scholarly journals Quality Criteria for Citizen Science Projects on Österreich forscht | Version 1.1

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Heigl ◽  
Daniel Dörler ◽  
Pamela Bartar ◽  
Robert Brodschneider ◽  
Marika Cieslinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Online Consultation ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Multi Stage ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Citizen Science Project

The platform Österreich forscht (www.citizen-science.at) was founded in 2014 with the objectives of (1) connecting citizen science actors in Austria, (2) providing the broadest possible overview of citizen science projects in Austria, and (3) scientifically advancing citizen science as a method.Following the initiative of the platform Österreich forscht, many of the institutions that are active in citizen science joined forces in the Citizen Science Network Austria in 2017, and thus agreed to advance the quality of citizen science in Austria (http://www.citizen-science.at/the-platform/the-network).An important step in this regard was the establishment of transparent criteria for projects wishing to be listed on the platform Österreich forscht. The objective of these criteria is to maintain and further improve the quality of the projects presented on the platform.Between March 2017 and February 2018, a working group of the platform Österreich forscht consisting of representatives from 17 institutions developed criteria that allow for the transparent evaluation of projects applying to be listed on Österreich forscht. This was a multi-stage process, building both on the knowledge of the working group members as well as on feedback repeatedly provided by external experts from the respective research fields. Throughout October 2017, a version of the quality criteria was available for public online consultation on the platform Österreich forscht, so as to incorporate the knowledge of the general public into the criteria as well.The final version of the quality criteria was presented at the 4th Austrian Citizen Science Conference, 1-3 February 2018, at which point the criteria also came into effect. Projects already listed on Österreich forscht can adapt to meet the criteria over the next year. Projects wishing to be newly listed on Österreich forscht must meet these criteria at the point of listing.Where necessary, the quality criteria will be adapted in the future, in order to respond to new challenges and developments. The version number, i.e. which version of the criteria a project corresponds to, will be indicated on the respective project page.The first part of the criteria is primarily aimed at establishing what defines a citizen science project. Here, we decided on a negative list (i.e. projects that are NOT citizen science), in order to be as open as possible to different concepts and disciplines. This implies that we call all projects citizen science, which are not excluded by this negative list. The professional background of the person leading the project is not crucial as long as the criteria are complied by the project.The criteria in the second part are to be understood as minimum standards which all projects listed on the platform Österreich forscht must fulfill.The evaluation will be carried out by the coordinators of the platform Österreich forscht in consultation with working group members.Version 1.0 of the quality criteria can be found on the platform Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/1161953

scholarly journals Quality criteria catalogue for citizen science projects on Österreich forscht – Questionnaire for project managers

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Heigl ◽  
Daniel Dörler ◽  
Pamela Bartar ◽  
Robert Brodschneider ◽  
Marika Cieslinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Project Managers ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Criteria Catalogue ◽  
Project Participants ◽  
Open Dialogue ◽  
One Year

In the course of one year the working group for quality criteria of the Citizen Science Network Austria developed a catalogue of criteria for citizen science projectson the platform Österreich forscht. From this catalogue questions were generated, which should help the project leaders of projects in Austria to fulfil the criteria. By answering the questions, important topics are addressed during the implementation of a project and can thus also be considered by the project management. On the other hand, the answers help potential project participants to make an informed decision about participation on the basis of the information presented.Project leaders receive this catalogue of questions and send the answers back to Österreich forscht. The platform coordinators read the answers, consult with the Working Group for Quality Criteria if necessary and contact the project leaders in case of ambiguities for clarification and possible assistance. The aim of this processis not to exclude individual projects, but to jointly ensure the quality of the citizen science characteristics of the projects and eventually even increase them. An open dialogue and exchange and a respectful interaction between all participants is the prerequisite for this.

scholarly journals When Scientists Become Social Scientists: How Citizen Science Projects Learn About Volunteers

1970 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Darch
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Science Project ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Long Term Observation ◽  
Citizen Science Project

