Yup.
I will say, just because I lack a formal scientific education (outside of you know, undergrad stuff for a BFA) I do actually spend a fair bit of time reading both scientific articles and more general ed stuff, or asking questions and learning from the people in my life who do have masters/doctorates - lack of science degree does not mean lack of networking or education for me, you know?
I wondered. Since she doesnât have a control I wasnât sure.
It may be that you have misunderstood what the thread is about. As I said right up-front:
âŚThe point here is to help my thoughts get out of the box, not to ask me to define the box. There have been a lot of other perspectives and ideas already. Going down the list (and apologies to anyone whom I inadvertently overlooked):
So there are at least twelve people who understood the point of this thread without having to keep asking me. I can go down the list, see if any of these ideas resonate with me and if I think any of them will be doable; or if any of them bring something to mind for me that I hadnât thought of.
If I were looking for something I consider worthwhile as a science project Iâd first think about what interests me in the region where I can spend the most time and that is doable based on the resources I have available. And I would likely cultivate a relationship with an academic or perhaps an agency researcher who is doing something in my geographic region and my area of interest. Like it or not, the folks who are being paid and otherwise supported by an institution can open doors for you that alone you canât. And they can certainly give you ideas of what studies could be done.
If thereâs data from before the change (which is what it sounds like), then there is a comparison. Thereâs potential confounding factors for sure, but sometimes a before/after design is all you can do.
I also think itâs good to note because regular citizens/non-scientists can do experimental work, not just observational. While this is a simple, unreplicated design, it could still provide some useful data (certainly to the landowner).
Just wanted to add my two cents as a recent PhD grad who now plans on pursuing taxonomic research of ichneumonid wasps avocationally. I second everything that has been noted about the decline of natural history in academia. For me, the extreme competition, the large personal sacrifices required to get a professorship (then tenure), and the overwhelming pressure to pursue a certain type of biological research (higher-level evolutionary biology, molecular-based studies, etc.) made it clear that academia was wholly the wrong place to conduct taxonomic/ natural history research. While I think the currently popular areas of research are interesting to read about sometimes, the pressing problem for my group (ichneumonid wasps) is the inadequate taxonomy: extremely incomplete distribution records, undescribed/ probably uncollected species, and unknown host associations and other basic life history information. With academia out of the game, nonprofessional researchers (ex-academics or amateurs more generally) are going to be the people making significant progress. Getting back to the original posterâs point, there are actually such an overwhelming number of discoveries to be made in my group that the real limitation is my time.
Itâs obviously very hard to become an expert in a taxon to the point where you are writing papers independently so the key is mentorship. Not impossible (Charlie Eisman without but that helps a ton. I have a non-professional friend that is now a world expert in a beetle tribe after he got some critical mentoring from a nearby taxonomist. Iâm trying to do my part and help out some people get started right now too.
I also wanted to comment on the issue of potentially not receiving recognition for collecting specimens for DNA sequencing for researchers. The form of recognition expected should certainly be clarified beforehand but in defense of not being included as a coauthor, that will be highly dependent on how crucial the collecting was for the study. If someone collects and sends a researcher 5 samples but the molecular sampling included 200 then that wouldnât seem to warrant coauthorship. Plus, I wouldnât underestimate the vast amount of other effort going in to the project. Considering the total work that takes to complete most projects, the collecting would need to be fairly significant to justify being included as a coauthor. On the other hand, I will be including a collector I know on some taxonomic papers who was absolutely critical in discovering/ documenting many species and will 100% be getting coauthorship.
What Iâve seen some of my friends do with their species descriptions papers has been to put a acknowledgement section in to thank people who provided specimens for sequencing/study (and didnât contribute to the paper beyond that). Not authors, but still receiving credit and thanks.
I realize that you were using me as an example (which is really flattering, BTW; thank you!), but Iâd also like to use your question as a jumping-off point to expand. I hope thatâs okay. 
Iâm sure that you know as well as I do that having boots on the ground is a perpetual problem in field biology. Itâs the same case in another area that Iâm quite passionate about; namely, archaeology. Archaeology relies heavily on volunteers for everything from excavation to data entry to site surveillance. Only a small fraction of these folks are in any way connected to academic institutions; many donât have anything beyond a certificate that says that they have sufficient knowledge of what to do to keep them from irreparably screwing things up, and some donât have that much. What they do have is passion, and willingness; willingness to do grunt work, and willingness to learn. Theyâre the Baker Street Irregulars to Sherlock Holmes: they probably couldnât do what he does, and he usually gets the credit, but his efforts would be vastly less successful without their help.
