A thread posted on the NFBR Facebook
group concerning noteworthy records provides food for
thought. The important line is: 'You collect a species in a group
with which you are not very familiar. Straight away you wonder - is
it an interesting record? Would anyone be interested in hearing about
it?' Responses to the thread frequently emphasised that all
records are interesting, but of course the main point is whether the
level of interest is enough to encourage an outsider to contribute?
The occasional record of something
interesting may be an incentive to do more, but that really depends
upon feedback. So, the critical issue is for Recording Schemes to
make sure that contributors get regular general feedback, and
individual feedback either when they find something unusual or when the
organism is fairly commonplace.
Feedback I have had from recorders
suggests that they are discouraged when we, the specialists, don't
put enough effort into giving the feedback that they want. The common complaint concerns iRecord where lots of posts do not get looked at
because the scheme organiser(s) is/are not willing to participate or has/have
not got the capacity to do verification on a daily basis. I am very
guilty of that! If pictures are posted on Facebook pages, the common
complaint is that nobody looks at them or, in my case, that I don't
adequately spend time explaining why something is, or is not, what
its contributor thinks it might be. One contributor took the trouble
to express their frustrations (paraphrased) 'I put a lot of work into
cropping these photographs and you could not be bothered to comment more than
'Syrphus sp.'.
We need to think about this. In the
case of that particular contributor, I now try to write a bit more on
each post. It adds to my time commitment, whilst
not necessarily improving the numbers or quality of records entering
the recording scheme!
The challenge we face is, therefore, how to
provide the necessary feedback to enthuse potential new specialists,
whilst avoiding burn-out amongst the existing specialists. I am
afraid there is no simple answer. What we can say is that modern
communication has raised expectations. Recording Schemes need to
provide updated maps almost in 'real time'. We don't have the luxury
of working for several years to produce an atlas – we really need
that atlas to be on-line and regularly updated. Likewise, we need to
engage on interactive media and make ourselves available to provide
advice on a daily or even hourly basis.
These demands are a different paradigm
to the days when a scheme organiser had the summer out in the field,
spent the winter checking specimens and corresponded with those
contributors that sent in record cards or sought help with
identification of problem specimens. They were far gentler times.
Today, organisers of schemes that generate large volumes of records
must expect to spend several hours a day providing advice and
verifying records. I don't notice a great rush of people who have the
skills to do this and are willing to take on the job. I do see a
gradual growth in skills and the development of a small cohort of
people who will be able to take on aspects of mentoring that are
essential. Mentoring is a skill in itself and we need to avoid pitfalls such as elitism or dogmatism.
This takes me to the nub of the
problem. Where there are lots of capable specialists who are prepared
to spend their time helping with ID and providing feedback, it may be
possible to do more to provide the necessary encouragement. In many
cases, however, there are very small numbers of people capable of
providing technical advice and consequently the demand often
outstrips the capacity to provide. Increasing interest in a group of
organisms does not necessarily lead to a commensurate growth of
specialists – that takes many years!
In the case of hoverflies
there is no chance of providing a specialist County Recorder for all
counties. I recall that when I tried to encourage one very capable
recorder to take a more prominent role in the Hoverfly Recording
Scheme the response was: 'I like the fieldwork but don't want to take
on the administration'. Wise man! But we do need people who are
willing (and able) to take on the administration.
Somehow we must cross this hurdle, but
we must do so without sacrificing quality.