Online citizen science projects involve recruitment of volunteers to assist researchers with the creation, curation, and analysis of large datasets. Enhancing the quality of these data products is a fundamental concern for teams running citizen science projects. Decisions about a project’s design and operations have a critical effect both on whether the project recruits and retains enough volunteers, and on the quality of volunteers’ work. The processes by which the team running a project learn about their volunteers play a critical role in these decisions. Improving these processes will enhance decision-making, resulting in better quality datasets, and more successful outcomes for citizen science projects. This paper presents a qualitative case study, involving interviews and long-term observation, of how the team running Galaxy Zoo, a major citizen science project in astronomy, came to know their volunteers and how this knowledge shaped their decision-making processes. This paper presents three instances that played significant roles in shaping Galaxy Zoo team members’ understandings of volunteers. Team members integrated heterogeneous sources of information to derive new insights into the volunteers. Project metrics and formal studies of volunteers combined with tacit understandings gained through on- and offline interactions with volunteers. This paper presents a number of recommendations for practice. These recommendations include strategies for improving how citizen science project team members learn about volunteers, and how teams can more effectively circulate among themselves what they learn.

scholarly journals Citizens, Scientists, and Enablers: A Tripartite Model for Citizen Science Projects

Diversity ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 309
Author(s):  
Rhian A. Salmon ◽  
Samuel Rammell ◽  
Myfanwy T. Emeny ◽  
Stephen Hartley
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Nature Of Science ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Public Engagement ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Tripartite Model ◽  
Science Project ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Emerging Issues ◽  
Citizen Science Project

In this paper, we focus on different roles in citizen science projects, and their respective relationships. We propose a tripartite model that recognises not only citizens and scientists, but also an important third role, which we call the ‘enabler’. In doing so, we acknowledge that additional expertise and skillsets are often present in citizen science projects, but are frequently overlooked in associated literature. We interrogate this model by applying it to three case studies and explore how the success and sustainability of a citizen science project requires all roles to be acknowledged and interacting appropriately. In this era of ‘wicked problems’, the nature of science and science communication has become more complex. In order to address critical emerging issues, a greater number of stakeholders are engaging in multi-party partnerships and research is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary. Within this context, explicitly acknowledging the role and motivations of everyone involved can provide a framework for enhanced project transparency, delivery, evaluation and impact. By adapting our understanding of citizen science to better recognise the complexity of the organisational systems within which they operate, we propose an opportunity to strengthen the collaborative delivery of both valuable scientific research and public engagement.

scholarly journals Reliability of Data Collected by Volunteers: A Nine-Year Citizen Science Study in the Red Sea

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Meschini ◽  
Mariana Machado Toffolo ◽  
Chiara Marchini ◽  
Erik Caroselli ◽  
Fiorella Prada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Red Sea ◽  
Reliable Data ◽  
Marine Biodiversity ◽  
Quality Of Data ◽  
Mass Tourism ◽  
Science Approach ◽  
Citizen Science Project ◽  
Professional Volunteers

The quality of data collected by non-professional volunteers in citizen science programs is crucial to render them valid for implementing environmental resources management and protection plans. This study assessed the reliability of data collected by non-professional volunteers during the citizen science project Scuba Tourism for the Environment (STE), carried out in mass tourism facilities of the Red Sea between 2007 and 2015. STE involved 16,164 volunteer recreational divers in data collection on marine biodiversity using a recreational citizen science approach. Through a specifically designed questionnaire, volunteers indicated which of the seventy-two marine taxa surveyed were observed during their recreational dive, giving an estimate of their abundance. To evaluate the validity of the collected data, a reference researcher randomly dived with the volunteers and filled in the project questionnaire separately. Correlation analyses between the records collected by the reference researcher and those collected by volunteers were performed based on 513 validation trials, testing 3,138 volunteers. Data reliability was analyzed through 7 parameters. Consistency showed the lowest mean score (51.6%, 95% Confidence Interval CI 44.1–59.2%), indicating that volunteers could direct their attention to different taxa depending on personal interests; Percent Identified showed the highest mean score (66.7%, 95% CI 55.5–78.0), indicating that volunteers can correctly identify most surveyed taxa. Overall, results confirmed that the recreational citizen science approach can effectively support reliable data for biodiversity monitoring, when carefully tailored for the volunteer skills required by the specific project. The use of a recreational approach enhances massive volunteer participation in citizen science projects, thus increasing the amount of sufficiently reliable data collected in a reduced time.

