Haklay Muki, Fraisl Dilek, Greshake Tzovaras Bastian, Hecker Susanne, Gold Margaret, Hager Gerid, Ceccaroni Luigi, Kieslinger Barbara, Wehn Uta, Woods Sasha, Nold Christian, Balázs Bálint, Mazzonetto Marzia, Ruefenacht Simone, Shanley Lea A, Wagenknecht Katherin, Motion Alice, Sforzi Andrea, Riemenschneider Dorte, Dorler Daniel, Heigl Florian, Schaefer Teresa, Lindner Ariel, Weißpflug Maike, Mačiulienė Monika, Vohland Katrin
Department of Geography, UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, Laxenburg 2361, Austria.
R Soc Open Sci. 2021 Aug 25;8(8):202108. doi: 10.1098/rsos.202108. eCollection 2021 Aug.
Citizen science has expanded rapidly over the past decades. Yet, defining citizen science and its boundaries remained a challenge, and this is reflected in the literature-for example in the proliferation of typologies and definitions. There is a need for identifying areas of agreement and disagreement within the citizen science practitioners community on what should be considered as citizen science activity. This paper describes the development and results of a survey that examined this issue, through the use of vignettes-short case descriptions that describe an activity, while asking the respondents to rate the activity on a scale from 'not citizen science' (0%) to 'citizen science' (100%). The survey included 50 vignettes, of which five were developed as clear cases of not-citizen science activities, five as widely accepted citizen science activities and the others addressing 10 factors and 61 sub-factors that can lead to controversy about an activity. The survey has attracted 333 respondents, who provided over 5100 ratings. The analysis demonstrates the plurality of understanding of what citizen science is and calls for an open understanding of what activities are included in the field.
在过去几十年里,公民科学迅速发展。然而,界定公民科学及其边界仍然是一项挑战,这一点在文献中有所体现——例如在类型学和定义的大量涌现中。有必要在公民科学从业者群体中确定关于哪些活动应被视为公民科学活动的共识和分歧领域。本文描述了一项调查的开展情况和结果,该调查通过使用小插曲(即描述一项活动的简短案例)来审视这个问题,同时要求受访者对活动从“非公民科学”(0%)到“公民科学”(100%)进行评分。该调查包括50个小插曲,其中5个被设定为非公民科学活动的明确案例,5个为广泛认可的公民科学活动,其他小插曲涉及可能导致对一项活动产生争议的10个因素和61个子因素。该调查吸引了333名受访者,他们给出了超过5100个评分。分析表明了对公民科学是什么的理解具有多元性,并呼吁对该领域所包含的活动有一个开放的理解。