To list or not to list? The value and detriment of freelisting in ethnobotanical studies

• Published in: Nature plants Vol. 4; no. 4; pp. 201 - 204
• Main Authors: Zambrana, Narel Y. Paniagua, Bussmann, Rainer W., Hart, Robbie E., Huanca, Araceli L. Moya, Soria, Gere Ortiz, Vaca, Milton Ortiz, Álvarez, David Ortiz, Morán, Jorge Soria, Morán, María Soria, Chávez, Saúl, Moreno, Bertha Chávez, Moreno, Gualberto Chávez, Roca, Oscar, Siripi, Erlin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 01.04.2018; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 706/648/697; 706/689/680; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Bolivia; Brief Communication; Ethnobotany; Ethnobotany - methods; Humans; Interviews; Interviews as Topic; Life Sciences; Names; Plant Sciences; Plants, Medicinal; Population; Bolivia
• ISSN: 2055-0278; 2055-0278
• DOI: 10.1038/s41477-018-0128-7

Although freelisting and semi-structured interviews are widespread methods in ethnobotany, few studies quantitatively examine how these methods may bias results. Using a comprehensive ethnobotanical inventory of palm species, uses and names in the Chácobo tribe of Bolivia, we show that interviews elicit more items than freelists, but the effect is sensitive to sample size, item type and data categorization. This implies that even subtle methodological choices may greatly affect reported results. A descriptive study comparing two different methods—freelisting or interviews—of gathering ethnobotanical data from indigenous peoples to determine which method provides the largest and most accurate range of species names for plants in a given area.