Palaeontologia Electronicabusiness and industry (Gongla and Rizzuto, 2001). In addition, the Association of Science -Technology Centers (ASTC, 2016) and CAISE (2016) currently support

Palaeontologia Electronica palaeo-electronica.org

Amateur paleontological societies and fossil clubs, interactions with professional paleontologists,

and social paleontology in the United States

Bruce J. MacFadden, Lisa Lundgren, Kent Crippen, Betty A. Dunckel, and Shari Ellis

ABSTRACT

Considerable interest exists among lifelong learners in the USA about fossils andthe science of paleontology. Unlike some other science-related groups, e.g., astron-omy and ornithology, interest in fossils among amateur paleontologists is primarilyfocused within local clubs and societies with little national coordination. This paperpresents the results of formative evaluation of the FOSSIL project, conducted after theproject “Kickoff” meeting held at the NAPC (North American Paleontological Conven-tion) in 2014. FOSSIL is developing a national networked community of practice thatincludes amateur and professional paleontologists. Our research indicates that morethan 60 amateur fossil clubs and societies exist in the USA, of which almost 40 haveelected to be part of the FOSSIL network. Overarching goals of this program includeenhanced collaborations between amateurs and professionals, knowledge-buildingabout paleontology, access to resources for lifelong learning, and development a via-ble learning community of practice focused on topics of common and societal interest,such as collections (including digitization), evolution, climate change, and K-12 out-reach. In addition to more traditional means such as list-serves and newsletters, FOS-SIL is developing an online community (myFOSSIL) and using social media (Facebookand Twitter) to foster communication and interactions among stakeholders, and thuspromoting the concept of “social paleontology”.

Bruce J. MacFadden. Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA, [email protected] Lundgren. School of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA, [email protected] Crippen. School of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA, [email protected] A. Dunckel. Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA, [email protected] Ellis. Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA, [email protected]

Keywords: amateurs; clubs; paleontology; professionals; societies; United States

MacFadden, Bruce J., Lundgren, Lisa, Crippen, Kent, Dunckel, Betty A., and Ellis, Shari. 2016. Amateur paleontological societies and fossil clubs, interactions with professional paleontologists, and social paleontology in the United States. Palaeontologia Electronica 19.2.1E: 1-19palaeo-electronica.org/content/2016/1471-commentary-amateur-professionals-in-us

Copyright: Palaeontological Association May 2016

MACFADDEN ET AL.: AMATEUR & PROFESSIONALS IN US

INTRODUCTION

Ever since the widespread establishment ofnatural history museums in the USA during the 19th

and early 20th centuries, and with the help of char-ismatic fossils such as dinosaurs, paleontology hasdeveloped as an intrinsically interesting sciencedomain to the general public (e.g., Plotnick, 2007).During the second half of the twentieth century,many fossil interest groups, clubs, or societiesdeveloped, oftentimes in association with localmuseums (or universities), as a way to promotecommon interests and activities in paleontologyamong amateurs and professionals. While descrip-tions of professional paleontological societies (e.g.,Paleontological Society and Society of VertebratePaleontology) can be found in the literature (e.g.,Priscum, 2016; SVP, 1941-2010; Archangelsky etal., 2000), little is chronicled about the develop-ment of amateur fossil clubs and societies in theU.S. Knowledge about these individual fossil clubsand societies is typically contained in their newslet-ters, archives, and when available, on their websites, but no single place currently exists where thisinformation is compiled or systematically docu-mented. Likewise, the contributions of individualamateurs to the discipline of paleontology are man-ifold, but oftentimes are poorly documented or rec-ognized (Catalani, 2014).

In 2012 and 2013, we began a project to bet-ter understand the status of fossil clubs and societ-ies, their members, and associations withprofessional paleontologists and museums in theUSA. We previously conducted a front-end needsassessment (sensu Diamond et al., 2009) to betterunderstand our audiences (Crippen et al., 2016). In

2013 we started a project called FOSSIL(www.myfossil.org). In 2014 we conducted a for-mative evaluation (sensu Diamond et al., 2009)with amateur and professional paleontologists inthe USA to obtain their feedback regarding thedevelopment of the FOSSIL program components.This paper describes the FOSSIL project, which isdeveloping a national networked community ofpractice (CoP, Figure 1; sensu Lave and Wegner,1991; Wenger et al., 2002) that integrates fossilclubs, societies, amateurs, professionals, muse-ums, and related institutions throughout the USA.With this background in mind, the purpose of thispaper is to present: (1) the results of the formativeevaluation conducted in 2014; and (2) qualitativeobservations, insights, and best practices devel-oped since we conducted the formative evaluation,including the emergence of what we call “socialpaleontology”.

THEORETICAL LEARNING FRAMEWORK

Community of practice

A community of practice (CoP) is a theoreticalterm used to describe the social learning of a groupof people through a shared practice related to adomain of knowledge (Lave and Wenger, 1991;Wenger et al. 2002). In our case, the group is com-prised of amateurs and professionals who areinterested and engaged in the practice of paleon-tology. The act of doing paleontology as a socialprocess is the core learning mechanism for thecommunity (and also relates to our concept ofsocial paleontology described below). Thus, learn-ing is defined not as an accumulation of knowledgewithin an individual, but as participation within agroup that involves the use of evidence, theories,and tools in shared approaches or best practices ofdiscovery, problem solving, and communication(Wenger, 1998). Such forms of participation canoccur through formal (i.e., structured, schoolrelated) and informal (i.e., voluntary, interest-driven) experiences.

Membership within a CoP is viewed throughthe lens of legitimate participation and occurs alonga continuum from novice to recognized expert.Legitimate participation is a euphemism for sociallearning, the embodiment of becoming something,an expert. The process of professionalizing one'smembership is defined by enculturation, a processbrought about through social interaction and appro-priation of the cultural activity of the domain. Forpaleontology, this activity includes observing fossilevidence and analyzing it in order to model past

FIGURE 1. Theoretical learning model for social pale-ontology in which amateur and professional paleontolo-gists come together via the FOSSIL project within theframework of a Community of Practice.

2

PALAEO-ELECTRONICA.ORG

life, constructing theoretical arguments and com-municating this process through various dissemi-nation modes such as presentations andpublications. Legitimate professional practiceincludes such elements as vocabulary, skills, tech-niques, stories, symbols, and routines, as well asrelated social dimensions (Kienle and Wessner,2005).

Communities of practice have been promotedand identified in a range of domains, including sci-ence (Kienle and Wessner, 2005) and education(US Department of Education, 2011) as well asbusiness and industry (Gongla and Rizzuto, 2001).In addition, the Association of Science -TechnologyCenters (ASTC, 2016) and CAISE (2016) currentlysupport and facilitate CoPs as an effective meansfor growing informal science education. In nearlyall of these cases, online communication is high-lighted as a critical and contemporary factor fordetermining success. Astronomy from the GroundUp (www.afguonline.org/), Encyclopedia of Life(eol.org/), and eBird (ebird.org/) are all currentexamples of online CoPs that are based uponengaging the public in science (i.e., citizen science;e.g., Bonney et al., 2009).

