Comparing techniques, citizen science to expert science

Thanks to Ben Schiller for his Mar. 20, 2013 Fast Company article for this tidbit about an intriguing study carried out by the University of East Anglia,

Research in the Caribbean comparing the abilities of two teams of divers–one using traditional scientific methods, the other using a volunteer technique–found that the amateurs were capable of producing equal, if not better, data. After 44 underwater surveys over two weeks, the volunteers found 137 species of fish, compared to the professionals’ 106.

A University of East Anglia (UEA) Mar. 13, 2013 news release provides more detail about the research and its implications,

Research published today in the journal Methods in Ecology and Evolution shows that methods to record marine diversity used by amateurs returned results consistent with techniques favoured by peer-reviewed science.

The findings give weight to the growing phenomenon of citizen science, which sees data crowd-sourced from an army of avid twitchers, divers, walkers and other wildlife enthusiasts.

The field study compared methods used by ‘citizen’ SCUBA divers with those used by professional scientists, to measure the variety of fish species in three Caribbean sites.

Two teams of 12 divers made 144 separate underwater surveys across the sites over four weeks.

While the traditional scientific survey revealed sightings of 106 different types of fish, the volunteer technique detected greater marine diversity with a total of 137 in the same waters.

Dr Ben Holt, from UEA’s school of Biological Sciences, led the research in partnership with the Centre for Marine Resource Studies in the Caribbean and the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

He said: “The results of this study are important for the future of citizen science and the use of data collected by these programs. Allowing volunteers to use flexible and less standardised methods has important consequences for the long term success of citizen science programs. Amateur enthusiasts typically do not have the resources or training to use professional methodology. [emphasis mine] Our study demonstrates the quality of data collected using a volunteer method can match, and in some respects exceed, protocols used by professional scientists.

If the study demonstrates that using a volunteer method matches or, in some cases, exceeds a method (protocol) used by professional scientists, why make the comment about “amateur enthusiasts” not having the resources or training to use professional methods? It would seem that in this study professional methodology was not as effective as volunteer methodology.  That said, I don’t believe we should be replacing professional scientists/methods with volunteers/volunteer methods. There’s more to a scientific inquiry than data collection but this indication that data collected by and the methods used by volunteers have validity when compared to professionally collected data opens up some opportunities for volunteers and scientists.

Holt continues (from the news release),

“Very few, if any, scientific groups can collect data on the scale that volunteer groups can, so our proof that both methods return consistent results is very encouraging for citizen science in general.

“I think we will really see the value of volunteer schemes increase in future. We’re living in a world that’s changing very significantly. Environmental changes are having a big impact on ecosystems around us so we need to harness new ways of measuring the effect.

“For example Lion fish is an invasive species which was not in the Caribbean until roughly 10 years ago. They have now become a real problem in many areas and this invasion has been tracked using volunteer data. Following our study, scientists can have more confidence when using these data to consider the impact of threats, such as invasive species, on the wider natural communities.

“It is important to note that our study does not consider the abilities of the individuals performing the surveys and this is also an important consideration for any large scale biodiversity program. By addressing these issues we can make important steps towards enabling the large pool of volunteer enthusiasts to help professional researchers by collecting valuable data across many ecosystems.”

The research was carried out in under water sites close to South Caicos in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Here’s an image of the Lionfish, the gorgeous, yet  invasive, species mentioned by Holt,

Antennata Lionfish, picture taken in Zoo Schönbrunn, Vienna, Austria (downloaded from

Antennata Lionfish, picture taken in Zoo Schönbrunn, Vienna, Austria (downloaded from

Here’s a citation and a link to Holt’s article,

Comparing diversity data collected using a protocol designed for volunteers with results from a professional alternative by Ben G. Holt, Rodolfo Rioja-Nieto, M. Aaron MacNeil, Jan Lupton,  & Carsten Rahbek. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12031 Article first published online: 12 MAR 2013

This article is open access.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *