🐦8.1 Cornell Lab of Ornithology Externship Day 2: A Talk with Alli and John

Thanks to Archie and Dr. Bonter for connecting me with Alli and John. This connection allowed me to address some challenges my ornithology lab in Sichuan has faced during outreach programs, particularly in recruiting volunteers for our Summer Bird Breeding Surveys. Our current approach involves engaging short-term volunteers to conduct single-session surveys in designated sample areas. However, this approach has highlighted a key limitation: we’ve primarily focused on showcasing our institutional credentials—emphasizing our affiliation with the Chengdu Panda Base, offering certificates, and providing a stipend of ¥100 per sample area—without fully considering the volunteers’ perspectives or needs.

In contrast, the outreach techniques used by Merlin, such as in their Ecuador program, take a volunteer-centered approach. They begin by engaging local communities, often non-birders, and fostering an interest in birds by introducing them to species they might have encountered but not recognized. Rather than promoting the strength of platforms like Merlin or eBird, the focus is on building a personal connection between participants and the birds.

Similarly, Cornell’s South Africa partnership demonstrated the importance of addressing specific local needs, such as creating the first bird book in South African languages ever. This initiative encouraged community members to start birding and contribute data to their database.

Alli shared additional insights, including her technique of wearing a shirt with “Ask Me Questions about birds” while carrying a spotting scope on the beach. This simple yet effective approach invited curiosity and encouraged people to learn more about shorebirds without disturbing them. Cornell’s team also engages hikers and fishermen, encouraging them to document birds they encounter and submit checklists during their outdoor activities.

These examples highlight the value of participant-focused strategies. Moving forward, we might rethink our methods. Instead of emphasizing monetary rewards or institutional affiliations, we could explore offering unique privileges or incentives that align with participants’ interests. For example, granting volunteers access to remote survey areas while reserving more accessible urban sites for our lab members could be an effective strategy (current method: remote sample areas for lab members to run, urban sample areas for citizens—since transportation’s much more convenient in urban areas) . Additionally, wearing shirts that identify our role in bird monitoring could engage public curiosity, especially among children, since nowadays still a lot of people think we’re patrolling when we have our binoculars on.

For fishermen, we might consider educational outreach to promote bird conservation rather than focusing solely on restrictive measures like fishing bans during waterbird seasons. This approach could foster greater understanding and collaboration. Definitely a method we’ve not thought of!

John also provided insights into Cornell’s partnerships (how they partnership), such as their collaboration with Taiwan to enhance the sound identification tool (asked by the Taiwan Bird Society) by involving local teams in recording bird sounds and translating app functions (asked by the lab side). A similar partnership could benefit our lab or raptor station. For example, Cornell could assist us in setting up 24/7 sound recording identifiers in national parks to monitor avian biodiversity. In return, we could contribute Sichuan-specific bird sound recordings to their database.

He also explained how their volunteer screening questions for hiring checklist reviewers are carefully designed to prioritize volunteers’ confidence and sense of internal validation. Rather than asking candidates to recall specific species they have observed—which could evoke feelings of inadequacy or concern—they instead inquire about the total duration of their birding experience and the approximate number of species they have identified over their lifetime. This approach serves as a more supportive and encouraging standard for evaluating potential reviewers.

These conversations were incredibly insightful, and I look forward to exploring how these ideas might shape the future of our outreach and research initiatives. And Thanks to Alli for giving me Merlin and Ebird stickers!