Readjusting observational grids in dragonfly field guides.

Wildlife field guide books present salient features of species, from colour and form to behaviour, and give their readers a vocabulary to express what these features look like. Such structures for observation, or observational grids, allow users to identify wildlife species through what Law and Lynch have called 'the difference that makes the difference'. In this article, we show how these grids, and the characteristics that distinguish species, change over time in response to wider concerns in the community that use and make the field guides. We use the development of Dutch field guides for dragonflies to show how the ethics of observing wildlife, the recreational value of dragonfly observation, the affordances of observational tools, and biodiversity monitoring and conservation goals all have repercussions for how dragonflies are to be identified. Ultimately, this affects not only how dragonflies are to be observed and identified, but also what is taken to be 'out there'. The article is based on a transdisciplinary cooperation between a dragonfly enthusiast with emic knowledge and access, and an STS researcher. We hope the articulation of our approach might inspire analyses of other observational practices and communities.

Citizen science networks in natural history and the collective validation of biodiversity data.

Biodiversity data are in increasing demand to inform policy and management. A substantial portion of these data is generated in citizen science networks. To ensure the quality of biodiversity data, standards and criteria for validation have been put in place. We used interviews and document analysis from the United Kingdom and The Netherlands to examine how data validation serves as a point of connection between the diverse people and practices in natural history citizen science networks. We found that rather than a unidirectional imposition of standards, validation was performed collectively. Specifically, it was enacted in ongoing circulations of biodiversity records between recorders and validators as they jointly negotiated the biodiversity that was observed and the validity of the records. These collective validation practices contributed to the citizen science character or natural history networks and tied these networks together. However, when biodiversity records were included in biodiversity-information initiatives on different policy levels and scales, the circulation of records diminished. These initiatives took on a more extractive mode of data use. Validation ceased to be collective with important consequences for the natural history networks involved and citizen science more generally.