Abstract
There has been a growth in the field of Ethnozoology throughout the years, especially in Brazil, where a considerable number of scientific articles pertaining to this subject has been published in recent decades. With this increase in publications comes the opportunity to assess the quality of these publications, as there are no known studies assessing the methodological risks in this area. Based on this observation, our objectives were to compile the papers published on the subject of ethnozoology and to answer the following questions: 1) Do the Brazilian ethnozoological studies use sound sampling methods?; 2) Is the sampling quality influenced by characteristics of the studies/publications? The studies found in databases and using web search engines were compiled to answer these questions. The studies were assessed based on their nature, sampling methods, use of hypotheses and tests, journal’s impact factor, and animal group studied. The majority of the studies analyzed exhibited problems associated with the samples, as 144 (66.98%) studies were classified as having a high risk of bias. With regard to the characteristics analyzed, we determined that a quantitative nature and the use of tests are essential components of good sampling. Most studies classified as moderate and low risk either did not provide these data or provided data that were not clear; therefore, these studies were classified as being of a quali-quantitative nature. Studies performed with vertebrate groups were of high risk. Most of the papers analyzed here focused on fish, insects, and/or mollusks, thus highlighting the difficulties associated with conducting interviews regarding tetrapod vertebrates. Such difficulties are largely related to the extremely strict Brazilian laws, justified by the decline and extinction of some species, related to the use of wild tetrapod vertebrates.
Keywords:
scientometry; Ethnobiology; Ethnoecology; methodological biases
Thumbnail