Social paleontology

Our experience with the FOSSIL project overthe past several years clearly demonstrates thevalue of the social dimension of learning within thecontext of twenty-first century communication. Assuch, we envision social paleontology as open andcollaborative knowledge-building discourse relatedto the domain of paleontology among people of alldemographics via technology. This inclusive prac-tice of discovering and learning together includesthe use of popular social media such as Facebookand Twitter as well as our online community site.One role of the FOSSIL project is to act as thetechnology steward to mediate the CoP and pro-vide leadership in addressing the goals and needsof the community. Thus far, our research has iden-tified three general themes that represent the prac-tice of social paleontology: (1) making connectionsof groups of people, objects (fossils), and locations(geography) based on shared attributes; (2) mak-ing observations, i.e., recording, building, andmaintaining information about objects (fossils) thatexist or have existed in the real-world; and (3) hav-ing conversations, i.e., collaborative discourseamong people that includes the sharing of variousinformation resources (Crippen et al., 2016).

Intended primary audiences: Definitions

Amateur paleontologist. A person who engagesin collecting fossils and learning about paleontol-ogy as a pastime and without compensation; noras a profession (also see Hooks, 2005). Synonymsthat have typically been used in place of “amateur”include “avocational,” “hobbyist,” and “citizen,”although Crippen et al. (2016) found a preferenceamong these individuals for the term “amateur”.Professional paleontologist. A person who ispaid to do, teach about, or interpret paleontologyas his/her profession, typically at a museum, uni-versity, college, or governmental agency. Thescope of this definition also includes consultingpaleontologists, e.g., working on fossil resourceassessment and mitigation.

This paper is focused on the interactionsbetween amateur and professional paleontologists.We also realize that there is a third potential audi-ence, i.e., the commercial paleontologist, definedas a person who sells fossils. The interactionsbetween and among commercial paleontologistsand amateur and professional paleontologists,which has had a complex history (see recent, dif-fering points of view, e.g., Pringle, 2014; Shimadaet al., 2014; Larson et al., 2016), is outside theintended scope and design of this study.

BACKGROUND: SUMMARY OF FRONT-END EVALUATION 2012

Prior to 2013, there was no single place whereone could go to understand the paleontology com-munity throughout the USA that includes amateurs,professionals, and other related stakeholders.Crippen et al. (2016) present the results of a front-end evaluation (sensu Diamond et al., 2009) ofamateur and professional paleontologists and theirorganized activities and connections to museums.We summarize their findings here because theyprovide important background for the formativeevaluation and other observations presentedbelow. Electronic surveys were sent to our relevanttarget audiences in fall 2012; responses werereceived from 30 clubs and 42 professional paleon-tologists. Because of the two different initial targetaudiences for the front-end surveys, we first sum-marize the results for the fossil clubs and societiesand then discuss those of the professional paleon-tologists.

3


Amateur paleontologists and organizations (clubs and societies)

The 30 fossil clubs and societies thatresponded have been in existence for a maximumof 65 years (Dry Dredgers, from the Cincinnatiregion of Ohio, is the oldest) and many have beenactive for decades (mean age of clubs is 30 years).The purpose and mission of the clubs are varied,but relevant core ideals include promoting the sci-ence of paleontology, collecting fossils, learning,dissemination, and social aspects. The clubs aretypically non-profit and geographically focused witha region in the U.S., i.e., there is no national ama-teur fossil club or society. Most clubs have a mod-est annual membership fee that is used to defraythe costs of their activities and additional revenuesare typically raised by sales, auctions, and fairs. Atthe lower end of the financial spectrum, one clubprides itself in charging its members “$3 per year,or three years for $10” (MacFadden, personalobservation, 2015).

These individual organizations range in sizefrom 12 to 600 members (mean = 170), with largerclubs primarily located in urban and suburbanareas. Rural clubs are not common. The age ofindividual club members is reported to range from1 to 95 (these extremes seem to be outliers), withthe distribution skewed towards members olderthan 30 years of age. The lack of younger mem-bers (< 30 years old) is of concern to some organi-zations. This also reflects the demographic trendsof many lifelong learners and their hobbies, not justin the USA but also elsewhere, e.g., the UnitedKingdom (Lloyd et al., 2012). The gender diversityis roughly 50% males/50% females for most of theclubs. More than half of the clubs self-identify asnot particularly diverse. The vast majority of clubsconsist predominantly of white members; theminority representation is Hispanic/Latino, particu-larly in regions where they are well represented inthe general population.

Professionals typically have been reluctant torefer to members of paleontological societies andfossil clubs as “amateurs” (see Hooks, 2005).Although the word amateur takes from its Latin rootamor- to mean “love” (Brown, 1956), in commonusage it has the baggage of being less esteemed,e.g., a person inexperienced or unskilled in a par-ticular activity or “amateurish,” meaning character-istic of an amateur, especially in having faults ordeficiencies (www.dictionary.reference.com). Themajority of non-professionals prefer the name“amateur paleontologist” (57%), followed by “avo-

cational paleontologist” (17%), “citizen paleontolo-gist” (10%), and “hobbyist paleontologist” (10%)(Crippen et al., 2016). From these survey results,we have been using the term amateur.

Of the 30 amateur organizations that weresurveyed, 40% refer to themselves as a “society”and 27% as a “club,” (other designations included“academy,” “friends,” “protectors”), whereas 43%used the adjective “fossil” (e.g., club) and 40%used the adjective “paleontological” or noun “pale-ontology” in their name. Over the past severalyears at least one organization has changed itsname from a “club” to a “society,” which wasrelated to their incorporation and an increasedsense of purpose and credibility, e.g., when seek-ing outside funding (e.g., grants) for programs (Fer-rara, 2015). The relative emphasis on these wordsas part of organizational self-identity is illustrated inFigure 2.

More than half of the organizations (60%)meet on a regular monthly basis; others meetevery two months, or once or twice a year. Themonthly meetings typically include announce-ments, conducting the business of the organiza-tion, a presentation (such as a talk, oftentimes byan invited speaker), and time for comparing fossils,general group discussion, refreshments, andsocializing. Other club activities include trainingand workshops, publishing a newsletter, website,fossil fairs and festivals, and student scholarships.By far the most popular activity common to theseorganizations is field trips, primarily to collect fos-sils.

Thus, one of the common denominatorsamong the clubs is the desire of their members tocollect fossils and make their own private collec-tions, either for personal use, to donate to muse-ums, and/or sometimes to trade and sell. Ofrelevance to the FOSSIL project, these collectionsare typically used to: (1) learn about fossils and lifeof the past; and (2) make, organize, and displayfossil collections; e.g., including at home, schools,and fossil fairs and festivals.

One respondent noted that the reason theycollected fossils is for “fun,” and indeed the nameof one of the clubs is “Fossils for Fun.” There alsocan be a competitive, or gaming aspect to collect-ing fossils. Accordingly, some respondentsexpressed a sense that within a group collectingfossils on a field trip, end-of-day comparisons ofwhat each person found (e.g., biggest, rarest, bestpreserved, etc.) provided additional motivationalong with the thrill of discovery.

4


Fossil collections and digitization

Although there are no currently reliable esti-mates, there may be upwards of 100 million fossilspecimens contained in the paleontologicalresearch collections across the USA. One of thestrategic goals of the FOSSIL project is to advancethe digitization of these fossils for access to userssuch as amateur paleontologists. Digitization isdefined as: (1) developing an electronic databaseof specimen catalogs; (2) attaching images, eitherconsisting of 2D photos or 3D scanned images tothe electronic database (Cunningham et al., 2014);and (3) the possibility of attaching other relatedresources, including media (videos), field notes,ancillary data, and relevant publications. Likewise,there is a further expectation that digitizedresources such as fossils are made availableonline through a web portal such as iDigBio (2015).The push to digitize the nation’s natural history col-lections (Page et al., 2015) has immense potentialfor unrivalled access to fossil collections andrelated resources (Uhen et al., 2013). The amateurfossil organizations surveyed overwhelmingly(96%) indicate they would be interested in digitiza-tion activities. Similar initiatives are underway, e.g.,in Germany where about 120 amateur and profes-sional paleontologists are digitizing fossils withinthe foraminifera.eu database (FEUDAT) project(Heseman, 2015).

STEM Learning

One goal of the FOSSIL project is to enhancescience learning as broadly defined by the “strandsof science learning” framework (National ResearchCouncil, 2009). The six strands include: (1) excite-ment, interest, and motivation; (2) knowledge; (3)asking and answering questions and evaluatingevidence; (4) understanding science as a way ofknowing; (5) engaging in science; and (6) identify-ing as a science learner and contributor. A widevariety of out-of-school experiences make import-ant contributions to adult science learning (Falk etal., 2007; Falk and Needham, 2013). However therole of paleontology in fostering adult amateurs’understanding of science has not previously beenexplored. Our front-end evaluation analyzed boththe background knowledge and interest of therespondents to the following topics that provideopportunities for learning across the sciencestrands: (a) paleontology as a scientific discipline;(b) identifying and organizing fossils and fossil col-lections (“curation”); (c) fossil collections in U.S.natural history museums; (d) geology as it relatesto fossils; (e) evolution based on the fossil record;and (f) climate change interpreted from the fossilrecord. We found high levels of interest in thesetopics, suggesting high motivation for further learn-ing (Crippen et al., 2016). Also, paleontologyencompasses two “hot-button” topics of broad soci-etal relevance today, i.e., evolution and climatechange (e.g., Leshner, 2010). Interest in these twotopics are similar to the others, perhaps suggesting

FIGURE 2. Word cloud illustrating the relative use of different words in the names of the 30 fossil societies and clubsthat participated in the front-end evaluation. The size of the word relates to its frequency of occurrence.

5


a lack of bias or misconception that potentiallycould have affected perceived knowledge or inter-est.

Crippen et al. (2016) report that 90% of ama-teur organizations have an association with profes-sional paleontologists. The role of the professionalpaleontologist may include: identifying specimens,giving talks, participating as a member, leadingfield trips, serving as an advisor or part of the lead-ership, and engaging in field work. Likewise, 93%of the respondents indicate their organization has arelationship with a museum or other informal sci-ence institution (e.g., park, nature, or science cen-ter). Activities and interactions with theseinstitutions include donating specimens, volunteer-ing, outreach, and the institution hosting meetingsfor the organizations.

Prior to administering the survey in 2012 andbased on personal experience of the authors (e.g.,BJM), there was a perception of barriers that sepa-rate the amateur and professional communities.Nevertheless, 65% of amateur respondents did notbelieve there were barriers and that the workingrelationships between these two communities wasgood; 31% did think there were barriers. The FOS-SIL project is working towards mitigating these bar-riers regardless of whether they are perceived orreal (also see further discussion below).

Ninety-seven percent of the amateur clubsand societies maintain a website, and dependingupon the organization, between 50 and 100% ofmembers use email as a means of communication.List-serves are not popular (17% of clubs usethese) and when this survey was conducted in2012, some clubs reported using Facebook. Withregard to the Internet, respondents perceive that itis being used by their members to access museumand other club websites, scientific articles, onlineimage galleries, and social media such as Face-book. Eighty-three percent of the organizationspublish a newsletter. These organizations histori-cally have not had much communication with peerorganizations outside of their respective region. Infact, almost two-thirds (64%) of the organizationsreport no coordination of activities with other fossilorganizations. Of the remaining one-third (36%)that have done jointly sponsored activities withother organizations, by far the most frequent activ-ity includes paleontological field and collectingtrips.

Professional paleontologists’ point of view

Professional paleontologists include profes-sors, typically in geology or biology; museum

administrators (e.g., directors); curators; collectionmanagers and other support staff (e.g., prepara-tors); and resource managers and contractors.Eighty-two percent report an affiliation with amuseum, typically as curators or managers of apaleontology collection. More than half of thesecollections are available to some degree (e.g., por-tions or all of the particular collection) in a search-able format on the web, although some are stillrelegated to “Dark Data,” i.e., not accessible on theweb.

Eighty-one percent of respondents indicatedthey have interacted with fossil clubs and theirmembers, and they have been involved in a varietyof roles and tasks. By far the most common inter-action that professional paleontologists have hadwith amateur organizations is to present talks andidentify fossils. In terms of the extent of theirinvolvement with amateur organizations and theirmembers, 25% respond “Significant,” 16% “Moder-ate,” and 59% “Minimal.” The most frequent reasonfor not spending more time with amateurs is “lackof time” (i.e., given their other professional respon-sibilities).

Seventy-one percent of members of fossilclubs and societies have access to the physicalcollections curated by professionals. About half ofthe professional paleontologists report amateursvolunteering in their collections, and/or assistingwith related activities. These volunteers contributecumulatively tens to thousands of hours to taskssuch as: preparing specimens, entering data into acatalog or database, collecting fossils, identifyingand cataloguing fossils, working in archives, photo-graphing fossils, screen-washing fossils, and pro-viding tours and other forms of outreach.

Fifty-four percent of professional paleontolo-gists responded that there are barriers to interac-tions with amateur organizations. It is interesting tonote that a seemingly greater percentage (54%) ofprofessionals perceive there to be barriers relativeto the response from the amateurs (25%).

In summary, the two primary target audiences,i.e., amateur and professional paleontologists,have many commonalities, including fossil collect-ing, developing collections, and learning about thescience of paleontology. Previously there has beenno common “space” where these stakeholderscould come together on a national level in the U.S.This is a strategic goal of the FOSSIL project bydeveloping the CoP.

6


BUILDING CONNECTIONS AND COMMUNITY: FORMATIVE EVALUATION 2014

The results of the front-end evaluation (Crip-pen et al., 2016) demonstrate both the need andinterest in developing a national network linkingamateur paleontological clubs and societies, pro-fessional paleontologists, and museums, and simi-lar institutions in the USA. According to Wenger etal. (2002), this constitutes the initiation phase forbuilding a community of practice (Figure 1). Oncethe community is identified, then the next phase isbuilding the community, oftentimes facilitated by a“launch” event.

The FOSSIL project was funded by a NationalScience Foundation grant in October 2013. Welaunched the FOSSIL project with a Kickoff Meet-ing concurrent with the 10th North American Pale-ontological Convention (NAPC) held in Gainesville,Florida in February 2014. The NAPC organizingcommittee specifically intended to welcome ama-teurs, for whom many we later realized was theirfirst large professional-oriented meeting. All regis-trants were free to attend the convention talks,social events, and related activities. Within NAPCwe hosted a day-long symposium entitled: “Cele-brating Public Participation in Paleontology,” duringwhich two of the 10 talks were presented by ama-teurs, along with four posters by amateurs. Wealso embedded a one-day FOSSIL meeting, whichwe titled “Building Connections,” within the conven-tion, as well as held a special post-meeting fieldtrip for amateur attendees. One or more membersof 34 fossil societies and clubs attended the NAPCmeeting.

A formative evaluation was conducted by ourexternal project evaluators, Audience ViewpointsConsulting (AVC, 2015). An e-survey instrument(Appendix 1) was distributed to amateurs and pro-fessionals a few weeks after the NAPC and FOS-SIL Kickoff Meeting. Forty-nine surveys weredistributed; 40 participants responded with a com-pleted survey, including 33 of 40 self-identifiedamateurs (response rate 83%), and likewise sevenof nine professionals (78%). These relativeresponses rates are considered high and accept-able rates for on-line survey instruments (Manfredaet al., 2008; Shih and Fan, 2008). We realize thatthe survey represents responses from a limitedsample and is likely biased towards participantswho are predisposed to collaboration. It thereforeis neither representative nor generalizable to allmembers of these two target audiences within the

USA. The results, however, are relevant to furtherunderstanding the intended target audiences of theFOSSIL project.

