Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T23:36:33.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meta-Analysis and Conservation Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2022

Karen Kovaka Open the ORCID record for Karen Kovaka [Opens in a new window]
Karen Kovaka*
Affiliation:
Virginia Tech, Department of Philosophy, Major Williams Hall, 229, 220 Stanger St, Blacksburg, VA 24060
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Philosophical work on meta-analysis focuses on biomedical research and revolves around the question: Is meta-analytic evidence the best kind of evidence? By focusing on conservation science rather than biomedical science, I identify further questions and puzzles for meta-analysis and show their importance for the epistemology of meta-analysis.

Type
Symposia Paper
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 89 , Issue 5 , December 2022 , pp. 980 - 990
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Borenstein, Michael, Hedges, Larry, Higgins, Julian, and Rothstein, Hannah. 2021. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, Alec. P., Amano, Tatsuya, Martin, Philip A., Petrovan, Silviu O., Shackelford, Gorm E., Simmons, Benno I., Smith, Rebecca K., Williams, David R., Wordley, Claire F. R., and Sutherland, William J.. 2020. “The Challenge of Biased Evidence in Conservation.” Conservation Biology 35(1):249–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, Samuel C., Landes, J¨urgen, and Poellinger, Roland. 2019. “Evidence Amalgamation in the Sciences: An Introduction.” Synthese 196(8):3163–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, Gene V. 1976. “Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research.” Educational Researcher 5(10):3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurevitch, Jessica, Koricheva, Julia, Nakagawa, Shinichi, and Stewart, Gavin. 2018. “Meta-Analysis and the Science of Research Synthesis.” Nature 555(7695):175–82.10.1038/nature25753CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidich, Anna-Bettina. 2010. “Meta-Analysis in Medical Research.” Hippokratia 14(Suppl. 1):29–37.Google Scholar
Hedges, Larry, and Olkin, Ingram. 1985. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, Julian P., Thomas, J, Chandler, J, Cumpston, M, Li, T, Page, Matthew J., and Welch, Vivian A., eds. 2019. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781119536604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Bennett. 2019. “In Defense of Meta-Analysis.” Synthese 196(8):3189–211.10.1007/s11229-018-1690-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Bennett, and Bruner, Justin. 2017. “Experimentation by Industrial Selection.” Philosophy of Science, 84(5):1008–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imrey, Peter B. 2020. “Limitations of Meta-Analyses of Studies with High Heterogeneity.” JAMA Network Open 3(1):e1919325–e1919325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, Holly P., Jones, Peter C., Barbier, Edward B., Blackburn, Ryan C., Rey Benayas, Jose M., Holl, Karen D., McCrackin, Michelle, Meli, Paul, Montoya, Daniel, & Mateos, David Moreno. 2018. “Restoration and Repair of Earth’s Damaged Ecosystems.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1873):20172577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jukola, Saana. 2015. “Meta-Analysis, Ideals of Objectivity, and the Reliability of Medical Knowledge.” Science & Technology Studies 28(3):101–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lajeunesse, Marc J. 2010. “Achieving Synthesis with Meta-Analysis by Combining and Comparing All Available Studies.” Ecology 91(9):2561–64.10.1890/09-1530.1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lajeunesse, Marc J. 2011. “On the Meta-Analysis of Response Ratios for Studies with Correlated and Multi-Group Designs.” Ecology 92(11):2049–55.10.1890/11-0423.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larkin, Daniel J., Buck, Robert J., Fieberg, John, and Galatowitsch, Susan M.. 2019. “Revisiting the Benefits of Active Approaches for Restoring Damaged Ecosystems. A Comment on Jones HP et al. 2018 Restoration and Repair of Earth’s Damaged Ecosystems.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 286(1907): 20182928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Joseph, Rothstein, Hannah R., and Stewart, Gavin B.. 2013. “History and Progress of Meta-Analysis.” In Handbook of Meta-Analysis in Ecology and Evolution, edited by Koricheva, Julia, Gurevitch, Jessica, and Mengersen, Kerrie, 407–419. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Shinichi, and Santos, Eduardo A.. 2012. “Methodological Issues and Advances in Biological Meta-Analysis.” Evolutionary Ecology 26(5):1253–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullin, Andrew S., and Stewart, Gavin B.. 2006. “Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management.” Conservation Biology 20(6):1647–56.10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pullin, Andrew. S., Knight, Teri M., Stone, David A., and Charman, Kevin. 2004. “Do Conservation Managers Use Scientific Evidence to Support Their Decision-Making?” Biological Conservation 119(2):245–52.10.1016/j.biocon.2003.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pynegar, Edward L., Gibbons, James M., Asquith, Nigel M., and Jones, Julia P.. 2021. “What Role Should Randomized Control Trials Play in Providing the Evidence Base for Conservation?” Oryx 55(2):235–44.10.1017/S0030605319000188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salafsky, Nick, Boshoven, Judith, Burivalova, Zuzana, Dubois, Natalie S., Gomez, Andres, Johnson, Arlyne, Aileen Lee, , Margoluis, Richard, Morrison, John, Muir, Matthew, Pratt, Stephen C., Pullin, Andrew S., Salzer, Daniel, Stewart, Annette, Sutherland, William J., and Wordley, Claire F.. 2019. “Defining and Using Evidence in Conservation Practice.” Conservation Science and Practice 1(5):e27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackelford, Gorm E., Martin, Philip A., Hood, Amelia S., Christie, Alex P., Kulinskaya, Elena, and Sutherland, William J.. 2021. “Dynamic Meta-Analysis: A Method of Using Global Evidence for Local Decision Making.” BMC Biology 19(1):1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stegenga, Jacob 2011. “Is Meta-Analysis the Platinum Standard of Evidence?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42(4):497–507.10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.07.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stegenga, Jacob 2018. Medical Nihilism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sutherland, William J., and Wordley, C. F.. 2017. “Evidence Complacency Hampers Conservation.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 1(9):1215–16.10.1038/s41559-017-0244-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vieland, Veronica J., and Chang, Hasok. 2019. “No Evidence Amalgamation Without Evidence Measurement.” Synthese 196(8):3139–61.10.1007/s11229-017-1666-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Wernsdorff, Melina, Loef, Martin, Tuschen-Caffier, Brunna, and Schmidt, Stefan. 2021. “Effects of Open-Label Placebos in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Scientific Reports 11(1):1–14.Google ScholarPubMed
Whittaker, Robert J. 2010. “Meta-Analyses and Mega-Mistakes: Calling Time on Meta-Analysis of the Species Richness–Productivity Relationship.” Ecology 91(9):2522–33.10.1890/08-0968.1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wüthrich, Nicolas, and Steele, Katie. 2019. “The Problem of Evaluating Automated Large-Scale Evidence Aggregators.” Synthese 196(8):3083–102.10.1007/s11229-017-1627-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar