scholarly journals Ethical boundary work in citizen science

Author(s):  
Dick Kasperowski ◽  
Niclas Hagen ◽  
Frauke Rohden

The concept of boundary work (Gieryn 1983, 1999) has been developed to capture theways in which scientists collectively defend and demarcate their intellectual territories.This article applies the concept of boundary work to the ethical realm and investigates theethical boundary work performed by researchers in the field of citizen science (CS) througha literature review and by analysing accounts of ethics presented in CS literature.Results show that ethical boundary work in the CS literature is, to a large extent, a matterof managing ambiguities and paradoxes without any clear boundaries drawn between theunethical and ethical. Scientists are negotiating ethical positions, which might, occasionally,enhance the ethical authority of ‘non-science’ and non-scientists, as well as maintainalready established research ethics. The main ethical boundary work in CS displaysvariations towards perceived insufficiencies of conventional research ethics to accommodate“outsiders”, addressing issues of distribution, relevance, and expulsion as science includevolunteer contributors in the scientific process.

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa G. Rosas ◽  
Patricia Rodriguez Espinosa ◽  
Felipe Montes Jimenez ◽  
Abby C. King

While there are many definitions of citizen science, the term usually refers to the participation of the general public in the scientific process in collaboration with professional scientists. Citizen scientists have been engaged to promote health equity, especially in the areas of environmental contaminant exposures, physical activity, and healthy eating. Citizen scientists commonly come from communities experiencing health inequities and have collected data using a range of strategies and technologies, such as air sensors, water quality kits, and mobile applications. On the basis of our review, and to advance the field of citizen science to address health equity, we recommend ( a) expanding the focus on topics important for health equity, ( b) increasing the diversity of people serving as citizen scientists, ( c) increasing the integration of citizen scientists in additional research phases, ( d) continuing to leverage emerging technologies that enable citizen scientists to collect data relevant for health equity, and ( e) strengthening the rigor of methods to evaluate impacts on health equity. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 43 is April 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.


2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (11) ◽  
pp. 2613-2619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
Philippe Ravaud

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is an essential step in the scientific process. However, publication is not simply the reporting of facts arising from a straightforward analysis thereof. Authors have broad latitude when writing their reports and may be tempted to consciously or unconsciously “spin” their study findings. Spin has been defined as a specific intentional or unintentional reporting that fails to faithfully reflect the nature and range of findings and that could affect the impression the results produce in readers. This article, based on a literature review, reports the various practices of spin from misreporting by “beautification” of methods to misreporting by misinterpreting the results. It provides data on the prevalence of some forms of spin in specific fields and the possible effects of some types of spin on readers’ interpretation and research dissemination. We also discuss why researchers would spin their reports and possible ways to avoid it.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen M Oberle ◽  
Stacey A Page ◽  
Fintan KT Stanley ◽  
Aaron A Goodarzi

Ethics review of research involving humans has become something of an institution in recent years. It is intended to protect participants from harm and, to that end, follows rigorous standards. Given recent changes in research methodologies utilized in medical research, it may be that ethics review for some kinds of studies needs to be reexamined. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate dialogue regarding the kind of review required for citizen science-based research. We describe a case study of a proposal submitted to our research ethics board and propose different approaches to proportionate review in research involving citizen scientists. In particular, we describe how problems with the term “participant” led to confusion in review of this study and examine the study in light of current Canadian guidelines. We suggest that the term participant and indeed the general approach to low-risk community-based studies such as the one described warrant reexamination.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahul Ramachandran ◽  
Kaylin Bugbee ◽  
Kevin Murphy

<p>Open science is a concept that represents a fundamental change in scientific culture. This change is characterized by openness, where research objects and results are shared as soon as possible, and connectivity to a wider audience. Understanding about what Open Science actually means  differs from various stakeholders.</p><p>Thoughts on Open Science fall into four distinct viewpoints. The first viewpoint strives to make science accessible to a larger community by focusing on allowing non-scientists to participate in the research process through citizen science project and by more effectively communicating research results to the broader public. The second viewpoint considers providing equitable knowledge access to everyone by not only considering access to journal publications but also to other objects in the research process such as data and code. The third viewpoint focuses on making both the research process and the communication of results more efficient. There are two aspects to this component which can be described as social and technical components. The social component is driven by the need to tackle complex problems that require collaboration and a team approach to science while the technical component focuses on creating tools, services and especially scientific platforms to make the scientific process more efficient. Lastly, the fourth viewpoint strives to develop new metrics to measure scientific contributions that go beyond the current metrics derived solely from scientific publications and to consider contributions from other research objects such as data, code or knowledge sharing through blogs and other social media communication mechanisms. </p><p>Technological change is a factor in all four of these viewpoints on Open Science. New capabilities in compute, storage, methodologies, publication and sharing enable technologists to better serve as the primary drivers for Open Science by providing more efficient technological solutions. Sharing knowledge, information and other research objects such as data and code has become easier with new modalities of sharing available to researchers. In addition, technology is enabling the democratization of science at two levels. First, researchers are no longer constrained by lack of infrastructure resources needed to tackle difficult problems. Second, the Citizen Science projects now involve the public at different steps of the scientific process from collecting the data to analysis.</p><p>This presentations investigates the four described viewpoints on Open Science from the perspective of any large organization involved in scientific data stewardship and management. The presentation will list possible technological strategies that organizations may adopt to further align with all aspects of the Open Science movement. </p>