Participation, expectations, and “vibe” during NAPC

All 40 (100%) of the respondents attended theMonday NAPC symposium “Celebrating PublicParticipation in Paleontology,” and there wasstrong attendance at other FOSSIL-related activi-ties, e.g., 88% at the embedded FOSSIL meeting(lunch, keynote talk, workshop, and brainstormingsessions). Of the respondents (amateurs and pro-fessional pooled), 85% reported their expectationswere met or exceeded (i.e., with ratings of either 6or 7 on a scale of 1 to 7). It should also be notedthat 28% of attendees, mostly amateurs, wereunsure about their preconceived expectationsbecause they had never been to a large profes-sional paleontological conference before. Forexample:

“I did not know what to expect [-] never been to a conference but once I [got] into the activities it was a great learning experience.”

On a scale of 1 to 7, 88% of respondents felt“Welcome” (6) or “Very Welcome” (7) at the NAPC.In a similar open-ended question, there was a gen-eral pattern (~20% of respondents) that the meet-ing was inclusive and welcoming to both theamateurs and professionals. For example:

“I felt it was a wonderfully inclusive meeting since the amateur community also participated.”

“If they [the professionals] are sincere it seemed that they were reaching across the aisle to interact with amateurs. I found that very refreshing.”

Participants were asked to indicate which ses-sions they considered to be the most useful. Thelargest number of respondents (30%) consideredthose pertaining to education and outreach to bethe most useful, followed by the FOSSIL project(16%), and academic (16%) sessions. Open-ended responses to these topics included the fol-lowing preferences:

“Innovations in outreach education in paleo.”

“The FOSSIL project round tables and discussions.”

“The keynote speakers were inspiring, and three of the academic lectures were on topics I study, while the sessions on public outreach were very easy to follow…”

7


Building connections

Following along with the process of buildingan integrated CoP (Wenger et al., 2002) thatincludes both amateurs and professionals (Figure1), as mentioned above, the theme of the embed-ded FOSSIL component of the meeting was “Build-ing Connections.” For many of the amateurrespondents, this was the first time they attended aprofessional paleontological meeting and, in sodoing, had the opportunity to observe professionalspractice and communicate what they do in a formallearning setting. Sixty-two percent of the presumedamateurs indicated there was “Sufficient” (34%) or“More than Enough” (28%) opportunities to interactwith professionals during the conference. Likewise,as Crippen et al. (2016) reported, typically mostmembers of amateur clubs and societies do nothave much contact with members of other clubs,particularly those that are geographically more dis-tant. (An exception to this might be the multipleorganizations in Florida, which are within a fewhours of each other and report interactions andjoint activities.) Nevertheless, although the historyis one of little long-distance interaction, 83%responded that they were either “Comfortable”(26%) or “Extremely Comfortable” (58%) contact-ing another fossil club or society member who theydo not know. Likewise, a similar number (84%) ofamateurs were either “Comfortable” (29%) or“Extremely Comfortable” (48%) contacting a pro-fessional paleontologist (Figure 3). (We did not askthe similar question of the professionals about con-

tacting amateurs.) Despite this strong willingnessto connect, it would be disingenuous to suggestthat no barriers continue to exist in building theseconnections.

Respondents were asked if the developmentof a national network such as FOSSIL mightenhance building a community that includes bothamateurs and professionals, and also how it wouldadvance the science of paleontology. More thanhalf of respondents indicated the network wouldenhance collaboration between professional andamateurs (55%). Twenty-nine percent indicated itprovided a means for validation of (amateurs’) con-tributions, and 26% said it would provide access toresources/artifacts. One respondent commented:

“Make them feel more connected to the science of paleontology as active contributors.”

Relevant to connecting and building commu-nity, one respondent indicated:

“I can see the opportunity to interact with other groups across the country and build collaborations, plus connect with the professional community.”

Perceived benefits

For any nascent collaboration, or one in whichparticipants become more engaged in commonactivities and networking, there need to be mutualbenefits, either perceived and/or realized, other-wise the collaboration will be difficult to sustain. Forboth groups some of the most important perceivedbenefits include access to fossils and associatedresources, collaborations, and improved relation-ships between professionals and amateurs. In theend, the discipline will advance because:

“Professional paleontologists will get to see and study fossils they may not have had a chance to do before.”

“Amateur paleontologists will have more opportunities to connect and do publishable work with professionals. Some amateurs already do this. I think amateur paleontologists will gain a level of respect they deserve.”

Barriers

Any project such as FOSSIL that seeks todevelop a national network bringing together twoseeming disparate audiences likely has potentialbarriers to success. One-quarter (27%) of all of theresponses mention the issue of trust between ama-teurs and professionals. A related issue is thatsome respondents indicate amateurs do notreceive proper credit and likewise do not feel vali-

FIGURE 3. Perceived comfort (%) of amateur respon-dents contacting other amateurs versus professionals.Along the x-axis, 1 represents “Not comfortable,”whereas 6 is “Comfortable,” and 7 is “Very Comfort-able.”

8


dated for their contributions to paleontology. Thesefeelings are exemplified as follows:

“The relationship between the amateur and professional paleontologists is sometimes strained with a lot of suspicion on both sides.”

“Trust. Some of the clubs are still afraid that the museum will [invoke] ‘eminent domain’ and take fossils away.”

“Getting past the bias between amateur and professional.”

“Anti-amateur attitude of certain academics.”

“Getting the credit/recognition for a fossil donation.”

“Professionals…don’t see anyone without credentials as worth their time.”

On the other hand, the professionals we sur-veyed were unanimous that amateurs are bothenthusiastic and knowledgeable about paleontol-ogy, plus more than half (57%) indicate amateursare dedicated and hard-working. These data beliethe perception from amateurs of a lack of respectfrom the professionals. We also realize that thisresult might represent sampling bias, i.e., the pro-fessionals who responded to this survey are pre-disposed to working with amateurs and thereforeare not representative of the entire professionalcommunity.

The influence of commercial paleontologistswas brought up by a few (6%) respondents, forexample:

“The problem of commercial sale of fossils. Controversy over selling fossils—some professionals refuse to interact with amateurs because of this issue.”

Thus, there is a perception among some ama-teurs that professionals “lump” all non-profession-als into a single category that includes bothamateur and commercial paleontologists, when infact many individuals within these groups havevery different objectives for why they engage in thepursuit of fossil collecting.

Other respondents indicate logistics andremoteness as barriers to bringing professionalsand amateurs together. The responses from thesurvey include: (1) the lack of cyberconnectivitythat potentially excludes some prospective partici-pants; and (2) timing, i.e., professional paleontolo-gists oftentimes practice what they do during“normal working hours.” Even if they were soinclined, other times, like weekends and holidays,

are frequently devoted to other activities such asfamily. In contrast, with a leisure component to theirpursuit, amateurs are oftentimes involved in pale-ontology in the evenings (e.g., meetings), and onweekends and holidays (e.g., collecting fossils inthe field). Likewise, geography is a barrier in placeswhere amateurs and professionals do not live inclose enough proximity to facilitate interaction on aregular basis. The following quotes are representa-tive of these sentiments:

“Local availability of professionals, particularly in more remote areas.”

