Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The Evolving Landscape of Citizen Science

1,253 views

Published on

Presentation for the USGS Community Data Integration workshop on Citizen Science

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

The Evolving Landscape of Citizen Science

  1. 1. The Evolving Landscape ofCitizen ScienceTypologies and Implications of Project DesignAndrea WigginsPostdoctoral FellowDataONE & Cornell Lab of Ornithology11 September, 2012USGS Community Data IntegrationWorkshop on Citizen Science
  2. 2. What’s in a name?Label Research Domain Key FeaturesCivic science Science communication Public participation in decisions about sciencePeople’s science Political science Social movements for people-centered scienceCitizen science Ecology Public participation in scientific researchVolunteer/community- Natural resource Long-term monitoring and interventionbased monitoring managementParticipatory action Behavioral science Researcher & community participation & actionresearchAction science Behavioral science Participatory, emphasizes tacit theories-in-useCommunity science Psychology Participatory community-centered social scienceLiving Labs Management Public-private partnership for innovation 2
  3. 3. What’s in a name?Label Research Domain Key FeaturesCivic science Science communication Public participation in decisions about sciencePeople’s science Political science Social movements for people-centered scienceCitizen science Ecology Public participation in scientific researchVolunteer/community- Natural resource Long-term monitoring and interventionbased monitoring managementParticipatory action Behavioral science Researcher & community participation & actionresearchAction science Behavioral science Participatory, emphasizes tacit theories-in-useCommunity science Psychology Participatory community-centered social scienceLiving Labs Management Public-private partnership for innovation 3
  4. 4. A few typologiesConsultative, functional & collaborative • Lawrence, 2006Contributory, collaborative, & co-created • CAISE report, 2009Action, conservation, investigation, virtual, & education • Wiggins & Crowston, 2011Typologies based on goals & tasks • Wiggins & Crowston, 2012 4
  5. 5. Scientific tasks 5
  6. 6. Framing participation tasksSharing my data/experiences • Fits into daily life • People like to share their passionsWorking on their/our tasks • New, often unfamiliar tasks • Reinforces us/them divisionsPlaying games & solving puzzles • Fits into daily life • Explicit symbolic rewards, entertaining 6
  7. 7. Goals & tasksStatistical clustering based on survey results • Goals more interesting than participation tasks • Academic vs decision-making: science clusters • Localized vs distributed: training & learning materials 7
  8. 8. Other important factors 8
  9. 9. (Relative) pros & cons Contributory Collaborative Co-CreatedScalability High Varies LowTechnology High Varies LowdependencyVolunteer Low Varies HighmanagementTask complexity Low Varies HighData quality Varies Varies VariesSustainability Varies Varies Varies 9
  10. 10. Implications for design 10
  11. 11. Implications for designHonestly evaluate project resources & goals, workbackwards 11
  12. 12. Implications for designHonestly evaluate project resources & goals, workbackwardsRecognize tradeoffs and make choices accordingly 12
  13. 13. Implications for designHonestly evaluate project resources & goals, workbackwardsRecognize tradeoffs and make choices accordinglyDesign to address resource constraints 13
  14. 14. Implications for designHonestly evaluate project resources & goals, workbackwardsRecognize tradeoffs and make choices accordinglyDesign to address resource constraintsThere’s more than one right answer 14
  15. 15. Thanks!andrea.wiggins@cornell.edu@AndreaWigginsdataone.orgbirds.cornell.educitizenscience.organdreawiggins.com 15
  16. 16. Typologies• Lawrence, A. (2006). “No Personal Motive?” Volunteers, Biodiversity, and the False Dichotomies of Participation. Ethics, Place & Environment, 9(3), 279-298.• Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., et al. (2009). Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report (Tech. Rep.).• Danielsen, F., Burgess, N., Balmford, A., Donald, P., Funder, M., Jones, J., et al. (2009). Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches. Conservation Biology, 23(1), 31–42.• Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Phillips, T., & Bonney, R. (2007). Citizen Science as a Tool for Conservation in Residential Ecosystems. Ecology and Society, 12(2).• Wilderman, C. C. (2007). Models of community science: design lessons from the field. Proceedings of Citizen Science Toolkit Conference.• Wiggins, A. & Crowston, K. (2011). From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.• Wiggins, A. & Crowston, K. (2012). Goals and Tasks: Two Typologies of Citizen Science Projects. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 16

×