2017 ◽  
Vol 149 (6) ◽  
pp. 774-785 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Acorn

AbstractCitizen science involves voluntary participation in the scientific process, typically by gathering data in order to monitor some aspect of the natural world. Entomological citizen science, as an extension of traditional amateur entomology, is an active field in Canada, with online databases such as eButterfly and BugGuide attracting both contributors and database users. As well, traditional amateur entomology continues to be important in Canada, as do short-term insect-themed educational events, the involvement of amateurs in entomological societies, and online crowdsourcing initiatives. Success of citizen science projects can be measured in many ways. In terms of published papers that analyse trends in citizen science data, Canadian projects have only begun to deliver. More valuable are particular records that improve our knowledge of geographic ranges and phenology. In terms of the endurance of particular projects, and the willingness of volunteers to participate, citizen science entomology in Canada is clearly a success. However, quality control of citizen science data remains an issue for some projects. As well, challenges remain with respect to balancing the goals of researchers, participants, and supporting institutions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (01) ◽  
pp. A02 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artemis Skarlatidou ◽  
Alexandra Hamilton ◽  
Michalis Vitos ◽  
Muki Haklay

Although hundreds of citizen science applications exist, there is lack of detailed analysis of volunteers' needs and requirements, common usability mistakes and the kinds of user experiences that citizen science applications generate. Due to the limited number of studies that reflect on these issues, it is not always possible to develop interactions that are beneficial and enjoyable. In this paper we perform a systematic literature review to identify relevant articles which discuss user issues in environmental digital citizen science and we develop a set of design guidelines, which we evaluate using cooperative evaluation. The proposed research can assist scientists and practitioners with the design and development of easy to use citizen science applications and sets the basis to inform future Human-Computer Interaction research in the context of citizen science.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Etivina Lovo ◽  
Lynn Woodward ◽  
Sarah Larkins ◽  
Robyn Preston ◽  
Unaisi Nabobo Baba

Abstract Background Many indigenous people have died or been harmed because of inadequately monitored research. Strong regulations in Human Research Ethics (HRE) are required to address these injustices and to ensure that peoples’ participation in health research is safe. Indigenous peoples advocate that research that respects indigenous principles can contribute to addressing their health inequities. This scoping literature review aims to analyze existing peer reviewed and grey literature to explore how indigenous values and principles from countries of Oceania are incorporated into HRE and the governance of research involving human participants. Methods A scoping literature review framework was used for this study. A search for peer reviewed and grey literature from Google, bibliographies, and electronic databases such as SCOPUS, SPRINGER, Medline (Ovid) and JBI Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted, limited to the years 2002–2020. Sixty (60) documents that focused on indigenous knowledge from Oceania region and HRE were included, from which key findings and themes were synthesized. Results Charting the data showed that more than half the eligible documents were peer-reviewed journal articles (54%). Other sources included: International Declarations on Human Research (8%); book chapters (8%); government documents (8%); HRE Guidelines or protocols (13%); news articles (7%) and PhD thesis (2%). The literature was from Australia, Cook Islands, Guam, New Zealand, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu, some of which focused specifically on HREs in the Pacific Region. Issues emerging from the literature were grouped into five themes (i) indigenous and cultural principles of HRE; (ii) informed consent in indigenous settings in Oceania; (iii) vulnerability and minority status of indigenous populations exploited for research; (iv) research ethics governance for Oceania indigenous peoples; and (v) research ethics committees in Oceania. Respect, relationship building, and trust were priority indigenous HRE principles that encompass the principles of partnership, capacity building, reciprocity, and equality. Relationship building and trust imply the equal distribution of benefits for indigenous population and researchers. Conclusion Indigenous principles of HRE identified were interconnected and interdependent. Recommendations were to incorporate indigenous principles of research in HRE regulations and processes of all countries with indigenous populations. This is especially pertinent for emerging national research committees in LMIC countries, including Fiji and Tonga. Relationship building among researchers and indigenous populations is key to successful research with indigenous populations. HRE principles important for relationship building include respect that is reciprocal among researchers and indigenous people. Elements of the principle of respect highlighted are empathy, collaboration, sharing of benefits, reciprocity, appreciation, empowerment, protection, safety and awareness of culture and languages. Indigenous ontology from the Oceania region involves spirituality, connectedness to land, religious beliefs and a participatory approach to HRE and should be respected in research. An ethical governance mechanism of HRE is one that incorporates indigenous principles and applications for the purpose of maximizing the protection of the dignity and rights of indigenous peoples of Oceania.


2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt ◽  
Cassandra Van ◽  
Yali Cong ◽  
Harun Rashid ◽  
Nandini Kumar ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Lisa M. Rasmussen

This chapter outlines some of the main ethical issues in citizen science research, a new research approach that involves lay members of the public in research for which they are not necessarily professionally trained. Although some of this work is covered by existing research ethics regulations, much is not; and it is not clear how to ensure ethical citizen science research. The chapter briefly describes citizen science research, including the nature of its relationship to existing regulations. It also outlines some of the ethical issues that arise in citizen science research—some familiar, some novel—and offers “trust architecture” as a concept to guide researchers in considering how to satisfy the ethical demands of their work.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document