Co-Designing Mobile Applications for Data Collection in Citizen Science Projects – Challenges and Lessons Learned within the Nachtlicht-BüHNE Project

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Friederike Klan ◽  
Christopher C.M. Kyba ◽  
Nona Schulte-Römer ◽  
Helga U. Kuechly ◽  
Jürgen Oberst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Mobile Applications ◽  
Mobile Application ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Smartphone Apps ◽  
Science Project ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Citizen Science Project

<p>Data contributed by citizen scientists raise increasing interest in many areas of scientific research. Increasingly, projects rely on information technology such as mobile applications (apps) to facilitate data collection activities by lay people. When developing such smartphone apps, it is essential to account for both the requirements of the scientists interested in acquiring data and the needs of the citizen scientists contributing data. Citizens and participating scientists should therefore ideally work together during the conception, design and testing of mobile applications used in a citizen science project. This will benefit both sides, as both scientists and citizens can bring in their expectations, desires, knowledge, and commitment early on, thereby making better use of the potential of citizen science. Such processes of app co-design are highly transdisciplinary, and thus pose challenges in terms of the diversity of interests, skills, and background knowledge involved.</p><p>Our “Nachtlicht-BüHNE” citizen science project addresses these issues. Its major goal is the development of a co-design process enabling scientists and citizens to jointly develop citizen science projects based on smartphone apps. This includes (1) the conception and development of a mobile application for a specific scientific purpose, (2) the design, planning and organization of field campaigns using the mobile application, and (3) the evaluation of the approach. In Nachtlicht-BüHNE, the co-design approach is developed within the scope of two parallel pilot studies in the environmental and space sciences. Case study 1 deals with the problem of light pollution. Currently, little is known about how much different light source types contribute to emissions from Earth. Within the project, citizens and researchers will develop and use an app to capture information about all types of light sources visible from public streets. Case study 2 focuses on meteors. They are of great scientific interest because their pathways and traces of light can be used to derive dynamic and physical properties of comets and asteroids. Since the surveillance of the sky with cameras is usually incomplete, reports of fireball sightings are important. Within the project, citizens and scientists will create and use the first German-language app that allows reporting meteor sightings.</p><p>We will share our experiences on how researchers and communities of citizen scientists with backgrounds in the geosciences, space research, the social sciences, computer science and other disciplines work together in the Nachtlicht-BüHNE project to co-design mobile applications. We highlight challenges that arose and present different strategies for co-design that evolved within the project accounting for the specific needs and interests of the communities involved.</p>

scholarly journals Playing with science

2016 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 306-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Greenhill ◽  
Kate Holmes ◽  
Jamie Woodcock ◽  
Chris Lintott ◽  
Brooke D Simmons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Online Content ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Science Project ◽  
Complex Processes ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Citizen Science Project ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
User Motivation

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine intrinsic forms of motivation and particular incidents of play, socialisation, fun and amusement on an online crowdsourced citizen science platform. The paper also investigates gamised activity (Greenhill et al., 2014) as a form of intrinsic motivation adding a sense of play to work and tasks (Xu et al., 2012). These concepts are explored through close scrutiny of the online citizen science platform Zooniverse.org. Design/methodology/approach – Qualitative techniques with an interpretivist approach are used to analyse online content found within citizen science platforms, related forums and social media by examining incidents of play, socialisation, fun and amusement to investigate how these aspects are applied as a form of user motivation. Findings – The authors find that when users classify crowdsourced tasks voluntarily it does not matter how users are classifying as long as it is accurately. However, what does matter is why they are doing it particularly because of the complex processes that builds relationships between users and the platform. The authors present a conceptual model to enable deeper understandings of how forms of social interaction and play are motivating users contributing to citizen science project to participate in the online processes. Practical implications – The findings of this paper provide practical implications for how citizen science, and also other crowdsourcing platforms, can engage with notions of play and gamification to motivate participation. Originality/value – Using detailed examples of online content, the authors reveal how participants of the Zooniverse.org demonstrate aspects of “gamised” behaviour. The authors argue that the exploration of gaming as well as play provides evidence that contributing to citizen science projects can be both utilitarian and hedonic.

