How many interviews do I need? Methodological and epistemological reflections on research about human-wildlife relationships in Argentina
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25260/EA.25.35.3.0.2558Keywords:
interdisciplinary, transdiciplinary, conservation, data, methodology, local knowledge, ethnobiologyAbstract
1. Biodiversity conservation has fostered interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches that integrate academic and local knowledge to address complex socio-environmental issues. This note highlights the need to reflect on methodological and epistemological criteria regarding how to determine the number of interviews in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research exploring human-wildlife relationships.
2. As a starting point for this discussion, we conducted a literature review on the topic. We selected 29 studies carried out in Argentina that used in-person interviews to investigate human-wildlife interactions.
3. On average, 103 interviews were conducted per study (max.=753, min.=12), with variation depending on the study area and fieldwork duration.
4. We identified nine types of data collection techniques, often used in combination, with semi-structured interviews being the most frequent (89%).
5. Based on these results, we propose a set of methodological and epistemological reflections. We consider interviews a central tool in this type of research, whose implementation requires not only methodological rigor but also empathy and an understanding of local contexts. Unlike ecological sampling units, interviews entail complex interpretations of territorial knowledge.
6. Implications. The question “How many interviews do I need?” has no single answer; it must be adapted to each socioecological context and the realities of the research team, through inter- and transdisciplinary approaches that promote flexible and respectful engagement with local territorial networks. Methodological planning should consider the balance within the triad of area–time–resources, as well as the domain and dimension of the knowledge being accessed. We highlight that, within disciplinary fields —particularly in the biological and ecological sciences— there remain training gaps in addressing human dimensions, which today call for greater integration of social perspectives. In this regard, we emphasize the need to train researchers capable of building bridges across disciplines.
References
Andersen, H. 2016. Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 56:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.10.006.
Begossi, A. 1996. Use of ecological methods in ethnobotany: diversity indices. Economic Botany 50(3):280-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02907333.
Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor and Francis.
Bryman, A. 2016. Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Cáceres, D. M., E. Tapella, and D. A. Cabrol. 2025. Métodos de investigación interdisciplinaria, participativa y multiactoral para estudiar los ecosistemas y sus beneficios. Ecología Austral 35:162-182. https://doi.org/10.25260/EA.25.35.1.0.2439.
Camino, M., S. Cortez, M. Altrichter, and S. D. Matteucci. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective. Ethnobiol Conserv 7:1-21. https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2018-08-7.11-1-21.
Campos, C. M., C. Moreno, Y. Ontiveros, S. Albanese, F. Cuevas, L. Torres, M. Cona, and F. Cappa. 2023. Interweaving scientific and local ecological knowledge through studying the salience of wild mammals in two protected areas in the monte ecoregion of Argentina. Pp. 291-315 en S. Mandujano, E. J. Naranjo and G. P. A. Ponce (eds.). Neotropical mammals: Hierarchical analysis of occupancy and abundance. Springer Int Publ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39566-6_13.
Cano-Contreras, E., A. Medinaceli, A. Argueta, and O. Sanabria Diago. 2016. Código de ética para la investigación, la investigación-acción y la colaboración etnocientífica en América Latina (versión aprobada por la Asamblea General de la SOLAE. 1 de octubre de 2016, Popayán, Cauca, Colombia). Sociedad Latinoamericana de Etnobiología (SOLAE). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24216.49927.
Caruso, N., E. Luengos Vidal, M. Guerisoli, and M. Lucherini. 2017. Carnivore presence: Do interview-based surveys produce unreliable results? Oryx 51:240-245. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315001053.
Chan, K. M., R. K. Gould, and U. Pascual. 2018. Editorial overview: relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35:A1-A7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003.
Cocimano, M. A., A. S. Nanni, and A. E. Izquierdo. 2022. Co-building knowledge on human-puma conflict: A case study in a village of the Argentine Puna ecoregion. Hum Dimens Wildl 27:360-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2021.1954267.
Davidson-Hunt, I., and F. Berkes. 2003. Learning as you journey: Anishinaabe perception of social-ecological environments and adaptive learning. Conserv Ecol 8:5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00547-080105.
Descola, P. 2016. La composición de los mundos. Buenos Aires: Capital Intelectual.
Díaz-Bravo, L., U. Torruco-García, M. Martínez-Hernández, and M. Varela-Ruiz. 2013. La entrevista, recurso flexible y dinámico. Investig Educ Méd 2:162-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2007-5057(13)72706-6.
Gaspero, P. G., M. H. Easdale, J. A. Pereira, V. Fernández-Arhex, and J. Von Thüngen. 2018. Interacción humano-carnívoro en un contexto de crisis socioproductiva: Evaluación de estrategias de pequeños productores para reducir la depredación en el noroeste de la Patagonia, Argentina. Journal of Arid Environments 150:92-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.12.005.
Gesch-Karamanlidis, E. 2015. Reflexionando sobre los errores del entrevistador cualitativo novato. Qual Rep 20:754-760. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2162.
Gonçalves, T. M. 2019. O trabalho interdisciplinar em educação ambiental: Reflexão sobre a prática docente. Rev Bras Educ Ambient 14:41-49. https://doi.org/10.34024/revbea.2019.v14.2675.
