Back to CONSERVATION BIOLOGY EDITOR'S REPORT

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to NEW CHAPTERS OF THE SCB

INTERFACING ETHNOBIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY

As a member of the Society for Conservation Biology and the Society for Ethnobiology, earlier this year I conducted a survey of the two societies to better understand the interface between ethnobiology and conservation biology.

I surveyed the entire non-institutional membership of the Society for Ethnobiology (SE), a total of 363 members, and a geographically stratified subset of the SCB (452 of 5238 members). 107 SE and 106 SCB surveys (26.1% overall) were returned. Seven of the SE members who returned surveys also were members of SCB. The latter were counted as members of SE rather than SCB. Tests for significance have not yet been run.

Fifty-two SCB and 56 SE members were employed in academe in some capacity; 70 SCB and 45 SE members worked in other sectors. Many more members of SCB than SE worked in government (32:14) and NGOs (27:18). Both societies were dominated by members with Ph.D.s or in Ph.D. programs: 80 members of SCB and 89 of SE. Twice as many SE as SCB members were students (24:12). Most were Ph.D. students (30 SE:36 SCB), and most were female (25 SE:36 SCB). Because employment and student status sometimes overlaps, numbers may not total 100%.

The gender ratios between the two societies differed noticeably. The female : male ratio was 42:64 among SCB members and 64:43 among SE members. More males within academe were members of SCB (34) than SE (26), especially for those that were tenured (24 SCB : 18 SE). However, many more women within academe were members of SE (34) than SCB (16), especially if they were tenured (17 SE : 6 SCB). Overall, the ratio of women to men in government was similar (26:21), but more men than women worked for NGOs (32:13).

Most members of SCB had formal academic training in biology (101) and ecology (97) but not in anthropology (23). Most SE members had training in anthropology (86) and biology (78) but only half had studied ecology (54). Most SCB (87) and 22 SE members considered themselves to be conservation biologists. 80 of the SE members but only 11 SCB members considered themselves to be ethnobiologists. SE members used ethnographic (90) and biological/ecological (90) methods at a similar rate. SCB members used biological/ecological (96) methods to a somewhat greater extent, but few (14) used ethnographic methods.

Availability of conservation biology (103 overall) and ethnobiology (75 overall) courses was reported as moderate by both groups. Both indicated that there were more undergraduate and graduate programs in conservation biology (36 undergraduate, 41 graduate) than ethnobiology (20 undergraduate, 24 graduate) available at their institutions.

Finally, while most respondents saw some linkage between ethnobiology and conservation biology, more SE members viewed this linkage as strong (36 strong : 32 somewhat linked), whereas more SCB members acknowledged it in qualified terms (28 strong : 41 somewhat linked).

Elaine Joyal
Department of Anthropology
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402
joyal@asu.edu

Back to CONSERVATION BIOLOGY EDITOR'S REPORT

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to NEW CHAPTERS OF THE SCB