Birding, Citizen Science, and Wildlife Conservation in Sociological Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Cherry
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Wildlife Conservation ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Sociological Perspective ◽  
Quality Of Data ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
In The Wild

Abstract Sociological research on wildlife typically looks at how nonhuman animals in the wild are hunted, poached, or captured for entertainment, or how they play a symbolic role in people’s lives. Within sociology, little research exists on how people appreciate nonhuman animals in the wild, and how people contribute to wildlife conservation. I explore birding-related citizen science projects in the US. Citizen science refers to scientific projects carried out by amateurs. Literature on citizen science focuses on the perspective of professional scientists, with the assumption that only professional scientists are concerned with the quality of data from citizen science projects. The research showed birders share this skepticism, but they still find satisfaction in participating in citizen science projects. This paper contributes to sociological understandings of wildlife conservation by showing how birders’ participation in citizen science projects helps professional scientists study environmental problems such as climate change and its effects on wildlife.

scholarly journals Assessment of Biodiversity Data Collected Using iNaturalist Compiled Over Three Years of College Freshman Orientations

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Stevenson ◽  
Carl Merrill ◽  
Peter Burn
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
College Freshman ◽  
Boston Harbor ◽  
Science Project ◽  
Genus Level ◽  
Research Grade ◽  
Spatial Quality ◽  
Citizen Science Project ◽  
Species Being

Each fall from 2017 to 2019, entering Honors students at the University of Massachusetts Boston were invited to attend a 2-day retreat on Thompson Island in Boston Harbor, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. As part of this retreat, students participated in a three-hour bioblitz using the iNaturalist platform. The educational goal of this exercise was to allow the students to observe nature and to participate in a Citizen Science project. These students were generally not science majors and had little or no experience with iNaturalist, and yet during 3 years they made over 2000 biodiversity observations, including over 5700 photographs. Using these data, we addressed the question, “Can naïve observers, using the iNaturalist platform, make useful contributions to our understanding of biodiversity?” For those unfamiliar with the iNaturalist platform, it facilitates this process by encouraging its online community of identifiers to provide species names, thus effectively integrating the collection and identification processes. Observer training: A National Park Service educational team gave groups of 50 to 75 students a 20 to 30 minute introduction to bioblitzes, how to take pictures, especially close-ups with mobile phones, and how to use the iNaturalist app. The students then headed out in one- to four-person groups to preassigned quadrants of the island for 2 to 2.5 hours of observations. Evaluation of Observations: iNaturalist evaluates observations with a three category system of “Casual”, “Needs Id” and “Research Grade”. In addition to the iNaturalist ratings we evaluated other characteristics of the observations: We tallied the number of photographs per observation and developed a rubric to score the quality of images as good, OK, or poor. We identified whether or not the observer tried to identify the species being observed, and scored observations as to whether we thought an identification to species or genus was possible. We totaled the number of observations that were identified to the species and genus level by August 1st, 2020. Finally we evaluated the spatial quality of the observations. We tallied the number of photographs per observation and developed a rubric to score the quality of images as good, OK, or poor. We identified whether or not the observer tried to identify the species being observed, and scored observations as to whether we thought an identification to species or genus was possible. We totaled the number of observations that were identified to the species and genus level by August 1st, 2020. Finally we evaluated the spatial quality of the observations. Results: Over 50% of the observations were of plants and 40% of animals, mostly arthropods and mollusks. The remaining 10% were of fungi and seaweeds. A total of 202 unique species were identified from the student bioblitzes. The proportion of species common to each year was 19%. Forty-seven percent of the observations (945) were identified to species level but only 2/3 of these (687) were confirmed by others to make them “research grade”. Fifty-eight percent of the observations included three or four images, and 31% were judged to be of good quality, 54% OK and 15% poor. We thought that the majority of the observations were identifiable to species or genus level (64%), and in 26% of the observations, our expertise was insufficient to be confident of an identification. We scored the final 10% of the observations as unidentifiable. The location data for most of the observations met our expectations in that marine species were located on the periphery of the island and terrestrial species were found over land, concentrated along island pathways. However, we found about 2.7% of the observations did not make it into the official iNaturalist project because of errors in the GPS coordinates, sometimes placing the observation miles away. All observations were made on Thompson Island but 60 different place names were given for the 2000+ observations. Discussion: A year-long biodiveristy inventory of the Boston Harbor Islands using the iNaturalist approach and completed in 2017 found 475 species. The 202 species identified (by students and identifiers) on Thompson Island are a signficant contribution considering the short, late summer sampling period. The short field experience with naïve observers contributes to the relatively low (19%) proportion of species in common among the three years. The students were predictably attracted to species that were easily photographed e.g., did not move or were of the right size. Examples include herbs and shrubs that were flowering or fruiting, oysters, mussels, snail shells, and insects such as butterflies. The instructors encouraged the students to take photographs of the whole organism and its parts, but some images were out of focus or did not capture details essential for identification. We expected that using GPS technology within miles of downtown Boston would lead to precise and accurate species locations and that was what we found. However, the errors associated with an observation can be large, and 2.7% of observations that should have been included in the project were initially not. Conclusions: This bioblitz exercise was designed with an educational objective: to give college freshman from the city the opportunity to observe nature and partake in a citizen science project. We conclude that a short instruction period provided to naïve users armed with a digital native’s expertise usingsmart phones allowed them to collect observations that the iNaturalist community of species identifiers was able to turn into quality biodiversity observations. The students’ observations are building a record that can be mined by scientists to answer a variety of questions.

