Anthrozoology is arguably one of the most multidisciplinary research fields available. People come to it from many different disciplines and a mutual fascination with animal interaction. The wide variety of research methodologies used can make it difficult to understand the meaning and value of other people’s research. However, I believe that in order to study human-animal interaction and fully understand both WHAT happens and HOW and WHY it is happening, it is incredibly beneficial for researchers to engage and collaborate with researchers from fields with fundamentally different approaches to your own, if not become a multi-method researcher yourself.
An example area where both qualitative and quantitative methodologies are required is human behaviour. Understanding what humans do and why they do it is obviously fundamental to the study of the way people interact with animals such as pets, and how perhaps animal welfare needs can be addressed through owner behaviour change. I present two examples here of my research into dog ownership and walking, and dog bite prevention, where I have combined both quantitative epidemiological and qualitative sociological research methods in order to answer my ongoing research questions.
I came from a quantitative background of biology, animal behaviour, and veterinary epidemiology, where good science was clearly observable, recordable, objective, and statistically provable. The majority of my research involved dog owner surveys, and statistically comparing ‘risk factors’ for particular outcomes, for example my research into physical activity outcomes of dog owners versus non-dog owners [1], or who gets bitten by dogs [2]. Research into factors associated with dog walking gave us the big WHAT – it showed that there was something about the strength of the relationship with the dog, providing ‘support and motivation for walking’, that is the most important predictor of dog walking behaviour [3]. However, surveys had hit a methodological wall in understanding WHY this was the case and HOW dogs were providing support and motivation for walking; WHY were some dogs, such as larger ones, better at it? [4, 5] WHY do some owners not find their dog motivating? So I trained in sociological qualitative research methods, epistemologically a world apart from science as I knew it. There truth is multiple, reality is constructed, and science is subjective – against everything I was brought up to believe. I was in shock and felt completely in the dark. But only coming to terms with this radically different view of validity in research allowed progression. These in-depth methods examining people’s experiences, perceptions and beliefs, and learning to critically deconstruct my own views, allowed me to build a picture of the complex processes through which emotional relationships between dogs and their owners shape motivators and barriers to dog walking [6], and in turn influence public health. It is also helping me to understand why some people ignore signs that a dog is unhappy and may bite them [7].
Qualitative and quantitative research can be a circular process. Survey questions can only be asked if you think of them, and our biases and preconceptions are inherent in the way we as scientists design our survey questions. Qualitative research can uncover potential survey questions that never would have been asked otherwise, or provide better wording so that it truly fits with the experience of the participant and doesn’t miss out a potential answer option. As described above, qualitative research can then also help us to understand our results in quantitative studies.
So I urge you to widen your methodological scope around your research area of interest. Attend and learn from a wide range of anthrozoological talks this conference. Pick something a bit different. Embrace your dark side.