con-
clusions were unsubstantiated. Similar
examples exist for studies in which
researchers assume that improving
environmental attitudes or increasing
people’s knowledge will automatically
lead to behavior change. Social sci-
entists have known for many decades
that attitudes and knowledge, on their
own, do not change behaviors (Nilsson
et al. 2019).
Problem 2: Inexperience with
social scientific methods
Common problems also prolifer-
ate when researchers are unfamiliar
with the application and documen-
tation of social scientific methods.
Social science, like any other science,
uses well-established methods for the
development of study designs, data
collection, and analysis (Bryman 2012,
Moon and Blackman 2014). Also like
other sciences, careful consideration
of methods is essential for the validity,
reliability, replicability, and generaliz-
ability of the study (Walliman 2006).
2 BioScience • XXXX XXXX / Vol. XX No. X https://academic.oup.com/bioscience
The standards social scientists adhere
to depend on the type of research (e.g.,
quantitative, qualitative, mixed meth-
ods) and subdisciplinary norms. In
the reviews of natural scientists’ social
research, the methods section often
receives the most criticism.
Consider the example of a quantita-
tive questionnaire, which is one of the
most widespread tools used by natural
scientists in social research. Rather
than developing their questions from
previous research, some natural sci-
entists said they asked whatever ques-
tions they felt were important. Many
of the questions they used were poorly
formed, unclear, and untested, and the
response options and analysis were
given little thought. Consequently,
most of these studies have substantial
amounts of unpublished data that will
never see the light of day. The adage
“garbage in, garbage out” rings true.
In addition, methodological details
are frequently missing in manuscripts,
such as descriptions of how the survey
questions were developed and tested,
details about how, when, and where
the fieldwork was conducted, what
type of sampling was employed, and
the response rate (along with many
other reporting requirements, dis-
cussed below).
Problem 3: Lack of training in
analytical methods
When it comes to analyzing social
data, some natural scientists are
unaware of appropriate methods.
Similar to the natural sciences, there
are myriad ways to measure and ana-
lyze social data, which means there
are also numerous, context-specific
problems. In the interests of brevity,
the examples here will focus on two
common problem areas in the analy-
sis of quantitative questionnaire data.
Both examples use questions that ask
people to respond on a rating scale
(e.g., a 5 point scale; 1, strongly agree;
5, strongly disagree), which natural
scientists often incorrectly call “Likert
scales” (that is a topic for another dis-
cussion, along with how many points
to use in a rating scale).
In the first example, several recent
studies used response scales but the
authors did not know how to ana-
lyze the data. Rather than analyzing
the data using statistical methods
such as regression, they collapsed the
scales into a binary response (agree
versus disagree). This makes the use
of a response scale redundant, and
loses a lot of information in the pro-
cess. In the second example, many
researchers overly relied on previously
validated groups of questions (called
scales) that were designed to measure
particular constructs such as people’s
level of “environmental concern” (the
New Ecological Paradigm is a good
example). In a surprising number of
cases, no scale reliability tests were
provided (a relatively straightforward
procedure), because the researchers
were unaware of the necessity for it. To
make matters worse, most research-
ers did not pretest the scale prior to
the study, which is vital because dif-
ferent populations and settings can
produce different results (in some situ-
ations, the scale fails altogether). The
results are questionable at best, but
some of these studies were published
nevertheless.
Problem 4: Inadequate reporting
of results
In reporting social research results,
natural scientists frequently leave out
important information. Although this
discussion could include many exam-
ples, reviewers often comment on two
problems. The first is the omission of
basic demographic and other back-
ground characteristics of the respon-
dents. This essential information tells
us who the study includes, which
speaks to the reliability, replicability,
and generalizability of the findings.
Second, the means and standard devi-
ations (or similar) for questions using
response scales are often not reported.
These statistics tell the reader how
people responded to each question
and how much variation there was in
the responses. For readers interested in
learning more, the APA Style Journal
Article Reporting Standards (JARS;