scholarly journals Conceptual Frameworks for Building Online Citizen Science Projects

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Poonam Yadav ◽  
John Darlington
Keyword(s):  
Informal Learning ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Communication Technologies ◽  
Conceptual Frameworks ◽  
Science Project ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Citizen Science Project

In recent years, citizen science has grown in popularity due to a number of reasons, including the emphasis on informal learning and creativity potential associated with these initiatives. Citizen science projects address research questions from various domains, ranging from Ecology to Astronomy.  Due to the advancement of communication technologies, which makes outreach and engagement of wider communities easier, scientists are keen to turn their own research into citizen science projects. However, the development, deployment and management of these projects remains challenging. One of the most important challenges is building the project itself. There is no single tool or framework, which guides the step-by-step development of the project, since every project has specific characteristics, such as geographical constraints or volunteers' mode of participation. Therefore, in this article, we present a series of conceptual frameworks for categorisation, decision and deployment, which guide a citizen science project creator in every step of creating a new project starting from the research question to project deployment.  The frameworks are designed with consideration to the properties of already existing citizen science projects and could be easily extended to include other dimensions, which are not currently perceived.

scholarly journals Ignoring Ignorance: Notes on Pedagogical Relationships in Citizen Science

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 206
Author(s):  
Michael Scroggins
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Scientific Inquiry ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Close Attention ◽  
Anthropology Of Education ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Pedagogical Relationships ◽  
The Common ◽  
Citizen Science Project

Theoretically, this article seeks to broaden the conceptualization of ignorance within STS by drawing on a line of theory developed in the philosophy and anthropology of education to argue that ignorance can be productively conceptualized as a state of possibility and that doing so can enable more democratic forms of citizen science. In contrast to conceptualizations of ignorance as a lack, lag, or manufactured product, ignorance is developed here as both the opening move in scientific inquiry and the common ground over which that inquiry proceeds. Empirically, the argument is developed through an ethnographic description of Scroggins' participation in a failed citizen science project at a DIYbio laboratory. Supporting the empirical case are a review of the STS literature on expertise and a critical examination of the structures of participation within two canonical citizen science projects. Though onerous, through close attention to how people transform one another during inquiry, increasingly democratic forms of citizen science, grounded in the commonness of ignorance, can be put into practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document