Citizen Science as a Means for Increasing Public Engagement in Science: Presumption or Possibility?
Abstract
Citizen science is often assumed to increase public science engagement; however, little is known about who is likely to volunteer and the implications for greater societal impact. This study segments 1,145 potential volunteers into six groups according to their current engagement in science (EiS). Results show groups with high levels of EiS are significantly more interested in volunteering and more likely to participate in various research roles than those with lower EiS scores. While citizen science benefits some in science and society, its use as a strategy to bring about positive shifts in public science engagement needs to be reconsidered.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Achterberg P., de Koster W., van der Waal J. (2015). A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the United States, 2014. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication.
Anderson A. A., Delborne J., Kleinman D. L. (2013). Information beyond the forum: Motivations, strategies, and impacts of citizen participants seeking information during a consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 955-970.
Árnason V. (2013). Scientific citizenship in a democratic society. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 927-940.
Bickerstaff K., Lorenzoni I., Jones M., Pidgeon N. (2010). Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35, 474-500.
Bonney R., Phillips T. B., Ballard H. L., Enck J. W. (2015). Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Understanding of Science, 25, 2-16.
British Department for Business Innovation and Skills. (2011). Public attitudes to science 2011. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/sri-pas-2011-main-report.pdf
Brossard D., Lewenstein B., Bonney R. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1099-1121.
Bryman A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Burns M., Medvecky F. (2016). The disengaged in science communication: How not to count audiences and publics. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication.
Callon M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science Technology, & Society, 4, 81-94.
Cohn J. P. (2008). Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience, 58, 192-197.
Cormick C. (2012). How do we gain the interest of people who are uninterested in science and technology? In van Lente H., Coenen C. C., Fleischer T., Konrad K., Krabbenborg L. (Eds.), Little by little: Expansion of nanoscience and emerging technologies (pp. 77-88). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
Cormick C. (2013, August 5). Engaging the unengaged in science? Try a little harder. The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/engaging-the-unengaged-in-science-try-a-little-harder-15964
Cormick C. (2014). Community attitudes towards science and technology in Australia. Retrieved from https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP145330&dsid=DS1
Curtis V. (2015). Motivation to participate in an online citizen science game: A study of foldit. Science Communication, 37, 723-746.
David M. C., Ware R. S. (2014). Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials supports the use of incentives for inducing response to electronic health surveys. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 1210-1221.
Davies S. R. (2013). Constituting public engagement: Meanings and genealogies of PEST in two U.K. studies. Science Communication, 35, 687-707.
Department of Business and Innovation. (2012). Community interest and engagement with science and technology in Victoria 2011. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Author.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. (2010). Inspiring Australia: A national strategy for engagement with the sciences. Canberra, Australia: Author.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. (2012). Marine science: A story for Australia. Retrieved from http://www.industry.gov.au/science/InspiringAustralia
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. (2016). Crowdsourcing research assistants. Retrieved from http://minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/pyne/media-releases/crowdsourcing-research-assistants
Dickinson J. L., Shirk J., Bonter D., Bonney R., Crain R. L., Martin J., . . . Purcell K. (2012). The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 291-297.
Dresner M., Handelman C., Braun S., Rollwagen-Bollens G. (2015). Environmental identity, pro-environmental behaviors, and civic engagement of volunteer stewards in Portland area parks. Environmental Education Research, 21, 991-1010.
Edwards P. J., Roberts I., Clarke M. J., Diguiseppi C., Wentz R., Kwan I., . . . Pratap S. (2009). Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8(3), MR000008.
Engdahl E., Lidskog R. (2014). Risk, communication and trust: Towards an emotional understanding of trust. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 703-717.
Evans C., Abrams E., Reitsma R., Roux K., Salmonsen L., Marra P. P. (2005). The Neighborhood Nestwatch Program: Participant outcomes of a Citizen-Science Ecological Research Project. Conservation Biology, 19, 589-594.
Evans R., Plows A. (2007). Listening without prejudice? Re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen. Social Studies of Science, 37, 827-853.
Field A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics and sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fore L. S., Paulsen K., O’Laughlin K. (2001). Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology, 46, 109-123.
Foster-Smith J., Evans S. M. (2003). The value of marine ecological data collected by volunteers. Biological Conservation, 113, 199-213.
Gauchat G. (2011). The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 751-770.
Gollan J. (2013, January 7). Citizen science can produce reliable data. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/citizen-science-can-produce-reliable-data-10815
Haklay M. (2013). Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. In Sui D., Elwood S., Goodchild M. (Eds.), Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in theory and practice (pp. 105-122). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Haywood B. K. (2015). Beyond data points and research contributions: The personal meaning and value associated with public participation in scientific research. International Journal of Science Education, 6, 239-262.
