Just to clarify what I meant by the last sentence in the above post.

If we adopted a common way to describe the job, and from that the roles of the work, then it may be easier for the various LRCs, ngo, trusts etc to place job ads with a common job descriptive language.

Also, it creates a structure and focus for the type of work we do. This in turn would allow us to publish a set of standard skills which suit Biodiversity Informatics as an aid for new people who might like to enter and specialise in this field. To help us stand out from the corporate IT crowd.

From that we can encourage a deeper understanding of the particular data and processing needs of taxonomy, biological data recording and dissemination.  And if we can gain role specific qualifications, we can advance up a career structure which reflects that training and experience.

Again just food for thought.

I fully support you chaps in this idea.
A firm and accepted definition would, in addition, serve to inform managers of the nature and value of our work.
Perhaps this is something that can be worked out in conjunction with ALERC when they examine the whole range of tasks in LRCs. As an ALERC Steering group member I shall certainly be canvassing for standards to be examined when it comes to LRC Accreditation.

Would be great to see ALERC take this up Darwyn. Ultimately I think it would be highly desirable to have a biodiversity informatics degree, or at least a masters. As Andy says, IT is too broad and the various ecology and biodiversity related courses aren't teaching the necessary technical skills. Seems like it might be an ideal time for a university to start exploring the idea.

Knowledge sharing and collaboration (the foundations of "WeThink") will help with the support and development of LRCs. The other point is that a lot of skills are available not just from people directly invovled in the LRCs but that there are lots of volunteers out there who might otherwise not get invovled. So it may be worth revisiting your Development Plans to look at what skills are in short supply and then assessing how you can fill that either locally or by sharing with other LRCs.

I like Nick's idea about looking wider for those skills. Some may know that I've been involved with the NBN's National Schemes & Societies group and within that was a member of a small team tasked to look at tools, applications, technical, standards, resources etc.. Members of this group include Mark Hill of CEH (you should also know him as one of the top biodiversity statisticians) and, at one time, Mark Telfer (ditto - with work on biodiversity hotspots). Also Andy Brewer and, very recently, Dan Jones (and even attracted Stuart Ball to one meeting). The larger NSS group is now disbanded but there clearly remains an awful lot for this "Technical & resources" subgroup to address in the realm of "Biodiversity Informatics" - in fact Jim Munford indicated to me that whilst the main group had folded our small group needed to think about ways of taking some of the issues forward.
I did some presentations to the broad NSS group, looking at the overall needs for "Resources & standards" within the biological recording community but inevitably, because this was delivered to a more general group, it was difficult, as I think Charles suggests below, to express some of the concepts adequately to a mixed audience.
Biodiversity Informatics should perhaps be taken to be a very broad concept. Not only are we dealing with training and appropriate use of technology but we inhabit a realm where there is a strong need to address the standards which form the foundations of our work.
Here's a sample of topics discussed by the NSS subgroup:
1. The need to address archives adequately (see National Archives website and start worrying about forthcoming legislation) - supported quite strongly by NSS
2. Broadening the scope of metadata beyond the current (NBN) specific GIS subset (the general perception is that all Biodiversity Informatics is geospatial) - NSS less convinced about this need
3. GIS standards, there's a lot of exchange going on with GIS layers but oh what a mess in terms of accuracy, precision and underlying table structure, purely as a result of the absence of guidelines/standards (classic examples are downloadable from internet) - NSS probably unsure of what this meant to them.
Plenty to discuss.
How about putting together a Biodiversity Informatics conference under aegis of ALERC and supported by CEH, NBN etc.

Just a quick response to Nick's list. I would add:
"Structure" - appropriateness and relevance of database structure wrt intended function
an example (outside GIS) being any one of Charles Copp's table structures in his Recorder Data Model.

A wiki's a sound idea, so is another forum like this, a journal, workshops, a university course curriculum, a book ...

It was initiated by Jim Munford some time ago. He gathered together a large group of "movers and shakers" as the focus of NBN shone more strongly on National Recording Schemes and less so on LRCs. It was a useful sounding board for the various societies and schemes, helping out with the Annual NSS Conference and Trevor James' work.
There were also some valuable outcomes via a handful of specialist groups/task forces within it. Chaired at various times by Jim, Mark Avery (RSPB) and Amy Coyte (Bat Conservation Trust), I was invited on to it due to my wearing both LRC and NSS hats (and being able to speak through either of them), although LRCs were not on the agenda. It was wound up in April.
I suggest that Mandy Henshall, who secretaried throughout, or Trevor James might be able to package together the minutes and other valuable outcomes for your edification but I strongly suspect that this is all under prep. by NBN as part of their new website.

Mike your question is an interesting one, but perhaps more because of the way you phrased it.

I would contend that if there is one thing which Biodiversity Informatics is not, that would be a "field of ecology". This I think may be key to the problem we have getting staff. Graduates in ecological disciplines are pretty easy to come by and jobs with ecologist in the title occur frequently, which is no doubt one reason why staff turnover in LRCs is so high. So oftent he talent is lured away by the private sector and higher salaries.

I'd be interested to hear the views of a few of my colleagues on this though so I will shut up for now.

Thanks for the replies Rob and Charles,

Charles, are you saying that the 'core skill' is ecology but the differentiator that will actually get you the job at a LRC is having more than basic IT skills?  Having had the pleasure of meeting most of your colleagues at SxBRC (including yourself at the last Recorder's Seminar) I suspect that they fit into this model, but I understand that your own background is IT and I don't know much about Andrew other than the website saying he is your GIS man.

Or, from Rob's opinion that we are not discussing a field of ecology, is it that the 'core skill' is computers with ecology an added  bonus?  However, other parts of his comment seem to suggest that ecology graduates get recruited into LRCs but are then tempted away by better paid private sector ecologist roles once they have some experience.  How about IT graduates, or do they just never apply for the jobs?

Of course the ideal candidate would have proven expertise and experience in; the local area, biodiversity, geodiversity, legislation, wildlife surveying, wildlife data, GIS,  IT,  (etc), but how many of them are available?  How close a fit would be expected and achieved?

There might be as many different answers to this as there are different ways to run an LRC?!

From a personal point of view, I suppose I am trying to gauge whether I need to get an ecological qualification to backup my business information systems degree and 15 years in commercial IT.  If LRCs are not getting many applicants and/or IT is very much the key requirement then I should be OK as I am, especially if I can get ever more exposure to the recording and GIS software.

A skills survey of current LRC people would be very interesting and would further the profession as discussed in previous posts: ideally via a questionnaire but I guess looking at staff descriptions on LRC websites would be a good start.  Or gather recruitment 'person specifications', although many of them just say 'relevant degree' rather than ecology or IT, and then list a variety of IT and diversity skills as above.  I don't have time at the moment but will keep the idea on the back burner.

Cheers

Mike