Search for: All records

Large-scale, scientist-led, participatory science (citizen science) projects often engage participants who are primarily white, wealthy, and well-educated. Calls to diversify contributory projects are increasingly common, but little research has evaluated the efficacy of suggested strategies for diversification. We engaged participants in Crowd the Tap through facilitator organizations like historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), predominantly white institutions, high school science classrooms, and corporate volunteer programs. Crowd the Tap is a contributory project focused on identifying and addressing lead (Pb) contamination in household drinking water in the United States. We investigated how participant diversity with respects to race, ethnicity, and homeownership (a proxy for income) differed between participation facilitated through a partner organization and unfacilitated participation in which participants came to the project independently. We were also interested in which facilitators were most effective at increasing participant diversity. White and wealthy participants were overrepresented in unfacilitated participation. Facilitation helped increase engagement of people of color, especially Black and lower-income households. High schools were particularly effective at engaging Hispanic or Latinx participants, and HBCUs were important for engaging Black households. Ultimately, our results suggest that engagement through facilitator organizations may be an effective means of engaging diverse participants in large-scale projects. Our results have important implications for the field of participatory science as we seek to identify evidence-based strategies for diversifying project participants. 

Scientific research is not value-neutral but builds on the stated and unstated values of those leading the research, influencing the choice of study topics; decisions about methods, judgments, or inferences with data; and considerations of the consequences of errors. In some fields, researchers create a positionality statement to disclose bias as a way to manage or neutralize the influence of values. Positionality refers to the way in which an individual’s worldview, and thus perceptions and research activities, is shaped by the frameworks, social identities, lived experiences, and sociopolitical context within which they live. Thinking about positionality is a valuable, yet missing, element for practitioners of participatory sciences. In this essay, we suggest that those leading participatory science projects explore their positionality, irrespective of whether or not they choose to disclose it, in order to manage values for several goals: research integrity, ethical data practices, and equity and inclusion. By reviewing and synthesizing literature, we created a tool to help leaders of participatory science projects think reflectively (for awareness of their identities and characteristics) and reflexively (from an external position for critical observation of themselves) to recognize their influence on project design and implementation. We view examining positionality as a precursor to anticipating and taking actions to minimize epistemic injustices and ultimately enhance the unique capacity of each project to advance equity, inclusion, and scientific productivity. 

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).