This discussion intersects with some important conversations in the realm of environmental and resource management. Debates about the reliabilty and application of so-called Traditional Ecological Kowledge (TEK), particularly Indigenous Knowledge (IK) of the environment, have often hinged on the unwillingness of academically trained specialists to accept the contributions of those lacking similar credentials.
TEK generally and IK in particular are increasingly accepted as contributions to resource management and legal deliberations. Whole fields of methodology for dealing with their integration and application have emerged for handling cases where the scientific method and TEK/IK are applied to the same problems. Things like Bayesian Belief Networks and Structured Decision Making (SDM) (e.g. Decision Analysis, Adaptive Management) are applied all over the place to these ends, albeit with varying levels of commitment to ānon-expertā engagement.
The community on iNat exhibits many of the same qualities as the communities brought together in BBN and SDM processes. There are people with different levels and kinds of knowledge engaged in generating information on iNat for potential application to solving problems while transferring knowledge from experts of various sorts among the broader communityās constituents.
Another point of intersection: science is cool; so are TEK and IK; so is iNat.
We can see that in this thread: people with bachelorās degrees are expressing doubt that they ācountā as formal training. This is not surprising, as we are used to seeing scientific journals dominated by authors who hold Ph.D.s. Periodically, I get emails from Google Scholar reminding me that I have not yet āverifiedā my account, which is therefore not searchable. The problem is that āverifyingā my account would require an institutional email address.
I am a certified biologist, but that is not enough to be good at such thingsā¦ I am also a great lover of nature, I am constantly educating myself, searching. A diploma without personal passion in this field is not a diploma, just a piece of paperā¦
Iām not sure how to answer that question. I donāt have a formal degree. I did have an abortive attempt at a BSc majoring in marine biology. I did work for two summers as a park interpreter. Iāve taught wilderness survival. Iāve learned traditional environmental knowledge from people in North America, South and Central Asia, plus a smidge in Africa. I canāt claim a formal degree but I have learned from some of the best teachers.
No actual degree but most of my life working in landscape jobs. I started my college education in 1977 in forestry and horticulture classes in Alabama. Life drops me in Texas in 1983 and I start over with this different environment. Lots of Ag classes through the years and I really liked entomology, which is still kind of my focus.
@itsmelucy And importantly, while some scientists may be excellent natural history observers, some at least are not, nor are all great natural history observers scientists! As a āformally trained biologistā, I am humbly aware that I know little about many (most) taxa and my submissions to iNat are often those of organisms I photographed because I knew little about them. It behooves all scientists to realize how little we know (thatās the fun part! There is much to learn!) and also how much science can gain by asking good observers, whoever they are.
Does a field trip putting rings on birds 30 odd years ago count?
My passion lies with experiences that bypass critical thinking: scents, music, driving, awe of the majesty of a mountain chain or the vastness of the ocean or a desert, the miracles of a child growing up or a twig budding, bringing out a flower that turns into a fruit.
Studying the history, the science does not detract but adds a layer of understanding and depth to these experiences. I just want to know the basics but that is rarely possible without delving deeper into the details and that is where iNaturalist plays a part.
Wow! Thank you to the 300 amazing people who have already voted in this poll!
Itās been fun to watch the percentages shift, and guess what? Itās been holding steady, with around 55% with no formal training (by their own judgement), and 45% with formal training.
Itās great, right? This forum meets iNatās purpose of engaging with nature!
I hope youāre finding this just as interesting as I am! Letās keep the momentum going!
A lot of gray areas for many inatters it seems, with perhaps some formal training but also experience as a hobby/avocation. I suspect that for most of us with formal training, we are also hobbyists, and the job and hobby overlap.
I suppose a related question could be ā have you ever been employed (got a paycheck) for doing nature-related study or work?ā
I got a BS in Botany 47 years ago and then became a computer programmer and technical writer. I remember a few things, although many of them are now incorrect :-) Itās kind of fun getting to start over again now that I am retired.
I said no formal training but I was molecular biology major in college and took quite a few zoology classes. Itās been a loooong time but iNat is refreshing my memory!
I would qualify this to say that it āindicates that you may haveā instead of shows. Otherwise, what does it say about those who canāt complete their studies, for very good reasons?
Said the father of an incredibly gifted and promising young man who had to quit his maths degree studies a half term before completion due to the brain damage caused by a concussion suffered while moving on a very icy day over a very concrete outdoor stairway.
After many years of treatment, he has regained many of his abilities, but not the math ones needed to complete his studies. Good thing he has many other skills that have helped him move on.
Plus, does anyone really believe that all degrees in any field in all schools are equally difficult to obtain?