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.

A framework for design of public participation in scientific research

1,052 views

Published on

Public Participation in Scientific Research (PPSR) refers to intentional research collaborations between professional scientists and members of the public, where the initiative aims to build on established knowledge and to contribute new understandings. PPSR efforts have emerged from a variety of social and academic traditions ranging from participatory action research in the fields of development studies and public health, to citizen science projects with a long history in ornithology and astronomy research, to water quality monitoring and community-based natural resource management. In contexts of conservation and ecology, such efforts invariably confront the complexity of questions and issues related to people in their environments.

As such, there are demands for PPSR initiatives in these contexts to meet complex and often multiple goals, generally for multiple constituents. Across the range of PPSR projects operating in conservation contexts, project goals and outcomes tend to fall into three main categories: those for research (e.g., scientific findings), for individual participants (e.g., access to information or acquiring new skills), and/or for socio-ecological systems (e.g., influencing policies, improving communities, and/or taking conservation action). Until recently, little in the way of empirical data has been available to inform design choices regarding what types of approaches yield what outcomes, and thus it can be difficult for project leaders and collaborators to make strategic decisions about aligning goals, outcomes, and tradeoffs in the design and refinement of projects.

We discuss how recent work in multiple traditions converges to describe three different models of public participation in scientific research (PPSR), all suggesting that the degree to which the public participates in a given scientific research endeavor is a key predictor of project outcomes. These intentional collaborations can also be understood as operating within a common logic framework, which acknowledges the multiple, integrated goals of such projects and considers how the degree and quality of participation relates to specific outcomes. Designers and facilitators of initiatives involving public participants in scientific research can use the framework and models to reflect on relationships between their approaches to collaboration with public audiences and observed outcomes, and may consider how applying ideas from other approaches could more intentionally target their goals.

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

  • Be the first to like this

A framework for design of public participation in scientific research

  1. 1. Public Participation in Scientific Research: A Framework for Intentional Design<br />ESA, August 2011<br />Jennifer Shirk1, Heidi Ballard2, Andrea Wiggins3, Tina Phillips1, Rebecca Jordan4, Candie Wilderman5, Ellen McCallie6, Rick Bonney1<br />1Cornell Lab of Ornithology<br />2University of California, Davis<br />3Syracuse University School of Information Sciences<br />4Rutgers University, 5Dickinson College<br />6Carnegie Museum of Natural History<br />
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5. Degree<br />Participation<br />Flickr photo, sierraclub<br />Quality<br />
  6. 6. Participation<br />degree – who participates, and in what?<br /> depth of public involvement in the research process <br />Participation<br />degree – who participates, and in what? <br />(in our context, depth of public involvement in the research process) <br />quality – whose interests are being served, and to what end? <br />(in our context, how interests are balanced in a project’s design)<br />degree – who participates, and in what? <br />(in our context, depth of public involvement in the research process) <br />quality – whose interests are being served, and to what end? <br />(in our context, how interests are balanced in a project’s design)<br />
  7. 7. Degree of participation<br />Contributory<br />Collaborative<br />Co-Created<br />Define a question/issue<br />Gather information<br />Develop explanations<br />Design data collection methods<br />Collect samples<br />Analyze samples<br />Analyze data<br />Interpret data/conclude<br />Disseminate conclusions<br />Discuss results/inquire further<br />Bonney et al. 2009. CAISE Inquiry Group Report.<br />
  8. 8. Participation<br />degree – who participates, and in what?<br /> depth of public involvement in the research process <br />quality – whose interests are being served, and to what end? <br /> how interests are balanced in a project’s design<br />Participation<br />degree – who participates, and in what? <br />(in our context, depth of public involvement in the research process) <br />quality – whose interests are being served, and to what end? <br />(in our context, how interests are balanced in a project’s design)<br />degree – who participates, and in what? <br />(in our context, depth of public involvement in the research process) <br />quality – whose interests are being served, and to what end? <br />(in our context, how interests are balanced in a project’s design)<br />
  9. 9. Activities<br />Outputs<br />Outcomes<br />Impacts<br />Inputs<br />Scientific interests<br />Science: <br />Research findings, publications<br />Develop project infrastructure and manage project implementation<br />Observations and experiences<br />Sustainability<br />Resiliency<br />Conservation<br />Identify question or issue<br />Social-Ecological <br />Systems: <br />Action, legislation, relationships<br />Individuals:<br />Access to information, new skills<br />Public interests<br />
  10. 10. Degree of participation<br />Contributory<br />Collaborative<br />Co-Created<br />Define a question/issue<br />Gather information<br />Develop explanations<br />Design data collection methods<br />Collect samples<br />Analyze samples<br />Analyze data<br />Interpret data/conclude<br />Disseminate conclusions<br />Discuss results/inquire further<br />Bonney et al. 2009. CAISE Inquiry Group Report.<br />
  11. 11. Community-based participatory research<br />Community Workers I<br />Community Workers II<br />Degree of participation<br />Define a question/issue<br />Gather information<br />Develop explanations<br />Design data collection methods<br />Collect samples<br />Analyze samples<br />Analyze data<br />Interpret data/conclude<br />Disseminate conclusions<br />Discuss results/inquire further<br />Wilderman 2004<br />
  12. 12. Collaborative monitoring with external data interpretation<br />Collaborative monitoring with local data interpretation<br />Externally driven with local data collectors<br />Degree of participation<br />Define a question/issue<br />Gather information<br />Develop explanations<br />Design data collection methods<br />Collect samples<br />Analyze samples<br />Analyze data<br />Interpret data/conclude<br />Disseminate conclusions<br />Discuss results/inquire further<br />Danielsen et al. 2009<br />
  13. 13. Danielsen et al. 2009<br />
  14. 14. Shirk et al. submitted, Ecology and Society<br />
  15. 15. Degree<br />Participation<br />Flickr photo, sierraclub<br />Quality<br />
  16. 16. Public Participation in Scientific Research<br />
  17. 17. For more information:<br />citizenscience.org<br />cscentral@cornell.edu<br />Works cited:<br />Bonney, R., H. Ballard, R. Jordan, E. McCallie, T. Phillips, J. Shirk, and C. Wilderman. 2009. Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), Washington, D.C.<br />Danielsen, F., N.D. Burgess, A. Balford, P.F. Donald, M. Funder, J.P. Jones, P. Alviola, D.S. Balete, T. Blomley, and J. Brashares. 2009. Local Participation in Natural Resource Monitoring: a Characterization of Approaches. Conservation Biology 23:31-42.<br />Wilderman, C.C., A. Barron, and L. Imgrund. 2004. From the Field: A service provider’s experience with two operational models for community science. Community Based Collaboratives Research Consortium Journal. Spring 2004.<br />

×