Gonzalez Canada Debbie, Lavau Stephanie, Williams Kathryn J H
School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Grattan Street, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
BMC Ecol Evol. 2025 Sep 1;25(1):87. doi: 10.1186/s12862-025-02415-6.
The most common environmental citizen science program type, often called “contributory” citizen science, invites volunteers to help with data collection. But is that all their volunteers do? Previous research has tended to consider the knowledge practices of citizen scientists from the perspective of program organizers, or has paid attention to knowledge as simply content (that is, the input, output, and outcomes of programs). There is a need to better understand knowledge practices as experienced by citizen scientists. This exploratory and ethnographic study investigated the knowledge practices of biodiversity monitoring volunteers without making assumptions about what they should do, what they actually do, or their levels of expertise. We conducted semi-structured interviews and participant observation of two citizen science programs in Australia, one recording frog presence and another one monitoring endangered beach birds’ nesting success rates and threats.
We found that aside from collecting data, volunteers in these contributory biodiversity citizen science programs engaged in a range of knowledge practices. These practices involved not only producing, but also expanding, sharing, and using knowledge in multiple ways, such as asking additional research questions and analyzing data, acquiring and disseminating knowledge of biodiversity and environmental policy, and using citizen science data for advocacy, habitat work, and other conservation efforts. Volunteers carried out some of these practices as part of environmental collectives, not only as individuals, and their participation in and through collectives was often key to their engagement in citizen science programs.
Recognizing that volunteer practices go beyond what they are officially requested to do is important for being able to acknowledge, value, and support volunteers’ contributions. Citizen science programs may benefit from adopting a less pre-defined understanding of participation in citizen science, instead recognizing that modes of participation evolve and are co-created with participants. Appreciating and making visible the breadth of volunteer knowledge practices could be important for instrumental reasons, such as collecting more and better data, and increasing volunteer engagement and retention. Recognizing the agency of participants in determining what participation is for them can also help in advancing the democratization of science and decision-making.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12862-025-02415-6.
最常见的环境公民科学项目类型，通常被称为“贡献型”公民科学，邀请志愿者协助数据收集。但这就是他们所有志愿者所做的事情吗？以往的研究往往从项目组织者的角度考虑公民科学家的知识实践，或者仅仅将知识视为内容（即项目的输入、输出和成果）。有必要更好地理解公民科学家所经历的知识实践。这项探索性的民族志研究调查了生物多样性监测志愿者的知识实践，而没有对他们应该做什么、实际做了什么或他们的专业水平做出假设。我们对澳大利亚的两个公民科学项目进行了半结构化访谈和参与观察，一个记录青蛙的存在情况，另一个监测濒危海滩鸟类的筑巢成功率和面临的威胁。
我们发现，除了收集数据外，这些贡献型生物多样性公民科学项目中的志愿者还参与了一系列知识实践。这些实践不仅包括知识的产生，还包括以多种方式扩展、分享和使用知识，比如提出额外的研究问题和分析数据、获取和传播生物多样性及环境政策知识，以及将公民科学数据用于宣传、栖息地保护工作和其他保护行动。志愿者们作为环境群体的一部分开展了其中一些实践，而不仅仅是作为个体，他们参与群体以及通过群体参与往往是他们参与公民科学项目的关键。
认识到志愿者的实践超出了他们被正式要求做的事情，对于能够认可、重视和支持志愿者的贡献很重要。公民科学项目可能会受益于对公民科学参与采用一种较少预先定义的理解方式，转而认识到参与模式是不断演变的，并且是与参与者共同创造的。认识并展示志愿者知识实践的广度可能出于一些实用原因而很重要，比如收集更多更好的数据，以及提高志愿者的参与度和留存率。认识到参与者在确定对他们而言参与意味着什么方面的能动性，也有助于推动科学和决策的民主化。
在线版本包含可在10.1186/s12862 - 025 - 02415 - 6获取的补充材料。
