Category: public participation in science

Categories
environment Hawaii public participation in science

Crowdsourcing project: Hawaiian Monk Seals

Want to help fund some cool research in an interesting species? Here’s your chance.

Hawaiian Monk Seals, or `Īlioholoikauaua (translated as “dogs that play in the waves”), are a critically endangered and declining species that used to live throughout the Hawaiian archipelago. Today, though, they’re mainly found on the mostly uninhabited Northwest Hawaiian Islands. A relatively small number of seals are also returning to the main Hawaiian Islands, as well, but human encroachment, coastline development, and entanglement with fishing lines make their presence in populated areas more difficult.

Monachus schauinslandi (Hawaiian Monk Seal) underwater at Five Fathom Pinnacle, Hawaii. (Image: Kent Backman, CC-BY-SA-3.0)

While many members of the local community support the conservation of this native species- one of only two native Hawaiian mammals- some fishermen view the seals as competitors for fish. In the last few months, there have been several shootings and clubbings of monk seals who were resting on shore or preparing to give birth. The suspicion is that a very few subsistence fishermen, whose livelihoods are already threatened by coastal development, pollution, and existing overfishing, have been targeting the seals out of frustration. Because seals have only been returning to the main Hawaiian Islands for the last few decades, some fishermen view them as a new competitor, rather than an intrinsic part of the ecosystem that is only now recovering from near-extinction a hundred years ago.

But are the monk seals actually competitors for fish? Previous research on monk seals, using “crittercams” that are attached to the seals’ backs, shows that they actually feed much farther out to sea and deeper than the struggling fishermen. In an effort to understand more about how monk seals behave, the Monk Seal Foundation israising founds for the Hōʻike ā Maka Project:

This is the goal of the Hōʻike ā Maka Project: to understand and share images of the feeding and underwater behavior of Hawaiian monk seals, and lay to rest many of the myths and misconceptions regarding monk seals and their impact on the local marine environment and its resources.  By working with local researchers, ocean users (fishers, divers, surfers and others), students, and NGO’s, NOAA and it’s partners plan to deploy seal-borne video cameras to study how monk seals feed and use their marine habitat in the main Hawaiian Islands.  The discoveries will be critical to understanding the seals’ ecology, ensuring their continued existence, and building a culture of coexistence between man and seal.  Please be a part of this historic partnership and vital work.

National Geographic has donated several crittercams for this project, whose second (and probably more important goal) is to get the local community involved in this research. Both fishermen and local students will be involved in the project. This project could be a great way to help the community- and science- understand the monk seal, and avoid future misguided monk seal killings as the seals are seen more often on the main Hawaiian Islands.

So here’s where the crowdsourcing comes in. While the cameras have been donated, funds are still needed to conduct the research. The organization is trying to raise $25,000 for this project, of which $1,525 has been pledged as of today. To donate, visit the Hōʻike ā Maka Project’s site.

This is an interesting project, and could be a great way to help conserve the monk seal while helping the community be proud of its natural resources.

Categories
birds environment evolution public participation in science

Birdy links

The fall semester has started this week, and the last few weeks leading up to it have been a whirlwind of getting set up for teaching, putting in conference proposals, and continuing to chip away on my visualization project. As a consequence of the latter, I am learning much more about birds than I thought I would. (Did you know that there is an Indonesian bird called the Satanic Nightjar? Now you do.)

All together, it has been a busy time. So, in an effort to at least keep posting occasionally on this blog, here are three recent bird-related links of interest:

  • First, a pretty cool story about a woman who built an outdoor run/play area for her cats, so that they would not kill songbirds, get hit by cars, mauled by dogs, or have to deal with other outdoor hazards. Cats- both feral and domestic- are actually quite a large threat to bird populations: the USFWS estimates that domestic outdoor cats kill upwards of 39 million birds a year! So this is a creative solution, and I have to say looks pretty fun for the cats.
  • Next, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology is building bird-recognition software that will ultimately be used to create a “smart” ID/advice system for people who need help IDing a bird. They’re asking for help from the public to help build the software by taking a “color challenge” that matches a color to a bird. The results will be used to help figure out how we see color when looking at birds. If you’ve maxed out your levels on Angry Birds, this might be a good substitute 🙂
  • Finally, a research blogging post on a study looking at the relationships between songbirds and parrots. The researchers studied retroposons (“jumping genes”) in several different types of birds, and confirmed another study a few years back that surprised people when it suggested that songbirds, parrots, and falcons were all closely related. The post gives you a good breakdown of the study and its importance.
Categories
birds public participation in science science communication

Angry Birds to migratory birds?

Digital tools can help us understand bird migration. How so?

Many animals take seasonal long-distance migrations- this is especially evident for birds. For many bird species- including raptors, songbirds, wading birds, and seabirds- the reproductive benefits of migrating thousands of miles from summer breeding grounds to winter feeding grounds outweigh the costs of such a difficult journey. Therefore, natural selection has resulted in massive large-scale migrations of these animals.

Flying cross-country is MUCH harder than the slingshot mode of transportation... (Image: rovio.com)

Migration usually takes place twice a year, as you might expect: in spring (to summer breeding grounds) and in the autumn (to winter feeding grounds). While different species, and even different populations within species, have different migration routes, there are several known migration corridors or “flyways” that are traveled by many species. Flyways are determined partly by the relative north-south positions of the feeding and breeding grounds, and partly by prevailing wind patterns, geography, and habitat along the way.

In North America, there are three major flyways, as seen on the map below. Now think about a tiny warbler or sparrow making this journey from, say, Ontario. It requires an enormous amount of effort just to cross the United Sates- and then you reach the Gulf of Mexico! While some birds cut straight across the Gulf (remember- these are forest birds, so can’t stop and swim for shore), others head south via Florida or along the Mexican coast.

Major North American flyways (Image: borealbirds.org).

Other birds have even longer migrations. This map shows the migratory routes of several species who breed in the Arctic. Again, keep in mind that birds who fly over the Pacific have very few spots to land. Many, many birds get exhausted and literally drop dead along the way. Clearly, migration is a hazardous proposition.

Migration patterns of Arctic birds (Image: arctic.fws.gov)

The process of understanding migration routes has been quite complex. We can record when birds arrive at and then leave a specific site (phenology), but that doesn’t tell us where individual birds are coming from and going to, unless the birds are banded or being tracked by radio telemetry. Both of these types of research are very labor-intensive. However, now there are new digital tools that let both casual and hardcore amateur birdwatchers help in this effort.

One example is eBird, an online database that compiles bird observations, and which is then used by ornithologists to study bird distributions. This type of crowdsourcing also helps enthusiastic birders participate in science research. One recent addition to eBird’s website is a set of animated maps showing migration patterns for several species.

Animated GIF of Chestnut-Sided Warbler migration (ebird.org)

These maps are limited to the contiguous U.S., so hopefully they’re working on ways to expand them to show a wider area. Migratory birds certainly aren’t restricted by human borders, and these maps would be a great tool to show that.

Another digital tool that helps understand bird migrations is quite different- radar! Apparently, the number of migrating birds during peak migration is so large that flocks of birds can be picked up on radar. It takes a keen eye to differentiate the radar patterns birds make from weather phenomena, but this tool is being explored as a way to track migration patterns.

Tracking birds with radar: April 12-13, 2011. (Image: badbirdz2.wordpress.com)

Radar can show us how birds are affected by weather systems and which locations birds are stopping in. This information could obviously be a great resource for birders- if you know that birds traveled to the SE coast of Florida last night, you could get up this morning and head over to birding spots on the coast. This seems like a pretty interesting tool to use for understanding birds.

Will adding digital tools to more traditional on-the-ground ways to measure bird migration help us understand birds better? Will these tools excite a new generation of potential birdwatchers? Non-digital citizen science projects are already showing us the effects of global warming on bird migration. If these projects have a larger scope and interest a bigger segment of the population, they might be able to accomplish quite a lot. And they’ll teach us more about birds than that they really, really hate those self-satisfied pigs.

Fore more information or to participate in these efforts, check out these sites:

Categories
exam readings knowledge work networks public participation in science

Exam reading: “Crowdsourcing”

This book was more substantial and less rah-rah than I’d originally suspected it would be. There’s a fair amount of discussion of the different types of crowdsourcing, which includes public participation in science as well as the more profound stuff like t-shirt design 🙂

Jeff Howe. Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business. New York: Crown Business Press, 2009.

