↓ Skip to main content

Who should conduct ethnobotanical studies? Effects of different interviewers in the case of the Chácobo Ethnobotany project, Beni, Bolivia

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Who should conduct ethnobotanical studies? Effects of different interviewers in the case of the Chácobo Ethnobotany project, Beni, Bolivia
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13002-018-0210-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Narel Y. Paniagua-Zambrana, Rainer W. Bussmann, Robbie E. Hart, Araceli L. Moya-Huanca, Gere Ortiz-Soria, Milton Ortiz-Vaca, David Ortiz-Álvarez, Jorge Soria-Morán, María Soria-Morán, Saúl Chávez, Bertha Chávez-Moreno, Gualberto Chávez-Moreno, Oscar Roca, Erlin Siripi

Abstract

That the answers elicited through interviews may be influenced by the knowledge of the interviewer is accepted across disciplines. However, in ethnobotany, there is little evidence to quantitatively assess what impact this effect may have. We use the results of a large study of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of plant use of the Chácobo and Pacahuara of Beni, Bolivia, to explore the effects of interviewer identity and knowledge upon the elicited plant species and uses. The Chácobo are a Panoan speaking tribe of about 1000 members (300+ adults) in Beni, Bolivia. Researchers have collected anthropological and ethnobotanical data from the Chácobo for more than a century. Here, we present a complete ethnobotanical inventory of the entire adult Chácobo population, with interviews and plant collection conducted directly by Chácobo counterparts, with a focus on the effects caused by external interviewers. Within this large study, with a unified training for interviewers, we did find that different interviewers did elicit different knowledge sets, that some interviewers were more likely to elicit knowledge similar to their own, and that participants interviewed multiple times often gave information as different as that from two randomly chosen participants. Despite this, we did not find this effect to be overwhelming-the amount of knowledge an interviewer reported on the research subject had comparatively little effect on the amount of knowledge that interviewer recorded from others, and even those interviewers who tended to elicit similar answers from participants also elicited a large percentage of novel information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Lecturer 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 16 25%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 35%
Environmental Science 8 13%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 15 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2022.
All research outputs
#5,689,294
of 23,575,346 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#190
of 748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,245
of 442,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,575,346 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 748 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.