“Finding time when they are both available—most amateurs are available after the typical working hours of professionals.”

Finally, the lack of shared goals for why theydo paleontology is perceived as a barrier:

“Different interest and goals—collecting fossils (amateur) vs. answering research questions (professional).”

Public participation and citizen science

Several of the respondents, presumably ama-teurs, expressed interest in citizen science andhow they could be more involved:

“…some of us would also be interested to know how to get involved in more advanced hard science.”

“Enlist possible volunteers for future projects.”

Likewise, a presumed professional commented that s/he would:

“Include citizen scientists in my research.”

In fact, the community seems poised to bemore involved in public participation; 78% ofrespondents answered that they would like to con-tribute to fossil digitization and/or do citizen sci-ence. The potential mutual benefits to citizenscience and public participation are multifacetedand significant (Bonney et al., 2009; Dickinson etal., 2012; Ellwood et al., 2015). For the amateur itmeans direct involvement in the practice of paleon-tological research and for the professional it resultsin support for, and advancing the objectives of, pro-grams that could always use more resources. Sev-enty percent of respondents indicated interest indiscovering paleontological projects in which theycould individually participate. Furthermore, from abroader point of view, this engagement results bothin more active learning and advancing the scienceof paleontology.

9


Taking action and moving forward

In the few weeks following the NAPC andFOSSIL Kickoff meeting, participants were sur-veyed to determine if they had taken some actionfollowing the conference. Twenty-eight percent ofrespondents indicated they had taken some kind ofaction, with the largest response being “communityoutreach.”

“Began to think of ways to have fossil clubs work with schools…”

“I submitted grant proposal to paleo society for education & outreach”

Developing community is a fundamentalaspect of the FOSSIL project. Eighty-five percentof amateurs said they were likely to follow up with

someone they met at the conference or during theFOSSIL activities. Thus, an expectation of theNAPC Kickoff was at least realized by quotes suchas:

“Now that I have met some people in other clubs, we are actively communicating and networking.”

With regard to future activities, we askedrespondents to discuss: (1) content they would liketo see developed; (2) training they would like toreceive; and (3) kinds and styles of communicationthey would like as FOSSIL moves forward.

As indicated in Figure 4, there was unanimousagreement among respondents about the kind ofcontent and information they would like to see asthe FOSSIL network further develops. A predomi-nant theme, particularly among the more common

FIGURE 4. (Top) Percentage of total responses (N=40) about content and information preferences for future activitiesthat might be mediated by FOSSIL. (Bottom) Examples of real-world (practical) skills for future activities.

10


activities of the future, includes learning and dis-covering about paleontology. This bodes well notjust for learning but also for developing the FOSSILCoP along common themes, goals, and objectives.We also asked respondents to rank their prefer-ences for “real-world” practical skills and activitiesin which they would like to participate. The mostfrequent responses involve digitization and photog-raphy of fossils.

Seventy-eight percent of respondentsexpressed a desire to participate in training webi-nars. Ninety percent of respondents indicate theyplan to collaborate with other amateurs or profes-sionals. On a seven point scale (Figure 5), 93% ofthe amateurs ranked their expected engagement inthe FOSSIL project as 6 or 7 (Very Likely). In thesame vein, all of the professionals rated their inter-est in participation at 7, or “Very Likely.”

In summary, the overwhelming pattern ofthese results indicates a high degree of potentialparticipation for the amateurs and professionalssurveyed. There also are strong interests in topicsthat could be the glue to bind a CoP, includingadvancing the science of paleontology, digitization,and photography. This learning will likely be deliv-ered through different modalities, including bothface-to-face and cyberenabled communication.The results of the formative evaluation furtherdemonstrate the strong support for the continueddevelopment of a network of amateur and profes-sional paleontologists in the USA.

NETWORKING AND SOCIAL MEDIA WITHIN THE FOSSIL COMMUNITY

Analysis of social media

When we originally envisioned the FOSSILproject in 2012, we thought that our primary meansof communication and networking, i.e., other thanduring face-to-face meetings, field trips, and socialevents, would be the website and e-newsletter. Wewere unsure the extent to which our two targetaudiences would embrace social media such asFacebook and Twitter. Indeed the results of thefront-end evaluation conducted in mid-2013 (Crip-pen et al., 2016) indicated a relatively low priority,or spotty usage, placed on these forms of commu-nication by our community. The results of our for-mative evaluation in 2014 after NAPC likewise didnot indicate a groundswell of social media commu-nication, although one respondent stated:

“Our club for whom I represent has now activated social media as a result of what we learned at FOSSIL.”

Although we might not have predicted it fromthe survey results, the social media aspect of theFOSSIL CoP has grown so rapidly since our forma-tive evaluation conducted in 2014 that it makessense to summarize the current status of theseactivities.

Currently, the FOSSIL project maintains tieswith 39 amateur fossil and paleontological organi-zations. Preliminary analysis of amateur paleonto-logical organizations indicates that 24 (62%)maintain a Facebook presence, although twopages have not been updated since 2013, andthree are closed Facebook groups that organiza-tions cannot join. Further analysis is needed tospecify the ways in which these organizations useFacebook to interact with their members. FOSSILproject social media research is currently focusedon how amateur and professional paleontologistsinteract with the FOSSIL project’s social mediasites (Lundgren et al., 2015).

Following the NAPC at the end of February2014, the FOSSIL project began systematicallycreating content for social media, specifically Twit-ter and Facebook. In order to reach amateur andprofessional paleontologists via social media, FOS-SIL posted on both Facebook and Twitter socialmedia accounts twice a day, using dedicated dailyhashtags (e.g., #MammothMonday). Communica-tion via social media is typically categorized by lev-els of engagement (Kang, 2014; Smith andGallicano, 2015). On Facebook, levels of engage-ment range from lowest to the highest as follows:

FIGURE 5. Likelihood of future participation in the FOS-SIL project for amateurs and professionals who partici-pated in our formative evaluation.

11


liking a post, sharing a post, or commenting on apost. When a Facebook user “likes” a post they areshowing their approval. Facebook users typicallyshare posts to communicate or inform their fellowFacebook users about relevant topics or to spreada message. Comments on posts are responsesthat may be positive, neutral, or negative.

Previous research has shown that users willengage in discussions about socio-scientific topicson social media (Greenhow et al., 2015). Our pre-liminary study of engagement (Lundgren et al.,2015) on Facebook follows a model described byFauville et al. (2014). Post variance in the form oflength, word choice, usage of pictures, andchanges in content were examined to quantify ouronline audiences’ levels of engagement with socialmedia. This engagement was measured by the

number of “likes,” “shares,” and “comments” perpost. Based on these forms of engagement, addi-tional social media posts were created for our tar-get audience. In order to encourage engagementin the form of likes, shares, and comments, theFOSSIL Facebook page includes four differenttypes of posts: (1) about research, (2) paleontolog-ical news stories, (3) featuring opportunities to par-ticipate in social paleontology, and (4) generalinformation. Twitter features the same types ofposts, but the content is limited to no more than140 characters. A new post comes from mediasuch as the New York Times Facebook Page (Fig-ure 6). On Facebook, our preliminary data indicatethat news posts (# 2 above) result in more engage-ment (likes, shares, and comments) than any otherpost type.

FIGURE 6. A paleontological news story as a FOSSIL project Facebook post. Note the number of people reached(1,191), as well as the levels of engagement (23 likes, 4 share).

