An official website of the United States government
Abstract Citizen science (also referred to as participatory science or community science), in which members of the general public contribute to scientific research, is not a new concept, as early examples of such studies can be found a couple of centuries ago. With the advancement of technology in an increasingly connected world, it has never been easier to engage citizen scientists in research projects. In this paper, we review citizen science initiatives and projects in the fields of atmosphere and space physics, including both early observation campaigns prior to the twenty-first century and recent projects. Ongoing initiatives take a broad range of forms, from the collection of data by citizen scientists to their involvement in the data analysis process and to the hosting of instruments in non-scientific public structures. We also discuss some of the challenges specific to citizen science, such as training citizen scientists, maintaining their engagement, ensuring reciprocity, managing citizen science data, interfacing the academic and citizen scientist communities, and funding citizen science. To these challenges we suggest possible solutions, and we highlight the unique opportunities offered by recent software and hardware developments. These game-changing opportunities are foreshadowing the dawn of a new era for citizen science – and hence for science in general and atmosphere and space physics in particular.
more »
« less
Embracing inclusivity: the case against the term 'citizen science'
Participatory science and amateur participation in scientific data collection and work has been common for hundreds of years, but has become a more formalised field of practice in recent decades. The inclusion and reliance on informally trained members of the public in scientific endeavours has especially helped connect natural history collections to the general public. In recent decades, the term used to describe these participants — citizen scientists — was intended to unite formal and informal scientists as global citizens working towards a common goal. However, the term 'citizen' today has negative connotations for many members of the public and can have a polarising effect on certain individuals. Given that the nature of participatory science is to be inclusive and inviting, it is time to change this terminology. The term 'community' science has been suggested as an alternative by some practitioners and programmes. This self-awareness within the scientific community is important, but lacks impact without input from the community members potentially participating in these programmes. We addressed this knowledge gap by posing the question of term preference to groups of volunteers who have attended participatory science activities from the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago, Illinois, USA) and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (Los Angeles, California, USA) from 2019 to 2023. A majority of respondents showed a clear preference for the term 'community' over 'citizen' science. This was especially true for younger individuals and those who belong to ethnic groups other than White. This information can impact which terms are used for specific programme populations and supports community involvement in selecting terminology and in project design. We advise stopping use of the term 'citizen' in all participatory science programmes and adopting terminology that is most appropriate depending on region, research, audience and activity. Moreover, participant populations should be solicited to hear their voices.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2027654
- PAR ID:
- 10592079
- Publisher / Repository:
- RIO - Research Ideas and Outcomes
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Research Ideas and Outcomes
- Volume:
- 10
- ISSN:
- 2367-7163
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- community science, citizen science, inclusion, participatory science, terminology
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
A comprehensive overview of volunteer-driven public programs focused on activities to enhance natural history collections (NHCs) is provided. The initiative revolves around the WeDigBio events and the Collections Club at the Field Museum, aiming to deepen the public’s connection with scientific collections, enhance participatory science, and improve data associated with natural history specimens. The implementation and journey of these programs are outlined, including surveys conducted from 2015 through 2021 to gauge participant motivation, satisfaction, and the impact of these events on public engagement with NHCs. Results show trends in on-site and virtual volunteer participation over the years, especially during the peak period of the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of participants expressed high satisfaction, indicating a willingness to continue participating in similar activities. The surveys revealed a shift towards more altruistic motivations for participation over time, with increased emphasis on supporting the Field Museum and contributing to the scientific community. The success of participatory science events demonstrates the potential of volunteer-driven programs to contribute meaningfully to the preservation, digitisation, and understanding of biodiversity collections, ultimately transforming spectators into stewards of natural history. From 2015 to present participants celebrate a significant milestone, with over a thousand community scientists contributing to the inventorying, collection care, curation, databasing, or transcription of 286,071 specimens, objects or records. We also discuss accuracy and quality control as well as a checklist and recommendations for similar activities.more » « less
-
Science museums aim to engage a large, diverse public audience in science learning and consequently, attempt to present information in entertaining, socially oriented, and innovative ways. Recent work using augmented reality (defined as technology that overlays virtual objects on to the real world) engages the public using content that is both situated in the context of the exhibit and virtually generated in a way that allows hidden worlds to become visible. However, little is known about how AR technology can facilitate museum visitors science learning. The Tar AR project, a sustained collaborative partnership funded by NSF AISL with La Brea Tar Pits/Natural History Museum of Los Angeles and a local university, explores how an AR experience can: promote visitor enjoyment, enjoyment, increase understanding of scientific topics, and promote user s feelings of ease with AR technology.more » « less
-
As the scientific community, like society more broadly, reckons with long-standing challenges around accessibility, justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, we would be wise to pay attention to issues and lessons emerging in debates around citizen science. When practitioners first placed the modifier “citizen” on science, they intended to signify an inclusive variant within the scientific enterprise that enables those without formal scientific credentials to engage in authoritative knowledge production (1). Given that participants are overwhelmingly white adults, above median income, with a college degree (2, 3), it is clear that citizen science is typically not truly an egalitarian variant of science, open and available to all members of society, particularly those underrepresented in the scientific enterprise. Some question whether the term “citizen” itself is a barrier to inclusion, with many organizations rebranding their programs as “community science.” But this co-opts a term that has long referred to distinct, grassroots practices of those underserved by science and is thus not synonymous with citizen science. Swapping the terms is not a benign action. Our goal is not to defend the term citizen science, nor provide a singular name for the field. Rather, we aim to explore what the field, and the multiple publics it serves, might gain or lose by replacing the term citizen science and the potential repercussions of adopting alternative terminology (including whether a simple name change alone would do much to improve inclusion).more » « less
-
Human brain and behavior research has traditionally—and paradoxically—taken place mostly in environments that are isolated from the public: In a typical human neuroscience study, scientists recruit university students to participate in well-controlled laboratory studies, i.e., outside of humans’ natural habitat. This model is currently under attack from multiple directions, ranging from scholars arguing that it generates biased data, to communities who express distrust toward scientists, to educators who are eager for more authentic science experiences for their students. While a growing number of researchers is turning to citizen science approaches to both educate and involve the general public in science, these initiatives are most pervasive in the ‘traditional’ sciences (e.g., ecology, astronomy), and often focus on recruiting the public to help collect data, rather than including non-scientists as partners in their scientific process. MindHive (www.mindhive.science) is an online community science platform for human brain and behavior research that engages its users in the full spectrum of scientific inquiry. Taking an open science approach, MindHive features a collaborative study design environment, comprising an experiment builder, a database of validated tasks and surveys, and a public-facing study page; a peer review center; and GDPR-compliant data collection, data management, and data visualization and interpretation functionality. We describe case studies from the COVID-19 pandemic to illustrate how MindHive envisions enabling scientists, students, educators, not-for-profit organizations, and community members globally to contribute studies, resources, and research data to the platform, as such supporting both STEM learning and scientific discovery.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.10.e137412
