Citizen science; Community science; DIY science; Post-normal science; Typologies; Business and International Management; Development; Sociology and Political Science; Post -normal science; General Social Sciences; General Decision Sciences
Abstract :
[en] At first sight, citizen science – the opening of scientific enterprise to a wider group of people, many of whom are not professionally engaged in research institutions, seems to align well with the concept of an extended peer community of the framework of Post-Normal Science (PNS). PNS is concerned with the social robustness of applied science, science-based professional consultancy, and scientific advice for policy in situations of high stakes, high uncertainties, and contested values. Creating opportunities for engagement of citizens in science seems an obvious fit – but is that true for all diverse forms that citizen science can take? Current citizen science includes many types of activities and practices. As a result, the role of the participants within a given scientific knowledge production practice and their relation to scientists vary. This paper leverages the PNS framework to gain a more in-depth understanding of different ways in which diverse citizen science initiatives can contribute to improving the science-policy interface and provide tool sets and approaches for extended peer review, or not. For this purpose, this paper develops an analytic framework drawing on several widely used typologies of citizen science. The twenty four activities and practices of citizen science that they cover are mapped onto different zones of problem solving strategies – applied science, professional consultancy, and post-normal science, which are presented in the literature on PNS in terms of uncertainty and decision stakes while also noticing their value conflicts and urgency. The analysis shows that each of the four zones of scientific activities can be associated with citizen science initiatives. We deduce that citizen science is not automatically imbued with transformative potential, but that this potential depends on the purpose and design of the citizen science initiative. Certain types of citizen science activities and approaches are more relevant to researchers and practitioners with an interest in PNS who are actively seeking to reconfigure the science-policy-practice interface than others. This analytic framework and consequent mapping can support PNS practitioners in identifying the type of citizen science activities and designing fit-for-purpose initiatives. Moreover, the mapping exercise conveys a more nuanced understanding of different possible dimensions, merits, and limitations of the extended peer community concept. Similarly, for citizen science researchers and practitioners, the mapping of typologies within the three zones of problem solving strategies can allow a better selection of citizen science activities for those purposes.
Disciplines :
Human geography & demography
Author, co-author :
Haklay, Mordechai ✱; Extreme Citizen Science Group, Department of Geography, United Kingdom
KÖNIG, Ariane ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (FHSE) > Department of Social Sciences (DSOC) > Education and Society
Moustard, Fabien; Extreme Citizen Science Group, Department of Geography, United Kingdom
Aspee, Nicolle; Extreme Citizen Science Group, Department of Geography, United Kingdom
✱ These authors have contributed equally to this work.
External co-authors :
yes
Language :
English
Title :
Citizen science and Post-Normal Science's extended peer community: Identifying overlaps by mapping typologies
Horizon 2020 European Research Council Horizon 2020 Framework Programme Horizon 2020 European Research Council
Funding text :
The development of these characteristics was supported by European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No 824580, project EU-Citizen.Science (The Platform for Sharing, Initiating, and Learning Citizen Science in Europe), grant agreement No. 101006201, project TIME4CS (Supporting sustainable Institutional Changes to promote Citizen Science in Science and Technology), and the ERC Advanced Grant project Extreme Citizen Science: Analysis and Visualisation (under Grant Agreement No 694767).The development of these characteristics was supported by European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No 824580 , project EU-Citizen.Science ( The Platform for Sharing, Initiating, and Learning Citizen Science in Europe ), grant agreement No. 101006201 , project TIME4CS (Supporting sustainable Institutional Changes to promote Citizen Science in Science and Technology), and the ERC Advanced Grant project Extreme Citizen Science: Analysis and Visualisation (under Grant Agreement No 694767 ).
Anderson, D.P., Cobb, J., Korpela, E., Lebofsky, M., Werthimer, D., SETI@home: an experiment in public-resource computing. Communication of the ACM 45:11 (2002), 56–61.
Arnstein, S.R., A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners 35:4 (1969), 216–224.
Benkler, Y., The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. 2006, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
Bidwell, D., Is community-based participatory research postnormal science?. Science, Technology, & Human Values 34:6 (2009), 741–761.
Bonney, R., Citizen science: A Lab tradition. Living Birding 15:4 (1996), 7–15.
Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C.C. (2009). Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Online Submission.
Bremer, S., Stiller-Reeve, M., Blanchard, A., Mamnun, N., Naznin, Z., Kaiser, M., Co-producing “post-normal” climate knowledge with communities in northeast Bangladesh. Weather, Climate, and Society 10:2 (2018), 259–268.
Brown, A., Franken, P., Bonner, S., Dolezal, N., Moross, J., Safecast: successful citizen-science for radiation measurement and communication after Fukushima. Journal of Radiological Protection, 36(2), 2016, S82.
Cooper, C.B., Citizen science: How ordinary people are changing the face of discovery. 2016, The Overlook Press, Woodstock.
Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Phillips, T., Bonney, R., Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecology and Society, 12, 2007, 2.
Cooper, C.B., Lewenstein, B.V., Two meanings of citizen science. Cavalier, D., Kennedy, E.B., (eds.) The rightful place of science: Citizen science, 2016, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Tempe, AZ, 51–62.
Dankel, D.J., Vaage, N.S., van der Sluijs, J.P., Post-Normal science in practice. Futures, 91, 2017, 1.
Eitzel, M., Cappadonna, J., Santos-Lang, C., Duerr, R., West, S.E., Virapongse, A., Kyba, C., et al. ‘Citizen science terminology matters: Exploring key terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2:1 (2017), 1–20, 10.5334/cstp.96.
Ferretti, F., Mapping do-it-yourself science. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 15:1 (2019), 1–23.
