Reflections on and suggestions for reporting vulnerability research: How can peer reviewed articles reflect complex practice in low consensus fields such that they better support review and synthesis

Peter Tamas*, Aogán Delaney, Todd Crane, G.M. Hengeveld

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

As the international community increases investment in agricultural adaptation to climate change in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is increasing demand to extract generalized knowledge claims about vulnerability from individual studies. If synthesis is to successfully produce sound generalized knowledge claims, relevant evidence must be possible to find and interpret. The format through which research in this field is now normally reported does not adequately support finding relevant evidence nor its interpretation. This opinion piece outlines and assesses three possible pathways for changing reporting practices in vulnerability research – standardization of methods, reporting checklists, and modularised reporting – in order to support the identification and synthesis of evidence. Rather than resolving these issues, this piece intends to open up the conversation about them.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)78-80
JournalEnvironmental Science & Policy
Volume97
Early online date18 Apr 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2019

Fingerprint

vulnerability
standardization
evidence
income
climate change
knowledge
conversation
interpretation
demand
community
sound
opinion
method

Cite this

@article{87c8866bc0124876bfed0d71b7de85b8,
title = "Reflections on and suggestions for reporting vulnerability research: How can peer reviewed articles reflect complex practice in low consensus fields such that they better support review and synthesis",
abstract = "As the international community increases investment in agricultural adaptation to climate change in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is increasing demand to extract generalized knowledge claims about vulnerability from individual studies. If synthesis is to successfully produce sound generalized knowledge claims, relevant evidence must be possible to find and interpret. The format through which research in this field is now normally reported does not adequately support finding relevant evidence nor its interpretation. This opinion piece outlines and assesses three possible pathways for changing reporting practices in vulnerability research – standardization of methods, reporting checklists, and modularised reporting – in order to support the identification and synthesis of evidence. Rather than resolving these issues, this piece intends to open up the conversation about them.",
author = "Peter Tamas and Aog{\'a}n Delaney and Todd Crane and G.M. Hengeveld",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.envsci.2019.03.018",
language = "English",
volume = "97",
pages = "78--80",
journal = "Environmental Science & Policy",
issn = "1462-9011",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reflections on and suggestions for reporting vulnerability research: How can peer reviewed articles reflect complex practice in low consensus fields such that they better support review and synthesis

AU - Tamas, Peter

AU - Delaney, Aogán

AU - Crane, Todd

AU - Hengeveld, G.M.

PY - 2019/7

Y1 - 2019/7

N2 - As the international community increases investment in agricultural adaptation to climate change in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is increasing demand to extract generalized knowledge claims about vulnerability from individual studies. If synthesis is to successfully produce sound generalized knowledge claims, relevant evidence must be possible to find and interpret. The format through which research in this field is now normally reported does not adequately support finding relevant evidence nor its interpretation. This opinion piece outlines and assesses three possible pathways for changing reporting practices in vulnerability research – standardization of methods, reporting checklists, and modularised reporting – in order to support the identification and synthesis of evidence. Rather than resolving these issues, this piece intends to open up the conversation about them.

AB - As the international community increases investment in agricultural adaptation to climate change in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is increasing demand to extract generalized knowledge claims about vulnerability from individual studies. If synthesis is to successfully produce sound generalized knowledge claims, relevant evidence must be possible to find and interpret. The format through which research in this field is now normally reported does not adequately support finding relevant evidence nor its interpretation. This opinion piece outlines and assesses three possible pathways for changing reporting practices in vulnerability research – standardization of methods, reporting checklists, and modularised reporting – in order to support the identification and synthesis of evidence. Rather than resolving these issues, this piece intends to open up the conversation about them.

U2 - 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.03.018

DO - 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.03.018

M3 - Article

VL - 97

SP - 78

EP - 80

JO - Environmental Science & Policy

JF - Environmental Science & Policy

SN - 1462-9011

ER -