2012 was the last time I went south to the ice.
One expedition weirdness: times when a person with [skills I have] was needed and people were running all over the ship searching for *anyone*. But no not you we will find someone!
Much later I read a report where experience /skills/certs were listed. In my row? nothing. At the time I had HUET, current wilderness 1st aid, qctive rock climber/rope skills, also 3 previous field expeditions...
...all erased in the record.
@adamsteer forgive me if i've already floated this with you... years ago on Software Underground's Slack were some fascinating convos about remote participation fieldwork
The idea being people who couldn't afford travel, or who had accessibility needs ruling them out of in-person participation, could come along for the ride, avatar-style. PoV cameras and feeds of all the data and some ability to suggest decisions, where to observe, what to collect
Yeah you could do a lot of that drone-based (as well) but still need pilots onsite. Part fieldwork teaching experience, part remote participation (bandwidth allowing, it would probably have to be Starlink)
Bet there's already something like this in your back catalogue
...aside from providing a reason for shitrastructure (ie starlink) to exist...
(we have *so many issues* with minimalist, ruggedised electronics out there...)
I profoundly disagree with remote decision making. People on the ground need to have the freedom to respond adaptively within their scope, which is already busy and full of operational noise...
an evening debrief/sitrep/tactical adjustment might be much better...
I know, I sound/am extremely able-ist on this point.
@adamsteer speculative on my part as i've never done fieldwork!
And when the environment is challenging and snap decisions needed for safety i can very much see that point, remote participation would have to be passive while the work is active, but could still inform / offer dispassionate context to a debrief?
The setting in which this came up was "classic" geological field sites, the kind students are brought to survey not because new knowledge is expected to be found, but to compare what they see to others who went before, take a little bite of history...
...the more I think about this idea the less I like it :/
The concept of a dispassionate context is a deeply flawed rationale in science - and potentially destructive for development of understanding. I'm struggling to articulate the "why" - again, this is a many years of secure income to gather the wool task :) (or a hot take, I'm not sure which :D )
I understand a desire for participation (for many reasons, from wonder to autocratic control).
My thoughts on "what if we miss something" go to "OK well that happens and is part of the process. Also maybe by focusing on what *should* be found, we trap ourselves into not being able to see things that *are* there, and interpret based on out of date heuristics"
...and also the 7 p's of planning...
**all of this "experienced naivety" approach is quite possibly why I've been unhireable in field research for years. I'm supposed to spruik AI/tech/immersive/AsAnExpert
...after all (and I know from experience), I can think of only a couple securely hired scientists I've ever come across who are OK with "well sure that's what you've observed before and i can see how that is guiding your interpretation, I'm seeing something else going on here...."
Dr. 🏔️❄️🗺️📊🎨⛷️🧗🏻♂️🛶
zool