A Critical Review of Lion Research in South Africa: The Impact of Researcher Perspective, Research Mode, and Power Structures on Outcome Bias and Implementation Gaps

Abstract

Understanding the state of research, and its effectiveness, in a predominantly Life Sciences sphere, requires an assessment of knowledge growth dynamics, and the associated scientific and bibliometric impacts. We aim to create and evaluate, in a systematic review process, a macro-structure of the science generated in lion research in South Africa (SA) from 1990 to 2018. First, we classified the evidence architecture of lion research data extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection. Then, we identified prominent features that the datasets reveal in terms of authorship and ownership, as defined by first author affiliation and geographical location. Fifteen sub-disciplines were identified to characterize the topics. From 2000 onwards, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary contributions started to emerge, catering for research problems defined at the interface of the academic-practitioner domains. These included social and economics components, and were aligned with conservation framings that seek to evaluate conservation within market-based vs. people-based approaches. Study areas were concentrated within SA (61.8%) and the remainder was either conducted in the rest of Africa (22.9%), or in various combinations of geographical focus. Author affiliation indicated that 63.1% of first authors had a South African affiliation. The rest of Africa was poorly represented at 2.4%. The majority (57.1%) of the first authors was male, but from 2014 to 2018, female researchers outnumbered males; however, male first authors continued to be cited more frequently. Furthermore, we provide a systemic analysis of the way in which research contributes to lion conservation. Overall, three voices dominate this area. Firstly, Mode 1 research has been driving research output in a "vicious circle," motivated by researchers' quest for accumulating academic rewards. Secondly, the citation impact shows a gender disparity against the recognition of female researchers. Lastly, a power imbalance against authors from the rest of Africa became apparent, whereby their role is mainly shaped toward being team contributors. This research shows Sobratee and Slotow Conservation Research Mode and Agenda that effective conservation requires appropriate knowledge to be generated, and this to be effectively translated into practical applications, while considering all perspectives in order to provide the opportunity for balanced contributions and influences. Imbalances such as the ones revealed above are likely to prevail more broadly.

Mismatch between conservation needs and actual representation of lions from West and Central Africa in in situ and ex situ conservation

“…Within Africa, the South African and Tanzanian predominance in research and conservation was demonstrated by Di Marco et al (2017) and further highlighted in Bauer et al (2021). This was then confirmed for lion research in particular (Braczkowski et al, 2020;Sargent et al, 2021;Sobratee & Slotow, 2019), and for other large carnivores (Balme et al, 2014;Strampelli et al, 2022). Our study confirms that this extends to all research topics.…”

“…(2021). This was then confirmed for lion research in particular (Braczkowski et al., 2020; Sargent et al., 2021; Sobratee & Slotow, 2019), and for other large carnivores (Balme et al., 2014; Strampelli et al., 2022). Our study confirms that this extends to all research topics.…”

Bridging the divide between scientists and decision-makers: how behavioural ecologists can increase the conservation impact of their research?

“…R. Soc. B 374: 20190011 relevance, the dominance of foreign institutions in delivering scientific information on biodiversity within many countries in Africa adds an additional layer of complication to scientist-manager relationships [37]. The global power imbalance between low-income and high-income countries results in an imbalance in the generation of scientific knowledge, when data are collected within low-income countries, while analyses are often conducted in high-income countries, sometimes without any input from scientists from the countries where fieldwork was undertaken [38,39].…”

Towards Minimizing Research Inequities in Africa: Lessons from the ARISE Programme

“…The unavailability of adequate research equipment, unreliable procurement systems, and insufficient capacity enhancement opportunities for researchers and research assistants also add to the prevailing challenges facing researchers in Africa (el Hajj et al, 2020). Consequently, research strengths and activities tend to concentrate on a few countries and/or regions such as South Africa (Sobratee & Slotow, 2019) -corresponding to national investments in research (Schneegans et al 2021). A similar trend is seen in the research funding space in Africa.…”