1. Software designers and the National Biodiversity Network
Databases and Biodiversity policies in the UK: the centralisation of information vs. peer to peer networks?
Maria J. Pacha, Rebecca Ellis & Claire Waterton
Institute of Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy- Lancaster University- UK
What is it about?
The construction of novel forms of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has, since the 1992 Global Biodiversity Convention, been seen to be a matter of urgency in the biodiversity policy domain: global biodiversity is held to be in crisis and understanding the extent of its loss and the biodiversity that remains is deemed as an important underpinning to national and global policymaking (Royal Society 2003). As other social scientists have recognised, the making of databases about the world’s biodiversity has an interesting and informative history (Bowker 1999, Bowker and Starr 2002; Richards 1995). What is striking is that the lessons of such histories – most notably the substantial challenges of making strong connections between centralised, standardised information on the one hand and the specific exigencies and information needs of local people and places on the other – remain very difficult to incorporate within the construction of such databases.
The proposed research is exploring two very different biodiversity softwares and their relationship to different kinds of databases currently in use in the UK. The first software, Recorder, was set within the wider global biodiversity policy context, namely the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) which is partnership of organisations that encourages the centralisation and exchange of biodiversity data in the UK. The second software, Mapmate, answers to a more ‘grounded’ set of needs and aspirations, driven largely by the practices and expectation of groups of field naturalists in the UK.
Which
softwares?
Developed by a private organisation.
Especially designed for gathering and managing biological data.
Popular for individuals and Natural History Societies for its simplicity.
It is based on the needs and expectations of individuals.
Good for peer to peer data exchange.
Its design does not align with the national portal for biodiversity data (NBN gateway).
It was commissioned as a result of a national initiative.
Developed by a governmental organisation agency (JNCC) following the specifications of different organisations.
Complex but powerful software for collating large databases.
It structure is such, that the data that is stored can be submitted to the national portal for biodiversity data (NBN gateway).
Data gatherers
Data gatherers
Data collator
Data gatherers
Data gatherers
Preliminary findings
What questions and how to answer them?
The first interviews have been with Software designers and also the National Biodiversity Network. The main findings from them were related to issues of:
DIFFERENT VISIONS of contributing and user communities which influence the actual software design.
CHANGE and FLEXIBILITY: biological software and large databases are adapting to the needs of different in groups in innovative ways.
TRUST: the importance of trust for making software networks work well.
GOVERNANCE OF INFORMATION: importance of encouraging data “ownership” on the part of data contributors. Also data contributors decide how “data quality” is defined through the use of metadata.
The questions that we want to answer are related to:
Constructing the user? (Ackrich 1995)
In what ways does a software (and related database) shape the knowledge making practices, visions and expectations of different communities involved in biological recording in the UK.
(2) Global-local-”glocal” - tensions?
What goes on at the interface between:
the policy-led drive to standardise and globalise biological data relevant for national and global biodiversity policy.
Motivations and expectations of the main specialist community contributing to biological recording in the UK.
Methods:
Semi-structured interviews with ICT designers and members of the National Biodiversity Network ; data gatherers; and data users.
Focus groups with the above to facilitate shared reflections.
Data users
Data gatherers
Software designers and the National Biodiversity Network
Use of the study
Biological Recording softwares are emerging as new tools which could potentially unite many professional, amateur, policy, and lay people with an interest in biodiversity through common usage.
The study will help to understand the ways in which these technological tools develop and their use by different groups. Most importantly, it will encourage reflection about ways to meet diverse interests and to create a robust, fertile and multi-dimensional biological recording and conservation policy community.
References
Akrich, M.(1995) User Representations: Practices, Methods and Sociology. in Rip, Arie, Thomas Misa and Johan Schot (eds.) Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. Pinter Publisher, London. Bowker, G “Biodiversity Data-diversity”, Social Studies of Science, 30/5, ; Bowker, G. & Star, S. L Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences, Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press; Richards, T The Imperial Archive: Knowledge and the Fantasy of Empire, London: Verso; The Royal Society, Measuring Biodiversity for Conservation, Policy document 11/03, ISBN ; London, August 2003;
This research is supported by the Science and Society Programme of the Economic and Social Sciences Research Council, UK.