Summary: Howe discusses the rise of the “reputation economy”: unpaid work for recognition within a community, as an outgrowth of cheap production, underemployed creativity, and online communities. He calls crowdsourcing a “perfect meritocracy;” it fosters collaboration (as its own reward) and community formation. He does discuss drawbacks: shifts in business models/professions (photography, journalism), globalization & flattening of work hierarchies, and the possibility of ushering in cultural mediocrity (though he thinks the last is unlikely.) Overall, he suggests it’s away to utilize human talent better (idea is that people would still have day jobs, and collaborative projects would provide a creative outlet.) Howe outlines several types of crowdsourcing: collective intelligence (group innovation for problem solving; need diversity, and interaction can lead to a limiting consensus), crowd creation (making things, rather than applying existing expertise; need interaction for this), crowd voting/ranking, crowd finance (e.g., microloans.) For success, you need the right crowd and incentives, some professional employees (crowds are great at gathering data/brainstorming, but bad at analysis & organization), an overall frame and guidance for participants, and breakdown of tasks into doable pieces. Mentions 90% rule: 89% of everything is crap/10% is good/1% is great.

Comments: I’m still trying to decide whether crowdsourcing is a brilliant way to achieve meaningful personal expression or a clever ploy by the capitalist system to get free labor. I don’t want to be too negative about these efforts, because they do have great potential to add to the human experience. It seems like crowdsourcing operates much like academia is traditionally supposed to: open exchange of ideas, focus on interesting problems, etc., except that in academia people get paid for their work (I also wonder if there are also connections here to the current diminishing status of experts in a crowdsourcing world, which goes along with reduction in academic pay…) While academia left out a big group of people who now have potential to use this process, there’s still a majority without access to these technologies or who do not have time for this sort of collaboration that are being left out. Perhaps it’s best to think of these projects as a good place to start, rather than an endpoint.

Links to: Lave & Wenger (participants can be seen as LPPers); Liu (core list-politics of knowledge economy)

Categories
exam readings public participation in science research methods/philosophy science communication science studies

Exam readings: Public participation in science

Well, here they are: my last three readings for my public understanding of science reading list. After this, I’ll be spending the next week thinking ONLY about my first exam, which is coming up… And I will be presenting a paper at a conference this weekend- but more on that anon.

Anyway, here are the last three readings. These are all gray literature, but give a current overview of at least NSF’s thinking about the field of PUoS:

First: Friedman, Alan J., Sue Allen, Patricia B. Campbell, Lynn D. Dierking, Barbara N. Flagg, Cecilia Garibay, Randi Korn, Gary Silverstein, and David A. Ucko. “Framework for Evaluating Impacts of Informal Science Education Projects.” Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 2008.

Summary: Report from a Natl. Science Foundation workshop on informal science education (ISE) in STEM fields; provides a framework for summative evaluation of projects that will facilitate cross-comparison. The authors identify six broad categories of impact: awareness, knowledge, and understanding; engagement or interest; attitude; behavior; skills; and “other” (project-specific impacts.) For funding purposes, proposals must outline their goals in these categories- while this won’t fully capture learning putcomes, in provides baseline information for evaluating the field of ISE. Also provides advice and suggestions, e.g., what to think about when coming up with goals, what approaches to take, how to evaluate, and how to document unexpected outcomes. It also discusses evaluation designs: NSF’s preference is for randomized experiments, but general advice is to use the most rigorous methods available (e.g., ethnography, focus groups)- discusses pros and cons of various methods. Some specific considerations for ISE evaluation include different starting knowledge of participants; assessments should be inclusive to those from different backgrounds (draw pictures, narratives, etc.) Also discuss specific methods, potential problems, how to assess impact categories for various types of projects (e.g., exhibits, educational software, community programs.)

Comments: Report is targeted to researchers being funded by NSF, to help them navigate new reporting requirements for projects with a public education component. Not useful for my purposes for theoretical background, but does give an outline of the current state of thinking of the NSF for this field.

Links to: Bonney et al. (use this framework for their report); Shamos (discusses different types of evaluation of scientific literacy)

Second: McCallie, Ellen, Larry Bell, Tiffany Lohwater, John H. Falk, Jane L. Lehr, Bruce V. Lewenstein, Cynthia Needham, and Ben Wiehe. “Many Experts, Many Audiences: Public Engagement with Science and Informal Science Education.” Washington, D.C.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. 2009.

