Doing Natural History

Virtual Expeditions Facilitated by Open Source Solutions Broaden Student Participation in Natural History Research

From its genesis in the Victorian era as an activity for the elite to today's emphasis on "Big Data" and continuous monitoring, natural history has a prominent role in scientific discoveries for many fields. However, participation in field expeditions is limited by funding, space, accessibility, and safety constraints. Others have detailed the active exclusion of minoritized groups from field expeditions and harm/discrimination faced by the few who do participate, but we provide one solution to broaden opportunities for participation in natural history: Virtual Expeditions. Virtual Expeditions are broadly defined as open source, web-facilitated research activities designed to analyze bulk-collected digital data from field expeditions that require visual human interpretation. We show two examples here of their use: an independent research-based analysis of snake behavior and a course-based identification of invertebrate species. We present a guide to their appropriate design, facilitation, and evaluation to result in research grade data. We highlight the importance of open source technology to allow for longevity in methodology and appropriate quality control measures necessary for projects that include dozens of researchers over multiple years. In this perspective, we specifically emphasize the prominent role that open source technology plays in making these experiences feasible and scalable. Even without explicit design as broadening participation endeavors, Virtual Expeditions allow for more inclusive participation of early career researchers with specific participatory limitations. Not only are Virtual Expeditions integral to the large-scale analysis necessary for field expeditions that generate impossibly enormous datasets, but they can also be effective facilitators of inclusivity in natural history research.

Two kinds of theory: What psychology can learn from Einstein

A century ago, Einstein distinguished between two kinds of theory—theories of principle and constructive theories. These have separate but complementary roles to play in the advancement of knowledge, in the manner in which they relate to data and in how they are developed. The different kinds of theory carry implications for what kinds of data we produce and for how they are put to use. We outline Einstein’s distinction and the model of theory formation that it involves. We then use the distinction to look at some of the discussion of scientific practice in psychology, particularly recent work on the need for more theoretical, rather than purely methodological, sophistication. We argue in agreement with Einstein that the distinction is a useful one and that adopting it as a tenet of theoretical development requires a renewed commitment to a natural history of psychology.

Mutualism in museums: A model for engaging undergraduates in biodiversity science

Museums have an untapped potential to engage students in hands-on learning. Here, we describe the development of a tiered museum-based program at the University of California, Berkeley as a model for engaging undergraduates in biodiversity science. This decade-long effort to increase student participation in collections demonstrates the mutual benefits of undergraduate involvement. Museums benefit from critical help in collections care and an increased intellectual vitality, while students simultaneously gain essential research skills and an unparalleled exposure to biodiversity. Five first steps to creating a program are: dedicate a coordinator, offer credit, diversify participation, create a tiered structure, and build community.

Modernizing Natural History: Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology in Transition

Throughout the twentieth century calls to modernize natural history motivated a range of responses. It was unclear how research in natural history museums would participate in the significant technological and conceptual changes that were occurring in the life sciences. By the 1960s, the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley, was among the few university-based natural history museums that were able to maintain their specimen collections and support active research. The MVZ therefore provides a window to the modernization of natural history. This paper concentrates on the directorial transitions that occurred at the MVZ between 1965 and 1971. During this period, the MVZ had four directors: Alden H. Miller (Director 1940-1965), an ornithologist; Aldo Starker Leopold (Acting Director 1965-1966), a conservationist and wildlife biologist; Oliver P. Pearson (Director 1966-1971), a physiologist and mammalogist; and David B. Wake (Director 1971-1998), a morphologist, developmental biologist, and herpetologist. The paper explores how a diversity of overlapping modernization strategies, including hiring new faculty, building infrastructure to study live animals, establishing new kinds of collections, and building modern laboratories combined to maintain collections at the MVZ's core. The paper examines the tensions between the different modernization strategies to inform an analysis of how and why some changes were institutionalized while others were short-lived. By exploring the modernization of collections-based research, this paper emphasizes the importance of collections in the transformation of the life sciences.