An official website of the United States government
ABSTRACT Community or volunteer participation in research has the potential to significantly help mobilize the wealth of biodiversity and functional ecological data housed in natural history collections. Many such projects recruit community scientists to transcribe specimen label data from images; a next step is to task community scientists with conducting straightforward morphological measurements (e.g., body size) from specimen images. We investigated whether community science could be an effective approach to generating significant body size datasets from specimen images generated by museum digitization initiatives. Using the community science platform Notes from Nature, we engaged community scientists in a specimen measurement task to estimate body size (i.e., intertegular distance) from images of bee specimens. Community scientists showed high engagement and completion of this task, with each user measuring 43.6 specimens on average and self‐reporting successful measurement of 98.0% of the images. Community scientist measurements were significantly larger than measurements conducted by trained researchers, though the average measurement error was only 2.3%. These results suggest that community science participation could be an effective approach for bee body size measurement, for descriptive studies or for research questions where this degree of expected error is deemed acceptable. For larger‐bodied organisms (e.g., vertebrates), where modest measurement errors represent a smaller proportion of body size, community science approaches may be particularly effective. Methods we present here may serve as a blueprint for future projects aimed at engaging the public in biodiversity and collections‐based research efforts.
more »
« less
Measuring material wealth in low‐income settings: A conceptual and how‐to guide
Abstract Although wealth is consistently found to be an important predictor of health and well‐being, there remains debate as to the best way to conceptualize and operationalize wealth. In this article, we focus on the measurement of economic resources, which is one among many forms of wealth. We provide an overview of the process of measuring material wealth, including theoretical and conceptual considerations, a how‐to guide based on the most common approach to measurement, and a review of important theoretical and empirical questions that remain to be resolved. Throughout, we emphasize considerations particular to the settings in which anthropologists work, and we include variations on common approaches to measuring material wealth that might be better suited to anthropologists' theoretical questions, methodological approaches, and fieldwork settings.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1658766
- PAR ID:
- 10034301
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- American Journal of Human Biology
- Volume:
- 29
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 1042-0533
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract “Monogamy” and pair bonding have long been of interest to anthropologists and primatologists. Their study contributes to our knowledge of human evolutionary biology and social evolution without the cultural trappings associated with studying human societies directly. Here, we first provide an overview of theoretical considerations, followed by an evaluation of recent comparative studies of the evolution of “social monogamy”; we are left with serious doubts about the conclusions of these studies that stem from the often poor quality of the data used and an overreliance on secondary sources without vetting the data therein. We then describe our field research program on four “monogamous” platyrrhines (owl monkeys, titis, sakis, and tamarins), evaluate how well our data support various hypotheses proposed to explain “monogamy,” and compare our data to those reported on the same genera in comparative studies. Overall, we found a distressing lack of agreement between the data used in comparative studies and data from the literature for the taxa that we work with. In the final section, we propose areas of research that deserve more attention. We stress the need for more high‐quality natural history data, and we urge researchers to be cautious about the uncritical use of variables of uncertain internal validity. Overall, it is imperative that biological anthropologists establish and follow clear criteria for comparing and combining results from published studies and that researchers, reviewers, and editors alike comply with these standards to improve the transparency, reproducibility, and interpretability of causal inferences made in comparative studies.more » « less
-
Abstract We use a mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses to examine 1354 survey responses from members of the American Anthropological Association about their practice and teaching of cultural anthropology research methods. Latent profile analysis and an examination of responses to open‐ended survey questions reveal distinctive methodological clustering among anthropologists. However, two historical approaches to ethnography remain prominent:deep hanging outand amixed methods toolkit, with the former remaining central to the practice and teaching of all forms of contemporary cultural anthropology. Further, many anthropologists are committed to advancing research methods that account for power imbalances in fieldwork, such as through community‐based and participatory approaches. And a substantial number also teach a wider array of methods and techniques that open new career pathways for anthropologists. Overall, our study reveals a core set of ethnographic practices—loosely, participant‐observation, informal interviews, and the experiential immersion of the ethnographer—while also highlighting the great breadth of cultural anthropological research practice and pedagogy. The findings presented here can help inform how current and future anthropological practitioners and educators position themselves to meet the ever‐changing demands of community members, funders, clients, collaborators, and students.more » « less
-
Network analysis has become a well-recognized methodology in physics education research (PER), with study topics including student performance and persistence, faculty change, and the structure of conceptual networks. The social network analysis side of this work has focused on quantitative analysis of whole-network cases, such as the structure of networks in single classrooms. Egocentric or personal network approaches are largely unexplored, and qualitative methods are underdeveloped. In this paper, we outline theoretical and practical differences between two major network paradigms—whole-network and egocentric—and introduce theoretical frameworks and methodological considerations for egocentric studies. We also describe qualitative and mixed-methods approaches that are currently missing from the PER literature. We identify areas where these additional network methods may be of particular interest to physics education researchers and end by discussing example cases and implications for new PER studies. Published by the American Physical Society2024more » « less
-
ABSTRACT Ecology often seeks to answer causal questions, and while ecologists have a rich history of experimental approaches, novel observational data streams and the need to apply insights across naturally occurring conditions pose opportunities and challenges. Other fields have developed causal inference approaches that can enhance and expand our ability to answer ecological causal questions using observational or experimental data. However, the lack of comprehensive resources applying causal inference to ecological settings and jargon from multiple disciplines creates barriers. We introduce approaches for causal inference, discussing the main frameworks for counterfactual causal inference, how causal inference differs from other research aims and key challenges; the application of causal inference in experimental and quasi‐experimental study designs; appropriate interpretation of the results of causal inference approaches given their assumptions and biases; foundational papers; and the data requirements and trade‐offs between internal and external validity posed by different designs. We highlight that these designs generally prioritise internal validity over generalisability. Finally, we identify opportunities and considerations for ecologists to further integrate causal inference with synthesis science and meta‐analysis and expand the spatiotemporal scales at which causal inference is possible. We advocate for ecology as a field to collectively define best practices for causal inference.more » « less