12


In posts that encourage Facebook users tojoin in social paleontology (opportunity posts),users also like, comment, and share, though thelevels of engagement are less than the levels fea-tured in news-centered posts. However, the mostcommon form of engagement is the lowest form,i.e., liking a post (Lundgren et al., 2015). In thisform of engagement, users do not describe thereasons they appreciate the post or the aspects ofthe post that kept them engaged, nor do theyattempt to elicit conversation with others about thepost.

In addition to creating and analyzing posts onthe FOSSIL project’s social media, we also investi-gated the forms of online communication that theFOSSIL project maintains with amateur and pro-fessional paleontologists. The original forms ofremote communication for the FOSSIL project, i.e.,a listserv and e-newsletter, have not seen muchgrowth in comparison to the social media pages(Figure 7). As of the end of March 2016, the FOS-SIL listserv reached only 37 people, while the e-newsletter had 226 subscribers (Figure 7). On theother hand, as of the end of March 2016, the FOS-SIL Twitter page had 757 followers while 2390 peo-ple “like” the FOSSIL Facebook page. The numberof Facebook likes and Twitter followers measure

the number of people who choose to see the con-tent of the FOSSIL project’s social media pages(i.e., content that appears in their news feeds).However, due to Facebook’s updates for pages,users need to ensure that they click “get notifica-tions” when they “like” the FOSSIL project in orderto ensure that the FOSSIL project’s posts aremade available to them. As noted with the analysison post types and engagement, while the networkof Facebook likers is large, their levels of engage-ment remain low within FOSSIL.

Since the inception of the FOSSIL project wehave developed a website, which until recently wasused primarily for one-way (non-interactive) infor-mation and announcements, as well as a platformto host Facebook and Twitter. In mid-2015 wedeveloped the myFOSSIL online “Social Paleontol-ogy” community site (www.myfossil.org) wheremembers can assemble, interact, collaborate, andengage in activities related to science, communitydevelopment, and outreach through web 2.0 andcustomized social media activities and interactions.We currently are in our community-building (post-beta) testing phase and, as of March 2016, haveabout 180 internal users (Figure 7). The rate ofgrowth of internal (registered) members on ourwebsite is similar (i.e., compare slopes in Figure 7)

FIGURE 7. Comparison of the growth in the following modes of communication for the FOSSIL project: Facebooklikes, Twitter followers, e-newsletter subscribers, Listserv subscribers, and FOSSIL project website, www.myfos-sil.org.

13


to our Twitter followers. Our website hosts usersfrom across the USA, including, in particular, usersfrom California, Florida, and Maryland. While it isfairly easy to determine where myFOSSIL websiteusers are from, deductions about the geography ofFOSSIL Facebook and Twitter communities ismore complex because many of these latter usershide their locations due to privacy concerns. This isnot unique to the FOSSIL project social mediausers; it is a common theme across social mediaresearch (Sun et al., 2014). While our researchcannot currently identify the locations of all socialmedia followers, it can elucidate some geographi-cal patterns with regard to the FOSSIL project.

Facebook likes and Twitter followers tend tobe concentrated where the FOSSIL project’s net-work of organizations are found. For example, Flor-ida and Texas feature a larger number of Facebooklikes. This is perhaps not surprising because ourdata indicate that Florida includes eight differentamateur fossil organizations, half of which have aFacebook page. This large number of fossil organi-zations paired with a robust social media presencecan account for the number of Facebook likes (andTwitter followers) in Florida. In Texas, two differentorganizations, located in Austin and Dallas, haveactive Facebook pages as well as active member-

ships. In contrast to the correlation between orga-nizational presence and social media activity, alarge Facebook following occurs in Mexico City(Figure 8), which lacks any fossil clubs or paleonto-logical organizations in our network. We have yetto explain the reason for this active part of theFOSSIL social media community.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS: SYNTHESIS AND MOVING FORWARD

The results of the formative evaluationdescribed above, also framed by Crippen et al.(2016) and from other qualitative observationsduring the past several years, have provided valu-able insight about how to move forward building aFOSSIL learning community of practice (CoP) anddeveloping best practices for involving amateurand professional paleontologists. Some themesand topics that have emerged include the follow-ing:

Communication

Our data indicate that—unlike birdwatchersand stargazers—amateur paleontologists are notnetworked nationally. We also know that the major-ity of our target audience connects, or has thecapacity to connect, via email and/or the web. We

FIGURE 8. Map of amateur paleontological organizations, Facebook likes, and Twitter followers.

14


are likely to see limited growth in the number ofpeople interested in paleontology who will learnabout, and engage in, relevant activities using ourlist-serve, or opt to receive our e-newsletter. Themost exciting increase in communication with ouraudiences will almost certainly come from socialmedia, including FOSSIL Facebook and Twitter,both of which have realized steady gains since2013 (Figure 7). If recent trends continue, then wealso expect to see increased activity from ourmyFOSSIL web portal on a trend similar to that ofour Twitter.

Building a community of practice

Wegner et al. (2002) describe a Community ofPractice as a group of people who share a con-cern, set of problems, or a passion about a topic,and who deepen their knowledge and expertise onan ongoing basis. Within this context, the FOSSILstakeholders form a cohesive group with commongoals and interests that include promoting the sci-ence of paleontology, collecting fossils, learning,and dissemination. Nevertheless, even with com-mon goals, the lack of mutual trust and respectamong some participant stakeholders represents areal barrier to forming a cohesive FOSSIL CoP. Wehave identified that, although not pervasive, thereis an undercurrent of trust that must be addressed.The reasons for trust issues are numerous and var-ied, although they primarily relate to different goalsand interests of amateur paleontologists on the onehand and professional paleontologists on the otherhand.

Social paleontology

The results of the formative evaluation sup-port the need for multiple forms of technology forcontributing to social paleontology, including thecontinued use of popular social media as well asthe myFOSSIL online community site. Through ouranalysis of engagement patterns we find supportfor the three themes that represent the practice ofsocial paleontology: making connections, makingobservations, and having conversations. However,it is incorrect to assume that all content is equallyengaging within the CoP. Although the communityhas demonstrated interest and engagement with arange of post types, the level and type of engage-ment with news posts indicates investment in onlyone, limited dimension of paleontology. As a tech-nology steward for the community, the FOSSILproject has a role to play in establishing communi-

cation strategies that provide access to the fullspectrum of paleontological inquiry. We also real-ize that other existing online communities havefocused on meaningful discourse. For example, theFossil Forum (www.thefossilforum.com), which hasa large world-wide reach, has provided a valuablemode of communication about paleontology andrelated topics.

Diversity and demographics

More than half of the clubs self-identify as notparticularly diverse in terms of age and ethnicity.Thus the vast majority consists predominantly ofwhite members. The only minority representation isHispanic/Latino in regions where they are well rep-resented in the general population. Another char-acteristic is the lack of younger members (e.g.,teens through about 30 years of age), and thussome clubs have expressed concern about sus-taining their organizations into the future. Althoughthere is no systematic study in the USA about thisissue, in the United Kingdom a survey of informalscience institutions “…found that almost seven outof ten respondents had experienced difficultiesengaging with one or more audience groups, andthe high-level findings suggested that adults agedover 19, families and young people aged 12–19were the most challenging groups (Lloyd et al.,2012, p. 4). This latter demographic is one we rec-ognize as disengaged in fossil clubs and paleonto-logical societies, although that may be changingwith the advent of social paleontology. Of rele-vance to this point, a Pew Charitable Trust (2010)survey found that the highest level (75%) of socialmedia usage occurs within Millennials (18 to 29),and presumably the <18 year-old demographic aswell. With this background in mind, fossil clubsseeking new, younger members might want to ele-vate their social media usage to attract theseunder-represented participants.