I look at it this way: since thereâs never enough money or time for the kind of fieldwork that many ârealâ scientists would like to do, theyâre kind of SOL without the Irregulars. And Iâm pretty okay with being one of them. 
Re: authorship. If youâve collected specimens used in the study, you should expect to be thanked in the acknowledgements section. Itâs entirely reasonable to ask that you be acknowledged and that you receive a copy of the paper (or a link to a free copy). Co-authorship is intended more or people who are partners in the study, who are involved in designing the work or discussing the results or making a big contribution to the methods. It should also involve participating in the writing and rewriting for at least one round. People do sometimes get co-authorship for a lot less, but I think this is what itâs intended for.
Defining the box is relevant for making suggestions. If we donât know what you consider to be worthwhile, it is likely that suggestions will be of no use to you.
It is also worth clarifying this for yourself (not for us) because it may help you recognize whether there are assumptions you have made that you might wish to revisit â i.e. it may help you dismantle the box yourself. Or it may help you figure out what sort of projects are suitable (or unsuitable) for achieving your goals. You framed this thread not as âlooking for ideas for research projects as someone outside academiaâ but âcan we do worthwhile science outside academiaâ. Can, not how.
There are literally thousands of possible topics you could investigate. Ultimately it comes down to what you are interested in and what you want to achieve. And often it is easier to come up with ideas if we ask a question that is not too broad. So it would seem helpful to have some way to direct and narrow down this brainstorming.
People get co-authorships for all kinds of reasons. They provided the specimens or a large percentage of them, they secured the funding for the research, they allowed the project on their property, they were the major advisor so inclusion was expected. Nothing wrong with that. Acknowledgments are fine also in lieu of authorship. Believe it or not, politics can also be involved in including someone. But it doesnât hurt to make your role in the research and publication very clear up front.
I have friends with PhDs who are genuinely unintelligent, even dimwitted; I also have friends with BAs who are incredibly intellectually developed. Personal passion, a desire to understand nature, personal study of source materials, and a lack of discouragement in pursuing a goalâthese are the hallmarks of a scientific approach.
Yes, there are a diversity of reasons behind including a person as co-author, including politics. But Iâve had people turn down an offer of co-authorship on the grounds that they didnât feel their contribution was sufficient. Indeed, Iâve done that a time or two.
Some journals specify the kinds of contribution that are required for coauthorship; some go as far as asking for each authorâs contribution type to be documented in the end matter. It isnât always in the hands of the corresponding author.
True. Iâve mainly worked with journals that didnât seem to care.
I see the lack of more modern examples as partly sampling error, as I have met people who do âworthwhile scienceâ who did not originally take part in traditional academia. (As a side point they are not as well known due to the world being more populated then ever leading to more academics and more scientists have very specialized fields and less modern scientists are widely known by the public.) However, they have all been older and usually retired, which leads to my next point.
I donât believe we have run out of low hanging fruit, I believe the lack of non-academics in science is due to cost of living. Many of those examples listed were either supported by relatives/spouse, a wealthy benefactor, or were able to work on it in their spare time. I know quite a few young naturalists who have said âoh if only I had time/money to do xyzâ including myself. If people are busy trying to stay alive it is hard to put time aside to follow their passions.
Yes, I believe certain fields of science can have advancements made by those who are not in academia, though they might have to interact and collaborate with academics.
Honestly, agreed.
Iâm very lucky in that I can afford to have a slightly unstable career because my husband has a very stable job. Not everyone is so lucky. If I was having to work 60 hours a week in the restaraunt industry like I used to, thereâd be zero way I could manage what I do now.
Thatâs actually proving to be a barrier right now. I have a manuscript ready, but the journal to which I planned to submit it requires me to suggest two potential reviewers. That might not be a problem for someone in academia who has a network and has kept abreast of who researces what; but for me, I havenât a clue.
Could I submit to a different journal, one that doesnât have that requirement? Sure, but I would have to be aware of one. The one I have in mind, I knew about because I had been a subscriber in the past and am familiar with what it is about.
Can you find potential reviewers among relevant iNat identifiers?
all you need to do is have a brief skim of Google Scholar and pick two people who have published some stuff in the same field, or even tangential fields. In many cases the reviewers you get end up being picked by the handling editor anyway, with your selections busy or non-responsive. So donât view it as a barrier to submission at all. For the 30+ papers Iâve published, the number of times Iâm confident that one of my selected reviewers was picked is probably less than 5