Summary: Study group report on public engagement with science (PES) in the context of informal science education- the focus is on describing/defining this approach. PES projects by definition should incorporate mutual discussion/learning among public and experts, facilitate empowerment/new civic skills, increased awareness of science/society interactions, and recognition of multiple perspectives or domains of knowledge. This approach is most common in areas of new science or controversy; the authors mention that the idea is not to water down the science, but to bring social context into the discussion. There are two general forms of PES in informal science education (ISE) projects: “mechanisms” (mutual learning is part of the experience- blogs, discussions) and “perspectives” (no direct interaction, but recognition of multiple values-e.g., incorporating multiple perspectives into an exhibit.) They contrast this approach with two views of traditional PUoS (making knowledge more accessable/engaging): the first view (generally held by ISE practitioners) sees PUoS as a public service; the second view (generally an academic STS/science communication perspective) sees PUoS as non-empowering, based on a deficit model, and not recognizing that the public can be critical consumers or even producers of science. PES arises from this second view: the key is that organizations must think critically about publics and experts are positioned in interactions, and bring in “mutual learning.”

Comments: While the authors recognize that “engagement” has multiple meanings (action/behavior, learning style, overall learning, participation within a group), the PES approach is not about directly influencing public policy or the direction of research. Presumably that approach is too activist(?)- they do mention the need to work toward using PES to affect policy/research. This report seems to take as a given that mutual dialogue between public and experts is a good thing; I’m not sure how well it would make that case to organizations who are skeptical about that approach.

Links to: Trench-“Analytical Framework” (assessment of the place of “engagement” model)

Third: Bonney, Rick, Heidi Ballard, Rebecca Jordan, Ellen McCallie, Tina Phillips, Jennifer Shirk, and Candie C. Wilderman. “Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education.” Washington, D.C.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. 2009.

Summary: Study report on public participation in science research (PPSR) as part of informal science education (ISE.) History of ISE: began as public understanding of science (PUoS)- experts determined what public should know, explanations should lead to greater knowledge, which should lead to greater appreciation. Shortcomings of PUoS are that people have greater engagement when topic is directly relevant or interactive; focus is on content delivery, rather than understanding scientific processes. PPSR projects (citizen science, volunteer monitoring, etc.) ideally lead to learning both content and process. These projects involve public in the various stages of the scientific process to some degree. Three types: contributory (scientists design, public just gathers data), collaborative (scientists design, public helps refine, analyze, communicate), and co-created (designed by both and at least some public participants involved in all steps.) They evaluated 10 existing projects using Friedman at al.’s rubric; potential in PPSR projects to address all categories of impacts. Future opportunities include developing new projects (new questions, engage new audiences, test new approaches), enhance current PPSR projects (e.g., go from contributory to collaborative or co-created), add PPSR elements to other types of ISE projects, and enhance research/evaluation of PPSR projects. Two final recommendations are that projects should do a better job of articulating learning goals/outcomes at the beginning, and that comprehensive evaluation methods should be developed.

Comments: This committee report offers a current assessment of PPSR projects and synthesizes recommendations for future research. Scientific literacy remains a basic individual measure in this framework, even with the emphasis on participatory interaction (in contrast to social constructivist approach.) While the assumption is that PPSR projects do affect understanding of science, there are large challenges to assessing this, even at an individual level; part of the problem is that this type of assessment is often added post hoc.

Links to: Roth & Lee (conceptualize sci. literacy in PPSR as a communal property, not individual); Friedman at al. (framework for evaluating PPSR projects)

Categories
exam readings public participation in science research methods/philosophy science communication

Exam reading: Scientific literacy as collective praxis

Is scientific literacy something that we should be able to assess in individuals? Or is it something that emerges as part of community activity? Traditional evaluations of science literacy are based on the former, but there’s a trend to see science literacy as an emergent property of social interaction (at least in non-professional contexts.) Here’s a summary of one paper on the topic:

Wolff-Michael Roth and Stuart Lee. “Scientific literacy as collective praxis.” Public Understanding of Science 11 (2002): 33-56. Print.

Summary: The authors rethink science literacy as a collective, action-based process, not everyday knowledge; they foreground the social and material aspects to learning (complex knowledge is a product of interaction among people and situated in space and social activities.) Their three propositions: sci. lit. is a property of collective activity; science isn’t a “normative framework for rationality” (people can draw on other approaches for decision-making); and effective learning activities have a community purpose (rather than learning as the primary goal.) They feel that “citizen thinking” (not pure science) is most effective at addressing specific local problems; this includes politics, aesthetics, philosophy, etc. Their research centers on a community group trying to improve a watershed. Group members from different activity systems (e.g., scientists, activists, farmers) represented the situation differently and contributed different understandings; the authors see “scientific literacy” as the more-complete knowledge of the situation generated by the interaction of these different understandings. Key conclusions: science literacy can arise through conversation- making known something that wasn’t known before- the collective understanding of the situation then influences individuals’ understanding. Learning is lifelong and situation-based.