Another at-risk segment of learners generallyincludes adolescent girls, which studies haveshown tend to significantly decrease their interestand engagement in science (Munley and Rossiter,2012). This is therefore another contributing factorthat can result in the issue with involving theyounger learners into fossil club activities. Recentinitiatives, such as Women’s Day in Paleontologysponsored by the Florida Fossil Hunters (2015)based in Orlando, seek to promote women continu-ing in paleontology through activities led by appro-priate role models.

15


STEM learning, content, and skills development

Our qualitative observations of the motivationfor why amateurs collect fossils and participate inorganized activities span a spectrum (Figure 9).The two end-members range from the thrill of thediscovery in the field (Fossil Collector) on the oneend to the desire to learn (Science Learner) aboutextinct life of the past on the other end. While theformer requires some basic identifying skills, it alsois potentially of great benefit to those participantswho are primarily interested in the practice of pale-ontology. In theoretical contrast, the latter, i.e., thedesire to learn, has the potential for deep STEMlearning, including those topics that are of currentsocietal relevance (Leshner, 2010) like evolutionand climate change. In reality, it is likely that mostamateur paleontologists fall somewhere inbetween the end-members represented in Figure9. While it is not the goal of the FOSSIL project tomake everyone primarily a deep learner, the proj-ect does seek to provide the context in whichadvances in STEM knowledge and engagementare possible with those participants who might beinterested.

In addition to general interest in geology andpaleontology, fossil club and society participantshave a special interest in the practice of document-ing their fossil collections. Likewise, the skillsrelated to the photographing and digitizing collec-tions are primarily relegated to the professionalrealm, whereas there is great interest among theamateurs as they desire to build and deepen theirexpertise in this aspect of paleontology. A “go-to”place to find such training and expertise is currentlylacking for interested participants. In a model simi-lar to the concept of professional development, theFOSSIL project views these training opportunitiesas professional development of a cadre of commit-ted amateurs in our CoP.

Digital fossil collections in the twenty-first century

Tens, if not hundreds, of million fossils arehoused in research collections in natural historymuseums in the USA; there is even less knownabout how many fossils are contained in privatecollections. Recent initiatives such as iDigBio(2015, also Page et al., 2015) for non-federallysupported collections and BISON (2015) for federalcollections, are moving towards digitizing fossils inthe public domain and making them broadly acces-sible, e.g., in web-based cloud portals. In additionto enhancing access for research by professionalpaleontologists, another added value to digitizedfossil collections is that they then become availableto downstream users, including amateur paleontol-ogists (e.g., Hendricks et al. 2015).

Fossil collections and their objects, i.e., thespecimens themselves, are the glue that bindstogether the amateur and professional paleonto-logical communities. Thus, our surveys indicatethat although amateurs are relatively uninformedabout the details and process of digitization, theyhave high levels of interest. This bodes well for thedevelopment of the amateur community withregard to helping professionals digitize researchcollections. It also should enhance learning how todigitize their own collections for personal use,access for other activities like K-12 outreach, or ifdesirable, for donation to a permanent repository.In so doing, the collaborative process betweenamateurs and professionals within the CoP alsopromotes public engagement and understanding ofscience.

Summary

The data we have assembled and observa-tions we have made indicate meaningful potentialfor continuing to build a learning CoP that includesamateur and professional paleontologists mediatedwithin the context of social paleontology. In so

FIGURE 9. Theoretical model of the end-members and spectrum of motivations for participating in paleontology.

16


doing, we can build upon other successful nationalmodels like those developed for other lifelonglearning interest groups, e.g., within astronomy andornithology. In addition, the FOSSIL CoP will alsoengage participants in another kind of data andknowledge acquisition, one that involves physicaland vouchered paleontological collections locatedin US natural history museums and their digitizedcounterparts in the cloud. These activities includetwenty-first century skills, with increasing emphasison web-based learning and communication as wellas related social media to engage diverse stake-holders.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research and the related FOSSIL projecthave been supported by US NSF (National Sci-ence Foundation) 1322725 (DRL). We thank themany survey participants, including fossil clubmembers, amateurs, professionals, and otherstakeholders who have contributed to this initiativeand for their thoughtful input. A.J.W. and K. Hendyparticipated in the initial phases of the developmentof FOSSIL. C. Grant helped with some of thegraphics. Our external project evaluators and advi-sors K. Haley Goldman and S. Yalowitz of Audi-ence Viewpoints Consulting (AVC, 2015)developed, administered, and analyzed the forma-tive survey conducted in 2014 after the NAPC. Thefront-end and formative protocols conducted duringthis study were approved by the University of Flor-ida Institutional Review Board. This is University ofFlorida Contribution to Paleobiology number 824.

REFERENCES

Archangelsky, S., Edwards, D., Gall, J.-C., Lipps, J.H.,and Ashley, G.M. 2000. Societies, p. 109-113. InLane, R.H., Steininger, F.F., Kaesler, R.L., Ziegler,W., and Lipps, J. (eds.), Fossils and the Future: Pale-ontology in the 21st century. Senkenberg-Buch Nr.74., Frankfurt a. M.

ASTC (Association of Science – Technology Centers).2016. Communities of practice, accessed on 24March 2016 from www.astc.org/professional-devel-opment/communities-of-practice/

AVC. 2015. Audience Viewpoints Consulting, accessed22 October 2015 at www.audienceviewpoints.com/

BISON. 2015. Biodiversity Information Serving OurNation, accessed 21 September 2015 atbison.usgs.ornl.gov/#home

Bonney, R., Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phil-lips, T., Rosenberg, K.V., and Shirk, J. 2009. Citizenscience: A developing tool for expanding scienceknowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience, 59:977-984.

Brown, R.W. 1956. The Composition of Scientific Words.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

CAISE. 2016. Center for the Advancement of InformalScience Education, accessed 23 March 2016 atwww.informalscience.org/

Catalani, J.A. 2014. Contributions by amateur paleontol-ogists in 21st century paleontology. PalaeontologiaElectronica, 17.2.3E: 4p; palaeo-electronica.org/con-tent/2014/768-contributions-by-amateur-paleontolo-gists

Crippen, K.J., Ellis, S., Dunckel, B.A., Hendy, A.J.W.,and MacFadden, B.J. 2016. Seeking shared practice:A juxtaposition of the attributes and activities of orga-nized fossil groups with those of professional paleon-tology. Journal of Science Education andTechnology, accepted.DOI: 10.1007/s10956-016-9627-3

Cunningham, J.A., Rahman, I.A., Lautenschlager, S.,Rayfield, E.J., and Donoghue, P.C.J. 2014. A virtualworld of paleontology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,29:301-368.

Diamond, J., Luke, J.J., and Uttal, D.H. 2009. PracticalEvaluation Guide: Tools for Museums and OtherInformal Educational Settings. Lanham, Maryland,Altimira Press.

Dickinson, J.L., Shirk, J., Bonter, D., Bonney, R., Crain,R.L., Martin, J., Phillips, T., and Purcell, K. 2012. Thecurrent state of citizen science as a tool for ecologicalresearch and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecol-ogy and the Environment, 10:291-297. dx.doi.org/10.1890/110236

Ellwood, E.E., Dunckel, B.A., Flemons, P., Guralnick, R.,Nelson, G., Newman, G., Newman, S., Paul, D., Ric-cardi, G., Rios, N., Seltmann, K., and Mast, A.R.2015. Accelerating the digitization of biodiversityresearch specimens through online public participa-tion. Bioscience, doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv005

Falk, J.H. and Needham, M.D. 2013. Factors contribut-ing to adult knowledge of science and technology.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50:431-452.

