I think these changes are symptomatic of both the rush to perceived new
<trends> (and hence funding opportunities of course) and an increasing
disinterest in natural history (which has been mentioned on the list numerous
times). It is hard to see how to oppose these trends. I have just been to a
conference where in one session we discussed <Big data> versus/and
<Place-based> research and we did come to see how these could start to come
together in some innovative forms, and how place-based could better feed the
big picture and models, while being renewed by means of connection among
individual place-based projects (networking among the places). This was an
optimistic exchange, and I did see some fervent advocates for natural history
defending this approach, with a twist. We also thought about some of the risks
of a flight towards big data (only): shifting decisions to higher scales,
ignoring the diversity of landscapes, not attaching the right information to
the right scale etc.
An increasing mobility of researchers, lack of time..., obsessive connection
to technology and many other factors tend to separate people from an interest
in the natural world, and interest for the natural history of their <place>.
An effort to counteract these trends will have to start early in education
systems and remain strong, and find a place in biology and other natural
resource-based programs. In my own context, we are currently renewing and
increasing field-based experiences in both our environment and forestry
programs, although I don't observe this as a general trend. At the same time we
need to increase students' ability to analyze large amounts of data using
increasingly sophisticated means. These need not be opposing, as others have
pointed out here (some nice examples). I think we can do both, and be creative
about the means to bring these together. <Big data> can take us new places,
but natural history keeps us grounded. At least SOME of us still need to have
context, know keenly our own places, use our intuition to make leaps (which
happens more often in the field, I find).
An important discussion, I think,
Alison Munson, U Laval, Canada