Comments: Seems to apply more to science in everyday life, rather than professional science- so an alternative framework for the effects of citizen science projects. Part of their rationale for distributed nature of literacy is the division of labor and ability to consult experts in modern society. Social construction of learning: learning and agency are social; individual learning/agency are reflections of the social setting. Advocate definition of science as a creative activity “tempered by honesty in the face of experimental evidence.”

Links to: Shamos (key place of experts in public understanding of science-though he doesn’t define this as science literacy)

Categories
birds exam readings learning theory public participation in science

Exam readings: Public participation in science

Citizen science projects like those at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology are an important venue for science communication. These two papers evaluate whether and what project participants learned about science as a process during two of these projects.

First: Deborah Trumbull, Rick Bonney, Derek Bascom & Anna Cabral. “Thinking Scientifically During Participation in a Citizen-Science Project.” Science Education 84 (2000): 265-275.

Summary: One assumption of citizen science projects is that participants will think more scientifically after participating; this paper analyzes letters written by cit. sci. participants to see whether this is the case. People participated in a bird seed preference test; they received a kit with information on scientific method/process, and instructions for the experiment mentioned that they would be learning about the process of inquiry. Demographics of participants: they tended to be older, well-educated, white, and had positive attitudes about and interest in science. Survey results suggested that, after participation, participants didn’t have changed levels of scientific knowledge. The authors decided to analyze the many unsolicited letters received from participants to look for evidence of inquiry (e.g., clearly identifying problems or hypotheses, designing an experiment, changing procedures if necessary, and analyzing and interpreting the results.) Some people did demonstrate inquiry, but not many (especially consistent observation, changing methods when not working, hypothesis formation.) They conclude that more explicit education about the process of inquiry is probably necessary for people to actually try it out. They also highlight some other potential problems with cit. sci. projects, e.g., people not understanding the point of pooling consistent data from a wide geographic area, or the relationship between prior knowledge and a formal research question.

Comments: The main conclusion here is that citizen science projects do have the potential to increase inquiry, but that it probably has to be emphasized in the instructional materials. Another possibility is that more localized or community-based citizen science projects might promote inquiry through a higher level of interaction (though this might have to be guided in some way…)

Links to: Roth & Lee (measure scientific literacy differently in citizen science projects); Brossard et al. (assessment of learning/attitudes about science in another CLO project)

Second, Dominique Brossard, Bruce Lewenstein, and Rick Bonney. “Scientific Knowledge and Attitude Change: The Impact of a Citizen Science Project.” International Journal of Science Education. 27.9 (2005): 1099–1121. Print.

Summary: Presents an analysis of the learning of participants in the Neighborhood Nestwatch Project (Cornell Lab of Ornithology). This project asked participants to put up nest boxes and report data about birds that used them using standardized protocols. Participants received protocol information, info about bird biology, and practical info about nest boxes; they were also encouraged to interact with CLO staff electronically or via phone. The project had a dual emphasis: collecting wide range of nesting data and increasing participant knowledge and change attitudes. Using a framework of experiential education, authors predicted that bird knowledge and knowledge about scientific inquiry would increase. Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model (increased attention activates persuasion), they predicted that there would be an increase in positive attitudes toward science and the environment. They found that attitudes toward science and the environment didn’t change (science-beliefs might have been more complex than test questions, or lack of emphasis in educational materials; environment-may have been high to begin with). While knowledge of bird biology increased, knowledge about the scientific process did not (they attribute this to both the level of emphasis of these things in educational materials and participant interest).

Comments: The authors recommend that more emphasis should be made on the scientific context in order to directly increase understanding of science and inquiry. This seems to be a common issue with citizen science projects- people participate with certain interests in mind, and generally this is not to learn more about the scientific process.

Links to: Trumbull et al. (CLO project); Roth & Lee (perspective of science literacy as a communal thing, making it ineffective/inappropriate to test individuals’ knowledge for citizen science projects)