www.apastyle.org/jars) is a helpful
guide. The JARS website and docu-
ments provides step-by-step instruc-
tions for different research methods
and how to report them and are also
useful references for the design phase
of research projects.
Misunderstandings and mistakes
made early in the research process,
such as those described above, usually
amplify problems in the discussion
and the conclusions. When the prob-
lems are so extensive, social scien-
tists wonder why researchers who are
unaware and untrained in the social
sciences continue to insist on con-
ducting social research and why this
dilemma has persisted for decades. In
the end, these researchers waste a great
deal of everyone’s precious time, effort,
and resources.
Solutions
With fundamental problems being
so common, what are the solutions?
Collaborations between natural and
social scientists who have the train-
ing, experience, and skills to con-
duct robust and reliable research are
essential (Alexander et al. 2018, Moon
et al. 2019, Schultz 2011). There are
many excellent examples of genuine
interdisciplinary collaborations that
have produced positive outcomes for
the natural environment. For exam-
ple, social and natural scientists have
worked together to protect critically
endangered species (Struebig et al.
2018), better understand the extent of
non-compliance in recreational fishing
(Thomas et al. 2015), facilitate indig-
enous knowledge into environmental
management and monitoring (Eckert
et al. 2018, Thompson et al. 2019), and
change farming practices to improve
environmental health (Pickering et al.
2018).
Numerous networks of social sci-
entists welcome the opportunity to
work on environmental issues. These
include the Network of Environmental
Social Scientists (www.nessaustralia.
org), the Conservation Social Science
network (#ConsSocSci on Twitter),
the Social Science Working Group
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience XXXX XXXX / Vol. XX No. X • BioScience 3
of the Society for Conservation
Biology (https://conbio.org/groups/
working-groups/social-science),
the Marine Social Science network
(www.marsocsci.net), many “human
dimensions” or social science sub-
committees in other societies, and
more. I encourage natural scien-
tists to stop going it alone in social
research and reach out to these net-
works. Involving an experienced
social scientist from the outset of your
research will help ensure the work is
valuable and publishable.
Over the last few decades, an
increasing number of environmen-
tal research centers and organiza-
tions have integrated social scientists.
Interdisciplinary teams who have the
training, skills, and knowledge to con-
duct quality research are on the rise.
Although we still have a long way to
go, we owe it to the planet, ourselves,
and future generations to continue this
progress, recognizing and valuing the
contribution each discipline can make
to reliable and robust research of the
highest possible standard.
Acknowledgments
I am deeply grateful to Rick Bonney
and Scott Collins for their feedback,
encouragement and support in the
development of this article. Many
other environmental social scientists
shaped my thinking about these issues,
especially Edd Hind-Ozan and Angela
Dean. I would like to thank the many
wonderful natural scientists I have col-
laborated with. They have taught me
about the environmental challenges
we face, and the value of bringing the
natural and social sciences together.
I also appreciate support from the
Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the
Rose Postdoctoral Program.
References cited
Alexander KA, et al. 2018. Progress in integrat-
ing natural and social science in marine
ecosystem-based management research.
Marine and Freshwater Research. https://
doi.org/10.1071/MF17248.
Bennett NJ, et al. 2017. Conservation social
science: Understanding and integrating
human dimensions to improve conservation.
Viewpoint
Biological Conservation 205: 93–108. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006.
Bonebrake TC, et al. 2018. Managing conse-
quences of climate-driven species redis-
tribution requires integration of ecology,
conservation and social science. Biological
Reviews 93: 284–305.
Bryman A. 2012. Social Research Methods, 4th
ed. Oxford University Press.
Eckert LE, Ban NC, Frid A, McGreer M.
2018. Diving back in time: Extending
historical baselines for yelloweye rock-
fish with Indigenous knowledge. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems 28: 158–166.
Heberlein TA. 1988. Improving interdisciplinary
research: Integrating the social and natural
sciences. Society and Natural Resources 1:
5–16.
Heberlein TA. 2012. Navigating environmental
attitudes. Conservation Biology 26: 583–585.
Mascia MB, Brosius JP, Dobson TA, Forbes
BC, Horowitz L, McKean MA, Turner NJ.
2003. Conservation and the social sciences.
Conservation Biology 17: 649–650.
Metzger N, Zare RN. 1999. Interdisciplinary
research: From belief to reality. Science 283:
642–643.
Moon K, Blackman D. 2014. A guide to under-
standing social science research for nat-
ural scientists. Conservation Biology 28:
1167–1177.
Moon K, et al. 2019. Expanding the role of social
science in conservation through an engage-
ment with philosophy, methodology, and
methods. Methods in Ecology and Evolution
10: 294–302.
Nilsson, D., Fielding, K., & Dean, A. 2019.
Achieving conservation impact by shifting
focus from human attitudes to behaviors.
Conservation Biology. Published online June
1, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13363.
Pickering J, Hong J, Stower R, Hong D, Kealley
M. 2018. Using psychology to understand
practice change among sugar cane growers.
Rural Extension and Innovation Systems
Journal 14: 62–72.
Schultz PW. 2011. Conservation means
behavior. Conservation Biology 25: 1080–
1083.
Stenseke M, Larigauderie A. 2018. The role,
importance and challenges of social sci-
ences and humanities in the work of the
intergovernmental science-policy platform
on biodiversity and ecosystem services
(IPBES). Innovation: The European Journal
of Social Science Research 31(suppl. 1):
S10–S14.
Struebig MJ, et al. 2018. Addressing human-
tiger conflict using socioecological infor-
mation on tolerance and risk. Nature
Communications 9: 3455.
Teel TL, et al. 2018. Publishing social science
research in Conservation Biology to move
beyond biology. Conservation Biology 32:
6–8.
Viewpoint

Thomas AS, Gavin MC, Milfont TL. 2015.
Estimating non-compliance among recre-
ational fishers: Insights into factors affecting
the usefulness of the randomized response
and item count techniques. Biological
Conservation 189: 24–32. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.048.
Thompson K-L, Reece N, Robinson N, Fisher
H-J, Ban NC, Picard CR. 2019. “We mon-
itor by living here”: community-driven
actualization of a social–ecological moni-
toring program based in the knowledge
of Indigenous harvesters. FACETS 4:
293–314.
Walliman N. 2006. Social Research Methods. SAGE.
Victoria Y. Martin is affiliated with the Cornell
Lab of Ornithology, at Cornell University, in
Ithaca, New York.
doi:10.1093/biosci/biz128

4 BioScience • XXXX XXXX / Vol. XX No. X https://academic.oup.com/bioscience