Gúber, R. 2011. La etnografía: Método, campo y reflexividad. Siglo Veintiuno Editores.
Guerisoli, M. D. L. M., E. Luengos Vidal, M. Franchini, N. Caruso, E. B. Casanave, and M. Lucherini. 2017. Characterization of puma-livestock conflicts in central Argentina grasslands. R Soc Open Sci 4:170852. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170852.
International Society of Ethnobiology. 2006. International Society of Ethnobiology Code of Ethics (with 2008 additions). URL: tinyurl.com/2429ufk6.
Jacobson, S. K., and M. D. Duff. 2008. Training idiot savants: The lack of human dimensions in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 12:263-267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.97235.x.
Jácome, N., G. Abarzúa, V. Astore, and R. Pacheco. 2022. Mass poisonings of the vulnerable Andean Condor prompt national strategy against the use of toxic baits in Argentina. Ethnobiol Conserv 11:14. https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2022-07-11.14-1-17.
Kinnebrew, E., E. Shoffner, A. Farah-Pérez, M. Mills-Novoa, and K. Siegel. 2021. Approaches to interdisciplinary mixed methods research in land-change science and environmental management. Conserv Biol 35:130-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13556.
Klier, G. R., T. E. Busan, and F. M. Di Pasquo. 2017. Lo complejo en las problemáticas ambientales: propuestas epistemológicas y conservación de la biodiversidad. Ludus Vitalis 25(48):91-115.
Knorr Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674039681.
Ludwig, D., and C. N. El-Hani. 2020. Philosophy of ethnobiology: Understanding knowledge integration and its limitations. J Ethnobiol 40:3-20. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-40.1.3.
Medrano, C. 2012. Etnozoología, usos y abusos de los cuestionarios. Pap Trab 23:59-81. https://doi.org/10.35305/revista.v0i23.102.
Morin, E. 1994. La complejidad y la acción. En E. Morin, Introducción al pensamiento complejo. Gedisa. Pp. 14-31.
Nanni, A. S., A. Ghoddousi, A. Romero-Muñoz, M. Baumann, J. Burton, M. Camino, M. D. L. M. Guerisoli, et al. 2024. Mapping opportunities and barriers to human-puma coexistence in Argentina's Dry Chaco. Divers Distrib 30:e13920. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13920.
Nicolescu, B. 2002. Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. URL: tinyurl.com/2mfhydv5.
Ostrom, E. 2008. Institutions and the environment. Economic Affairs 28(3):24-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2008.00840.x.
Phillipson, J., P. Lowe, and J. M. Bullock. 2009. Navigating the social sciences: Interdisciplinarity and ecology. J Appl Ecol 46: 261-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01615.x.
Posey, D. A. 1986. Topics and issues in ethnoentomology with some suggestions for the development of hypothesis-generation and testing in ethnobiology. Journal of Ethnobiology 6(1):99-120.
Reyes-García, V., and N. Martí-Sanz. 2007. Etnoecología: Punto de encuentro entre naturaleza y cultura. Ecosistemas 16. URL: tinyurl.com/4bh3s9pe.
Salom, A., M. E. Suárez, C. A. Destefano, J. Cereghetti, F. H. Vargas, and J. M. Grande. 2021. Human-wildlife conflicts in the southern Yungas: What role do raptors play for local settlers? Animals 11:1428. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051428.
Scarpa, G. F., and F. C. Tola (eds.). 2010. Léxico y categorización etnobiológica en grupos indígenas del Gran Chaco. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Pp. 83-116.
Turner, D. W. III. 2010. Diseño de entrevistas cualitativas: Una guía práctica para investigadores noveles. Qual Rep 15:754-760. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1178.
Unks, R., M. J. Goldman, F. Mialhe, and J. Roque de Pinho. 2021. “People should also look after the people”: relational values of wildlife and collectively titled land in Ilkisongo Maasai group ranches in Southern Kenya. Ecology and Society 26(3):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12539-260328.
Wajner, M., D. M. Tamburini, and F. Zamudio. 2019. Ethnozoology in the mountains: What does the cognitive salience of wild animals tell us? Ethnobiol Conserv 8:9. https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2019-07-8.09-1-23.
Wolverton, S. 2013. Ethnobiology 5: Interdisciplinarity in an era of rapid environmental change. Ethnobiol Lett 4:21-25. https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.4.2013.11.
Young, J. C., D. C. Rose, H. S. Mumby, F. Benitez‐Capistros, C. J. Derrick, T. Finch, et al. 2018. A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9(1):10-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12828.
Zamudio, F., and N. I. Hilgert. 2015. Multi-dimensionality and variability in folk classification of stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 11:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-015-0029-z.
Zamudio, F. 2016. Tras los pasos de Darrell Posey: La etnoentomología y sus métodos. Bol Soc Entomol Argent 27:11-16.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 M. Guadalupe Laitan, Malena Villarruel-Parma, Matías Wajner, Marta Rueda, Carla Rueda, Fernando Zamudio
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain their rights as follows: 1) by granting the journal the right to its first publication, and 2) by registering the published article with a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which allows authors and third parties to view and use it as long as they clearly mention its origin (citation or reference, including authorship and first publication in this journal). Authors can make other non-exclusive distribution agreements as long as they clearly indicate their origin and are encouraged to widely share and disseminate the published version of their work.
