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
This content will become publicly available on July 25, 2026
On good terms: pathways to decolonizing science-appropriated Indigenous terminologies in Arctic research
Many western scientific disciplines adopted Indigenous Knowledge and terminology without deference or understanding of the original meanings and values attached to Indigenous terms and concepts. This form of scientific appropriation has become a serious issue in light of decolonizing Arctic research. The notion of Alaas is an example of such appropriation by the western science-based system of Indigenous knowledge about human-nature relations. This paper aims to discuss the term Alaas as it is represented in both western science and Indigenous knowledge. The paper will explore the development of ‘alaas’ as an international permafrost science term and Alaas as an economic, traditional, cultural and spiritual space of the Sakha People in Northeastern Siberia. In analyzing these histories and meanings, the authors will attempt to provide a pathway to decolonizing western science-appropriated Indigenous terminology.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10630318
- Publisher / Repository:
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Arctic Science
- ISSN:
- 2368-7460
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Birchall, S Jeff (Ed.)This paper explores the concept of co-stewardship in the Arctic through the lens of the Study of Environmental Arctic Change’s Human Wellbeing (HWB) team. Rooted in Indigenous knowledge and collaborative science, our work prioritizes equity in decision-making, recognizing multiple knowledge systems as equally valuable. Through intentional team-building, trust, and reciprocity, we examine successes, challenges, and opportunities in co-stewardship. Key successes include fostering meaningful relationships, integrating Indigenous perspectives into scientific and policy discussions, and uplifting innovative knowledge-sharing tools such as oral histories and visual storytelling. However, structural challenges persist, including colonial policy frameworks, inadequate funding models, and a lack of institutional mechanisms to support Indigenous leadership in co-stewardship initiatives. We propose policy shifts, long-term funding commitments, and greater Indigenous representation in decision-making as steps toward meaningful change. This work underscores the importance of Indigenous-led stewardship in addressing Arctic environmental and social challenges, offering a model for collaborative governance rooted in respect and reciprocity.more » « less
-
Knowledge systems are embedded in sets of values, worldviews, and cosmologies that affect the whole process of knowledge production. Employing an ethnographic method that integrates participant observation, interviews, and focus groups, I explore the contributions, ideas, points of view, and metaphors that individuals of Indigenous origins introduce to the scientific method when they enter Western scientific knowledge systems. This ethnographic exploration focuses on a group of students with a variety of Indigenous backgrounds participating in a field course on introduction to Ecology. Native-born students contribute innovations to the knowledge production process by shaping research questions, methodologies, and result interpretations. These innovations stem from diverse worldviews and epistemologies, and while they could significantly impact scientific knowledge production, the students may not fully appreciate their own relevance. This work may serve as a testimony of the processes of reflection and negotiation with the scientific methods, practices, and values that native students undergo when participating in a Western scientific context.more » « less
-
This material is primarily based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (grant no. DGE-1321845). Addressing complex social-ecological issues requires all relevant sources of knowledge and data, especially those held by communities who remain close to the land. Centuries of oppression, extractive research practices, and misrepresentation have hindered balanced knowledge exchange with Indigenous communities and inhibited innovation and problem-solving capacity in all scientific fields. A recent shift in the research landscape reflects a growing interest in engaging across diverse communities and ways of knowing. Scientific discussions increasingly highlight the inherent value of Indigenous environmental ethics frameworks and processes as the original roadmaps for sustainable development planning, including their potential in addressing the climate crisis and related social and environmental concerns. Momentum in this shift is also propelled by an increasing body of research evidencing the role of Indigenous land stewardship for maintaining ecological health and biodiversity. However, a key challenge straining this movement lies rooted in colonial residue and ongoing actions that suppress and co-opt Indigenous knowledge systems. Scientists working with incomplete datasets privilege a handful of narratives, conceptual understandings, languages, and historical contexts, while failing to engage thousands of collective bodies of intergenerational, place-based knowledge systems. The current dominant colonial paradigm in scientific research risks continued harmful impacts to Indigenous communities that sustain diverse knowledge systems. Here, we outline how ethical standards in researcher practice can be raised in order to reconcile colonial legacies and ongoing settler colonial practices. We synthesize across Indigenous and community-based research protocols and frameworks, transferring knowledge across disciplines, and ground truthing methods and processes in our own practice, to present a relational science working model for supporting Indigenous rights and reconciliation in research. We maintain that core Indigenous values of integrity, respect, humility, and reciprocity should shape researcher responsibilities and methods applied in order to raise ethical standards and long-term relational accountability regarding Indigenous lands, rights, communities, and our shared futures.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
An official website of the United States government
