Semi-structured interview framework from: Growing together: Strengthening the partnership and impact of a zoo and community-led conservation organization
Data files
Dec 16, 2025 version files 6.35 KB
-
Interview_framework.csv
3.69 KB
-
README.md
2.67 KB
Abstract
Indigenous peoples and local communities play a pivotal role in addressing the climate and biodiversity crises. The South Rift Association of Land Owners (SORALO) is a community-driven organization, representing 30 Indigenous Maasai communities in Kenya, which cultivates resources to support communal landscape management. The Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden (CZBG) is an Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA)-accredited zoological facility and has partnered with SORALO since its inception in 2006. This study evaluates the strengths and challenges of the SORALO-CZBG partnership using the PARTNERS framework and examines its alignment with the Naivasha Vision—principles established by African conservation leaders in 2023 at the African Community Conservation Forum. We conducted eight semi-structured interviews with SORALO and CZBG staff (four from each organization) and analyzed them through thematic analysis and constant comparative methodology. The analysis shows the PARTNERS framework is an effective tool for evaluating the strengths and opportunities for growth between an international conservation partner and a community-based conservation organization. The SORALO-CZBG partnership is aligned with the Naivasha Vision and has strengths in all facets of the PARTNERS framework. Key opportunities for growth in the partnership were found in aptness, responsiveness, negotiation, empathy, and strategic support. This evaluation acted as a tool for SORALO-CZBG leaders to talk through strengths and opportunities for growth, along with plans to address each. Practical Implication: Our findings highlight key factors that strengthen conservation partnerships and offer recommendations for conservation organizations, especially international NGOs, to examine their partnerships and practices to enhance collaboration with community-led conservation initiatives and best practices written by community conservation leaders.
Dataset DOI: 10.5061/dryad.mcvdnckf0
We have submitted our semi-structured interview guide that acted as a deductive framework for our interviews, aligning with the PARTNERS framework and following Mishra et al. (2017). This guide also acted as the central note-taking location, as it was copied prior to each of the eight interviews and filled out by the note-taker for each interview.
Description of the data and file structure
This data shows the interview guide and note-taking location utilized for the 1-hour, individual semi-structured interviews. It acted as a deductive framework for these interviews, and the interview data collected were later analyzed through thematic analysis and the constant comparative method.
Interview_framework.csv
Construct refers to one of the eight ideas represented within the PARTNERS acronym and framework.
Definition refers to the definition(s) of the connected construct that has been defined within existing literature.
Example of CZBG and SORALO partnering in this way provide pre-identified examples of the construct, if the interviewee needed a reference point throughout the interview to better understand the construct they were being asked to share about.
- Other examples? under this column header was the prompt for the interviewer to ask Question 1, referenced below, and the cell in which additional examples named by the interviewee were recorded. These were responses to Question 1 within the Methodology --> Interview Guide and Framework section of the manuscript.
Key Take-aways was the prompt to the interviewer to ask Question 2 of the Methodology --> Interview Guide and Framework section of the manuscript. The notetaker recorded data below this cell for each construct.
Challenges was the prompt to the interviewer to ask Question 3 of the Methodology --> Interview Guide and Framework section of the manuscript. The notetaker recorded data below this cell for each construct.
These three questions were repeated for each construct, in the order that they appear on this excel sheet, until all eight constructs were completed. Then, the final two questions at the bottom of the interview guide were asked in the order that they appear, and the notetaker took notes in the cells to the right of these questions.
Sharing/Access information
This interview guide was adapted for use from the framework of Mishra et al. (2017).