Ethnoecology, Resource Use, Conservation And Development In A ...

this type of research. First is the question of sample size: clearly, the greater the
number of interviewees, the greater the quantity of information that will be collected,
especially in terms of diet lists. However, larger sample sizes will also increase the
possibility that inaccurate answers given by one interviewee would be confirmed by
another. Clearly the analytical methods for determining whether or not to accept
answers that occur with low frequency need to be improved. Another methodological
improvement that would help address the problem of interindividual variability is
group interviews. This would be most effective in combination with the method of
individual interviews employed in the present study. Individual interviews compel the
interviewee to respond, and it is likely that many people provide information in this
setting that they would not in a group context where people are effectively
competing for speaking time, and may face the prospect of censure for inaccurate
responses. Discussion in a group context may also encourage people to modify their
opinions in the light of what other people are saying: the dynamics of this process are
complex and not necessarily based upon deference to superior knowledge (see Ellen
1993: 134-138). I propose that group interviews would therefore be most effective
as a follow-up to a programme of individual interviews such as was undertaken in the
present study. The data set of pooled information from the individual interviews
would form the starting point for discussion in group sessions, and the latter would
thus be concerned with establishing a consensus on controversial or infrequently
mentioned points within the former.
A further methodological improvement concerns the focus of interviews. I have
already noted that the lists of food plants obtained were somewhat incomplete, and
also that interviewees often volunteered information, within and outside of the
interview context, in respond to the sight of a fruit or a plant known to be food for a
particular animal. A small number of interviews were also conducted on tree ecology:
the distribution, animals known to feed upon and dispersal strategy of particular
segregates of trees. Much information was given in these interviews that did not arise
in interviews on animal ecology, even with the same informants. Interviewees,
therefore, were not effectively recalling all that they knew when interviewed (or even
when using the more reflective method of writing in their own time), and the focus on
the plant eaten rather than the animal provided a stimulus to the recall of different
information.
Conducting ethnoecological interviews on every single plant that might be eaten
could be a rather laborious method, particularly if only a few species of consumers are
of interest. More efficient would be the use of botanical voucher specimens to serve