Falk, J.H., Storksdieck, M., and Dierking, L.D. 2007.Investigating public science interest and understand-ing: evidence for the importance of free-choice learn-ing. Public Understanding of Science, 16:455-469.

Fauville, G., Dupont, S., von Thun, S., and Lundin, J.2014. Can Facebook be used to increase scientificliteracy? A case study of the Monterey Bay AquariumResearch Institute Facebook page and ocean liter-acy. Computers & Education, 82:60-73.

Ferrara, C. 2015. Club corner: Southwest Florida FossilSociety. The Fossil Project Newsletter, 2(2):8-9,accessed 12 July 2015 at www.myfossil.org/archived-newsletters/

Florida Fossil Hunters. 2015. Accessed 17 September2015 at www.floridafossilhunters.com/

Gongla, P. and Rizzuto, C.R. 2001. Evolving communi-ties of practice: IBM Global Services experience. IBM

17


Systems Journal, 40:842-862. doi:10.1147/sj.404.0842

Greenhow, C., Gibbins, T., and Menzer, M. 2015. Re-thinking scientific literacy out-of-school: Arguing sci-ence issues in a niche Facebook application. Com-puters in Human Behavior, 53:593-604.

Hendricks, J.R., Stigall, A.L., and Lieberman, B.S. 2015.The Digital Atlas of Ancient Life: delivering informa-tion on paleontology and biogeography via the web.Palaeontologia Electronica, 18.2.3E:1-9.

Hesemann, M. 2015. The foraminifera.eu database: con-cept and status. Palaeontologia Electronica,18.3.48A: 1-14.

Hooks, G.E., III. 2005. The importance of the amateurpaleontologist, p. 187-188. In Buta, R.J., Rindsberg,A.K., and Kopaska-Merkel, D.C. (eds.), Pennsylva-nian Footprints in the Black Warrior Basin of Ala-bama. Alabama Paleontological Society Monograph,Birmingham, no. 1.

iDigBio (Integrated Digitized Biodiversity Collections).2015, accessed 21 September 2015 at https://www.idigbio.org/

Kang, M. 2014. Understanding public engagement: Con-ceptualizing and measuring its influence on support-ive behavioral intentions. Journal of Public RelationsResearch, 26:399-416.

Kienle, A. and Wessner, M. 2005. Principles for Cultivat-ing Scientific Communities of Practice, p. 283-299. InBesselaar, P., Michelis, G., Preece, J., and Simone,C. (eds.), Communities and Technologies 2005.Springer, Netherlands.

Larson, N.L., Stein, W., Triebold, M., and Winters, G.2016. What commercial fossil dealers contribute topaleontology. Journal of Paleontological Sciences,Issue # 10, accessed 5 April 2016 at www.aaps-jour-nal.org/Fossil-Dealer-Contributions.html

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legiti-mate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge UniversityPress, New York.

Leshner, A. 2010. Scientists and science centers: Agreat glocal [sic.] partnership opportunity. Talk SA 23at Association of Science-Technology Centers(ASTC) Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, October2-5, 2010; also see published article “Scientists andscience centers: A great ‘glocal’ partnership opportu-nity.” ASTC Dimensions, November/December 2010,p. 4-5.

Lloyd, R., Neilson, R., King, S., and Dyball, M. 2012. Sci-ence beyond the classroom: Review of Informal Sci-ence Learning. Prepared for the Wellcome Trust,London UK, 110 p., accessed 24 March 2016 atwww.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtp040862.pdf

Lundgren, L.M., Crippen, K.J., MacFadden, B.J.,Dunckel, B., Ellis, S., and Gardner, E.E. 2015.Exploring social media as a research tool for measur-ing engagement in a paleontological community ofpractice. Presentation at the Annual Geological Soci-

ety of America Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland,abstract accessed on 24 March 2016 from: https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2015AM/webprogram/Paper262961.html

Manfreda, K.L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Hass, I., andVehovar, V. 2008. Web surveys versus other surveymodes: A meta-analysis comparing response rate.International Journal of Market Research, 50:79-104.

Munley, M.E. and Rossiter, C. 2012. Girls, Equity andSTEM in Informal Learning Settings A Review of Lit-erature, accessed 18 September 2015 at stem.ari-zona.edu/sites/stem.arizona.edu/files/SAVI%20Lit%20Re-view%20Oct%202013%20Girls%20STEM.pdf

National Research Council. 2009. Learning Science inInformal Environments: People, Places, and Pur-suits. Committee on Learning Science in InformalEnvironments. In Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse,A.W., and Feder, M.A. (eds.), Board on Science Edu-cation, Center for Education. Division of Behavioraland Social Sciences and Education. The NationalAcademies Press, Washington, D.C.

Page, L.M., MacFadden, B.J., Fortes, J.A., Soltis, P.S.,and Riccardi, G. 2015. Digitization of biodiversity col-lections reveals biggest data on biodiversity. Biosci-ence, doi 10.1093/biosci/biv104

Pew Charitable Trust. 2010. Millennials: Confident. Con-nected. Open to Change, accessed 18 September2015 at www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/02/24/millen-nials-confident-connected-open-to-change/

Plotnick, R.E. 2007. SWOTing at paleontology. AmericanPaleontologist, 15(4):21-23.

Pringle, H. 2014. Selling America’s fossil record. Sci-ence, 343:364-367.

Priscum, 2016. Newsletter of the Paleontological Soci-ety, accessed on 02/29/2016, paleosoc.org/

Shih, T. and Fan, X. 2008. Comparing response ratesfrom web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. FieldMethods, 20:249-271.

Shimada, K., Currie, P.J., Scott, E., and Sumida, S.2014. The greatest challenge to 21st century paleon-tology: When commercialization of fossils threatensthe science. Palaeontologia Electronica, accessed 5April 2016 at: palaeo-electronica.org/content/pdfs/comment_-threat.pdf

Smith, B. and Gallicano, T. 2015. Terms of engagement:Analyzing public engagement with organizationsthrough social media. Computers in Human Behav-ior, 53:82-90.

Sun, N., Rau, P., and Ma, L. 2014. Understanding lurkersin online communities: A literature review. Computersin Human Behavior, 38:110-117.

SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology). 1940-2010.New Bulletin. vertpaleo.org/CMSPages/PortalTemplate.aspx?alias-path=/Publications/SVP-News-Bulletin

Uhen, M.D., Barnosky, A.D., Bills, B., Blois, J., Carrano,M.T., Carrasco, M.A., Erickson, G.M., Eronen, J.T.,

18


Fortelius, M., Graham, R.W., Grimm, E.C., O’Leary,M.A., Mast, A.R., Piel, H., Polly, P.D., and Säilä, L.K.2013. From card catalogs to computers: Databasesin vertebrate paleontology. Journal of VertebratePaleontology, 33:13-28 dx.doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2012.716114

US Department of Education. 2011. Connect and inspire:Online communities of practice in education.Retrieved from Washington, DC: connectededuca-

tors.org/report/files/2011/03/0143_OCOP-Main-report.pdf

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning,Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, U.K.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., and Snyder, W.M. 2002. AGuide to Managing Knowledge: Cultivating Commu-nities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press,Boston.

19

Documents

Palaeontologia Electronicabusiness and industry (Gongla and Rizzuto, 2001). In addition, the Association of Science -Technology Centers (ASTC, 2016) and CAISE (2016) currently support