Haywood B. K., Besley J. C. (2014). Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: Towards integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory science. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 92-106.
Healey J. (2016). Ocean conservation and management. Thirroul, New South Wales, Australia: Spinney Press.
Hobbs S. J., White P. C. L. (2012). Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation in biodiversity recording. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20, 364-373.
Holdren J. P. (2015). Addressing societal and scientific challenges through citizen science and crowdsourcing. Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/holdren_citizen_science_memo_092915_0.pdf
Irwin A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London, England: Routledge.
Irwin A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36, 299-320.
Irwin A. (2014). From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Understanding of Science, 23, 71-76.
Jaspal R., Nerlich B., van Vuuren K. (2016). Embracing and resisting climate identities in the Australian press: Sceptics, scientists and politics. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 807-24.
Johnson M. F., Hannah C., Acton L., Popovici R., Karanth K. K., Weinthal E. (2014). Network environmentalism: Citizen scientists as agents for environmental advocacy. Global Environmental Change, 29, 235-245.
Jordan R. C., Gray S. A., Howe D. V., Brooks W. R., Ehrenfeld J. G. (2011). Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen-science programs. Conservation Biology, 25, 1148-1154.
Kahan D. M., Peters E., Wittlin M., Slovic P., Ouellette L. L., . . . Mandel G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732-735.
Kata A. (2012). Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm: An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine, 30, 3778-3789.
Khadjesari Z., Murray E., Kalaitzaki E., White I. R., McCambridge J., Thompson S. G., . . . Godfrey C. (2011). Impact and costs of incentives to reduce attrition in online trials: Two randomized controlled trials. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(1), e26.
Koslow J. A., Couture J. (2015). Pacific Ocean observation programs: Gaps in ecological time series. Marine Policy, 51, 408-414.
Kullenberg C., Kasperowski D. (2016). What is citizen science? A scientometric meta-analysis. PLoS One, 11(1), e0147152.
Land-Zandstra A. M., Devilee J. L. A., Snik F., Buurmeijer F., van den Broek J. M. (2016). Citizen science on a smartphone: Participants’ motivations and learning. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 45-60.
Lewandowsky S., Oberauer K. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217-222.
Lewenstein B. V. (2004, June 8). What does citizen science accomplish? Paper presented at meeting on Citizen Science, Paris, France.
Lynas M. (2015, January 30). Even in 2015, the public doesn’t trust scientists. Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/30/even-in-2015-the-public-doesnt-trust-scientists/
Martin V. Y., Christidis L., Lloyd D., Pecl G. T. (2016). Understanding drivers, barriers and information sources for public participation in marine citizen science. Journal of Science Communication, 15(2).
Martin V. Y., Christidis L., Pecl G. T. (2016). Public interest in marine citizen science: Is there potential for growth? BioScience, 66, 683-692.
Martin V. Y., Smith L., Bowling A., Christidis L., Lloyd D., Pecl G. (2016). Citizens as scientists: What influences public contributions to marine research? Science Communication, 38, 495-522.
Marzloff M. P., Melbourne-Thomas J., Hamon K. G., Hoshino E., Jennings S., . . . Pecl G. T. (2016). Modelling marine community responses to climate-driven species redistribution to guide monitoring and adaptive ecosystem-based management. Global Change Biology, 22, 2462-2474.
Mayer A. (2010). Phenology and citizen science: Volunteers have documented seasonal events for more than a century, and scientific studies are benefiting from the data. BioScience, 60, 172-175.
McCauley D. J., Pinsky M. L., Palumbi S. R., Estes J. A., Joyce F. H., Warner R. R. (2015). Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science, 347(6219), 247-254.
Museum für Naturkunde. (2016). Research for all! [Press release]. Retrieved from http://naturkundemuseum.berlin/en/press/press-releases/research-all
Newman C., Buesching C. D., Macdonald D. W. (2003). Validating mammal monitoring methods and assessing the performance of volunteers in wildlife conservation—“Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?” Biological Conservation, 113, 189-197.
Nielsen A. P., Lassen J., Sandøe P. (2011). Public participation. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 163-178.
Osborne J. W., Costello A. B. (2009). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pan-Pacific Management Review, 12, 131-146.
Pandya R. E. (2012). A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 314-317.
Pecl G. T., Gillies C., Sbrocchi C. D., Roetman P. (2015). Building Australia through citizen science. Canberra, Australia: Office of the Chief Scientist, Australian Government.
Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Retrieved from http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf
Phillips L., Carvalho A., Doyle J. (2012). Citizen voices: Performing public participation in science and environment communication. Bristol, England: Intellect.
Powell M., Colin M., Lee Kleinman D., Delborne J., Anderson A. (2010). Imagining ordinary citizens? Conceptualized and actual participants for deliberations on emerging technologies. Science as Culture, 20(1), 37-70.
Powell M., Lee Kleinman D. (2008). Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: the democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 329-348.
Raddick M. J., Bracey G., Gay P. L., Lintott C. J., Cardamone C., Murray P., . . . Vandenberg J. (2013). Galaxy zoo: Motivations of citizen scientists. Astronomy Education Review, 12(1).
Ramirez-Andreotta M. D., Brusseau M. L., Artiola J., Maier R. M., Gandolfi A. J. (2015). Building a co-created citizen science program with gardeners neighboring a superfund site: The Gardenroots case study. International Public Health Journal, 7(1), 13.
Resnik D. (2011). Scientific research and the public trust. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 399-409.
Reyes J. A. L. (2013). Cross-section analyses of attitudes towards science and nature from the International Social Survey Programme 1993, 2000, and 2010 surveys. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 338-357.
Rowe G., Frewer L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30, 251-290.
Rutherford A. (2015, August 23). In science we trust . . . up to a point. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/22/can-we-trust-science-academic-journal-peer-review-retraction-
Scheufele D. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14040-14047.
Searle S. (2014). How do Australians engage with science? Preliminary results from a national survey. Retrieved from http://diffusion.weblogs.anu.edu.au/files/2014/05/Searle-S.D.-2014.-How-do-Australians-engage-with-science.-April-2014.pdf
Selin C., Rawlings K. C., de Ridder-Vignone K., Sadowski J., Altamirano Allende C., Gano G., . . . Guston D. H. (2016). Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication.
Shirk J. L., Ballard H. L., Wilderman C. C., Phillips T., Wiggins A., Jordan R., . . . Bonney R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society, 17(2).
Soleri D., Long J. W., Ramirez-Andreotta M. D., Eitemiller R., Pandya R. E. (2016). Finding pathways to more equitable and meaningful public-scientist partnerships. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 9.
Stevenson C., Sikich S. A., Gold M. (2012). Engaging Los Angeles County subsistence anglers in the California marine protected area planning process. Marine Policy, 36, 559-563.
Stevenson K. T., Peterson M. N., Bondell H. D., Moore S. E., Carrier S. J. (2014). Overcoming skepticism with education: Interacting influences of worldview and climate change knowledge on perceived climate change risk among adolescents. Climatic Change, 126, 293-304.
Stilgoe J., Lock S. J., Wilsdon J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, 23, 4-15.
Wiggins A., Crowston K. (2011, January). From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. Paper presented at the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI.
Wiggins A., Crowston K. (2015). Surveying the citizen science landscape. First Monday, 20(1).
Wynne B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science-hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9, 211-220.
Wynveen C. J., Sutton S. G. (2015). Engaging the public in climate change-related pro-environmental behaviors to protect coral reefs: The role of public trust in the management agency. Marine Policy, 53, 131-140.
Biographies
Victoria Y. Martin, PhD, is an environmental social scientist. Over the past two decades her research has focused on environmental impact and management issues in marine and terrestrial environments. Her interests now extend to science communication and public engagement in citizen science. From June 2017 she will continue her citizen science research with the Cornell Lab of Ornithology as a Rose Postdoctoral Research Fellow.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
Podcast
Cite
Cite
Cite
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: February 1, 2017
Issue published: April 2017
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Publication usage*
Total views and downloads: 3141
*Publication usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Publications citing this one
Receive email alerts when this publication is cited
Web of Science: 49 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 48
- Community-driven research: Exploring the potential of citizen science in nursing
- Selected Proceedings of the 7th Space Resources Conference
- Tourists’ behavioural intention to participate in marine citizen science: a South African case study
- Fostering inclusive science media: Insights from examining the relationship between women’s identities and their anticipated engagement with Deep Look YouTube science videos
- Characteristics and motivations of environmental volunteers at episodic events
- The Efficacy of Social Media Communication in Engaging Citizen Scientists: Insights From the Jozi Bee Hotel Project
- Who Submits Koala Sightings? Profiling Residents and Identifying Opportunities to Enhance their Experience
- Citizen Science: Pathways to Impact and why Participant Diversity Matters
- In pursuit of mutual benefits in school-based citizen science: who wins what in a win-win situation?
- Citizen science against the plastic soup: background, motivation and expectations of volunteers studying plastic pollution on Dutch riverbanks
- View More
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