Freitag, A., A typology for strategies to connect citizen science and management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 188:9 (2016), 1–14.
Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:7 (1993), 739–755.
Gharesifard, M., Wehn, U., van der Zaag, P., What influences the establishment and functioning of community-based monitoring initiatives of water and environment? A conceptual framework. Journal of Hydrology, 579, 2019, 124033.
Golumbic, Y.N., Orr, D., Baram-Tsabari, A., Fishbain, B., Between vision and reality: A study of scientists’ views on citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 2017.
Goodchild, M.F., Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69:4 (2007), 211–221.
Grey, F., Citizen cyberscience: the new age of the amateur. CERN Courier 51:7 (2011), 41–43.
Haklay, M., Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. Sui, D., Elwood, S., Goodchild, M., (eds.) Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge, 2013, Springer, Dordrecht, 105–122.
Haklay, M., Citizen science and policy: A European perspective. 2015, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC.
Haklay, M., Fraisl, D., Greshake Tzovaras, B., Hecker, S., Gold, M., Hager, G., Vohland, K., Contours of citizen science: A vignette study. Royal Society Open Science, 8(8), 2021, 202108.
Haklay, M., Mazumdar, S., Wardlaw, J., Citizen science for observing and understanding the earth. Earth Observation Open Science and Innovation, 2018, Springer, Cham, 69–88.
Hyder, K., Townhill, B., Anderson, L.G., Delany, J., Pinnegar, J.K., Can citizen science contribute to the evidence-base that underpins marine policy?. Marine Policy 59 (2015), 112–120.
Irwin, A., Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. 1995, Routledge, London.
Kuhn, T.S., The structure of scientific revolutions. 1962, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lintott, C.J., Schawinski, K., Keel, W., Van Arkel, H., Bennert, N., Edmondson, E., Vandenberg, J., Galaxy Zoo: ‘Hanny's Voorwerp’, a quasar light echo?. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 399:1 (2009), 129–140.
Lintott, C.J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., Land, K., Bamford, S., Thomas, D.,. & Vandenberg, J. (2008). Galaxy Zoo: morphologies derived from visual inspection of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 389(3), 1179–1189.
Marres, N., Issues spark a public into being: A key but often forgotten point of the Lippmann-Dewey debate. Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, 2005, 208–217.
McQuillan, D., The Countercultural Potential of Citizen Science. Megye/C Journal, 17(6), 2014, 10.5204/mcj.919.
Nascimento, S., Pereira, A.G., Ghezzi, A., From citizen science to do it yourself science. Joint research centre, 2014, European Commission, Ispra, Italy.
Peters, M.A., Besley, T., Citizen science and post-normal science in a post-truth era: Democratising knowledge; socialising responsibility. Educational Philosophy and Theory 51:13 (2019), 1293–1303.
Phillips, T.B., Ballard, H.L., Lewenstein, B.V., Bonney, R., Engagement in science through citizen science: Moving beyond data collection. Science Education 103:3 (2019), 665–690.
Pocock, M.J., Tweddle, J.C., Savage, J., Robinson, L.D., Roy, H.E., The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science. PLoS One, 12(4), 2017, e0172579.
Ravetz, J. (2016) “Democratizing Science in an Age of Uncertainty,” interview by Allen White, Great Transition Initiative (June 2016), http://www.greattransition.org/publication/democratizing-science.
Ravetz, J.R., What is post-normal science?. Futures 31 (1999), 647–653.
Rey-Mazón, P., Keysar, H., Dosemagen, S., D'Ignazio, C., Blair, D., Public lab: Community-based approaches to urban and environmental health and justice. Science and Engineering Ethics 24:3 (2018), 971–997.
Schäfer, T., Kieslinger, B., Supporting emerging forms of citizen science: A plea for diversity, creativity and social innovation. Journal of Science Communication, 15(2), 2016, Y02.
Shirk, J.L., Ballard, H.L., Wilderman, C.C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., Bonney, R., Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 2012.
Silvertown, J., Cook, L., Cameron, R., Dodd, M., McConway, K., Worthington, J., Juan, X., Citizen science reveals unexpected continental-scale evolutionary change in a model organism. PLoS One, 6(4), 2011, e18927.
Smallman, M., Lock, S.J., Miller, S., United Kingdom: The developing relationship between science and society. Communicating science: A global perspective, 2020, ANU Press, 931–957.
Stilgoe, J. (2009). Citizen Scientists: reconnecting science with civil society. London: Demos.
Strasser, B., Baudry, J., Mahr, D., Sanchez, G., Tancoigne, E., Citizen science? Rethinking science and public participation. Science & Technology Studies 32 (2019), 52–76.
Tallacchini, M., Establishing a Legitimate Knowledge-based Dialogue among Institutions, Scientists, and Citizens during the Covid-19: Some Lessons from Coproduction. TECNOSCIENZA: Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies 11:1 (2020), 27–34.
Wiggins, A., & Crowston, K. (2011, January). From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. In 2011 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 1–10). IEEE.
Wiggins, A., & Crowston, K. (2012, January). Goals and tasks: Two typologies of citizen science projects. In 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3426–3435). IEEE.
Wiggins, A., Newman, G., Stevenson, R.D., & Crowston, K. (2011, December). Mechanisms for data quality and validation in citizen science. In 2011 IEEE seventh international conference on e-Science Workshops (pp. 14–19). IEEE.
Winston, R., Bad ideas?: An arresting history of our inventions. 2011, Random House.
Wynne, B., Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16:1 (1991), 111–121.
Wynne, B. (1989) Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A Case Study in Communicating Scientific Information, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, (31:2), 10-39.
