Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30573938›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of primatology2018

Breaking Through Disciplinary Barriers: Human-Wildlife Interactions and Multispecies Ethnography.

Hannah E Parathian, Matthew R McLennan, Catherine M Hill, Amélia Frazão-Moreira, Kimberley J Hockings

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of primatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Insights on human-wildlife coexistence from social science and Indigenous and traditional knowledge.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Hannah E Parathian1Centre for Research in Anthropology (CRIA-FCSH/NOVA), 1069-061 Lisbon, Portugal.
Matthew R McLennan2Anthropology Centre for Conservation, Environment and Development, Department of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, OX3 0BP UK.
Catherine M Hill2Anthropology Centre for Conservation, Environment and Development, Department of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, OX3 0BP UK.
Amélia Frazão-Moreira1Centre for Research in Anthropology (CRIA-FCSH/NOVA), 1069-061 Lisbon, Portugal.
Kimberley J Hockings1Centre for Research in Anthropology (CRIA-FCSH/NOVA), 1069-061 Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-6187-644X
Oxford Brookes University · GBUniversity of Lisbon · PTCentre for Research in Anthropology · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the main challenges when integrating biological and social perspectives in primatology is overcoming interdisciplinary barriers. Unfamiliarity with subject-specific theory and language, distinct disciplinary-bound approaches to research, and academic boundaries aimed at "preserving the integrity" of subject disciplines can hinder developments in interdisciplinary research. With growing interest in how humans and other primates share landscapes, and recognition of the importance of combining biological and social information to do this effectively, the disparate use of terminology is becoming more evident. To tackle this problem, we dissect the meaning of what the biological sciences term studies in "human-wildlife conflict" or more recently "human-wildlife interactions" and compare it to what anthropology terms "multispecies ethnography." In the biological sciences, human-wildlife interactions are the actions resulting from people and wild animals sharing landscapes and resources, with outcomes ranging from being beneficial or harmful to one or both species. In the social sciences, human-nonhuman relationships have been explored on a philosophical, analytical, and empirical level. Building on previous work, we advocate viewing landscapes through an interdisciplinary "multispecies lens" in which humans are observed as one of multiple organisms that interact with other species to shape and create environments. To illustrate these interconnections we use the case study of coexistence between people of the Nalu ethnic group and Critically Endangered western chimpanzees (

Indexed as

Conservation conflictEthnoprimatologyHuman–wildlife conflictHuman–wildlife interactionsInterdisciplinary researchMultispecies ethnographyPrimate conservation

Identifiers

PMID30573938
PMCPMC6267646
OpenAlexW2795053627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.