An Innovative Online Tool to Self-evaluate and Compare Participatory Research Projects Labelled as Science Shops or Citizen Science

Gresle, Anne-Sophie; Cigarini, Anna; Ávila, Leonardo de la Torre; Jimeno, Irene; Bagnoli, Franco; Dempere, Herman; Ribera, Mireia; Puertas, Eloi; Perelló, Josep Maria Mata; Pinazo, María Jesús

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-34770-3_5

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to current efforts to build in interoperability across data systems and platforms of citizen science projects (Bowser 2017;Masó and Fritz 2019;Masó and Wehn 2020), cross-comparison of impacts and data impacts would be a beneficial development for citizen science. A comprehensive CSIAF can enable comparability of impact assessment results that are based on different methods and information sources using consistent overarching categories of definitions (Phillips et al 2012;Reed et al 2018;Gresle et al 2019). This could be done, for example, by capturing impact assessment results from different projects via a single online tool (e.g., questionnaire) (Gresle et al 2019) based on the CSIAF and, during the visualisation of individual and compared results, by distinguishing validity levels (e.g., via a color scheme) according to the range of underlying data sources.…”

Section: Principle 5: Fostering Comparison Of Impact Assessment Results Across Citizen Science Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A comprehensive CSIAF can enable comparability of impact assessment results that are based on different methods and information sources using consistent overarching categories of definitions (Phillips et al 2012;Reed et al 2018;Gresle et al 2019). This could be done, for example, by capturing impact assessment results from different projects via a single online tool (e.g., questionnaire) (Gresle et al 2019) based on the CSIAF and, during the visualisation of individual and compared results, by distinguishing validity levels (e.g., via a color scheme) according to the range of underlying data sources. This can serve to generate both, project-specific as well as aggregated results.…”

Section: Principle 5: Fostering Comparison Of Impact Assessment Results Across Citizen Science Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact assessment of citizen science: state of the art and guiding principles for a consolidated approach

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, citizen science has experienced growth and popularity as a scientific practice and as a new form of stakeholder engagement and public participation in science or in the generation of new knowledge. One of the key requirements for realising the potential of citizen science is evidence and demonstration of its impact and value. Yet the actual changes resulting from citizen science interventions are often assumed, ignored or speculated about. Based on a systematic review of 77 publications, combined with empirical insights from 10 past and ongoing projects in the field of citizen science, this paper presents guidelines for a consolidated Citizen Science Impact Assessment framework to help overcome the dispersion of approaches in assessing citizen science impacts; this comprehensive framework enhances the ease and consistency with which impacts can be captured, as well as the comparability of evolving results across projects. Our review is framed according to five distinct, yet interlinked, impact domains (society, economy, environment, science and technology, and governance). Existing citizen science impact assessment approaches provide assessment guidelines unevenly across the five impact domains, and with only a small number providing concrete indicator-level conceptualisations. The analysis of the results generates a number of salient insights which we combine in a set of guiding principles for a consolidated impact assessment framework for citizen science initiatives. These guiding principles pertain to the purpose of citizen science impact assessments, the conceptualisation of data collection methods and information sources, the distinction between relative versus absolute impact, the comparison of impact assessment results across citizen science projects, and the incremental refinement of the organising framework over time.

show abstract

Section: Principle 5: Fostering Comparison Of Impact Assessment Results Across Citizen Science Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Principle 5: Fostering Comparison Of Impact Assessment Results Across Citizen Science Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact assessment of citizen science: state of the art and guiding principles for a consolidated approach

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prior work has been undertaken defining criteria, indicators, and methods for impact evaluation in CS and SS (Schlierf and Meyer 2013;Kieslinger et al 2018;Phillips et al 2018;Schaefer et al 2021). Yet, online evaluation tools that are capable of demonstrating the value of CS and SS remain limited and untested as regards their content validity (Gresle et al 2019). An additional drawback of these evaluations is that they often rely solely on scientific investigators' feedback and fail to include that of the other stakeholders involved in the project, which ultimately leads to a bias in the evaluation studies (Gresle et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, online evaluation tools that are capable of demonstrating the value of CS and SS remain limited and untested as regards their content validity (Gresle et al 2019). An additional drawback of these evaluations is that they often rely solely on scientific investigators' feedback and fail to include that of the other stakeholders involved in the project, which ultimately leads to a bias in the evaluation studies (Gresle et al 2019). It is clear that evaluations of participatory research need to be framed from a multidimensional and multi-stage perspective where the process itself is worth evaluating (Schaefer et al 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is clear that evaluations of participatory research need to be framed from a multidimensional and multi-stage perspective where the process itself is worth evaluating (Schaefer et al 2021). Thus, an impact evaluation tool tailored for SS and CS should reflect upon the implementation of the project and the way in which the participatory concepts have been incorporated, so that it can, in turn, become an opportunity for critical reflection and experiential learning (Gresle et al 2019). One reason for the current dearth of standardized evaluation tools for SS and CS projects might be that the latter are very context-specific and tend to focus on a range of different objectives (Schaefer et al 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Self-evaluating participatory research projects: A content validation of the InSPIRES online impact evaluation tool

Gignac

Gresle

Lamelas

et al. 2021

Research Evaluation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research projects involving science shops and citizen science in their promotion of participatory approaches are flourishing globally. However, an instrument evaluating the impacts of such approaches at different stages of a participatory research processes has yet to be validated. The InSPIRES H2020 project developed an impact evaluation tool for just this purpose, consisting of 64 items that reflect upon the dimensions of knowledge democracy, citizen-led research, participatory dynamics, transformative change, and integrity. In this article, we seek to test the content validity of this tool and to provide recommendations that can ensure its validity. A panel of nine experts was created to evaluate each item as regards the following three criteria: representativeness, relevance, and clarity. The Aiken’s V and Wilson Score methods were used to assess the tool’s content validity based on the experts’ ratings. Experts’ written comments were also reviewed. At the panel level, 75% of the items were considered satisfactory in relation to each of the three validity criteria. However, at the population level, 72% of the items suggested that parts of the tool were not valid and required revision. The main suggestions from the experts pointed to the need to reformulate items in which the separation between science and society appeared reinforced and to develop more items about the gender perspective of a research project. The revised version of the tool should serve as a well-founded, comprehensive evaluation instrument for on-going and future projects whose goal is to self-reflect and compare participatory research processes.

show abstract

Social determinants in the access to health care for Chagas disease: A qualitative research on family life in the “Valle Alto” of Cochabamba, Bolivia

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Chagas disease is caused by the Trypanosoma cruzi infection. It is a neglected tropical disease with considerable impact on the physical, psychological, familiar, and social spheres. The Valle Alto of Cochabamba is a hyperendemic region of Bolivia where efforts to control the transmission of the disease have progressed over the years. However, many challenges remain, above all, timely detection and health-care access. Methods Following the Science Shop process, this bottom-up research emerged with the participation of the civil society from Valle Alto and representatives of the Association of Corazones Unidos por el Chagas from Cochabamba. The aim of this study is to explore the social determinants in the living realities of those affected by Chagas disease or the silent infection and how families in the Valle Alto of Cochabamba cope with it. An interdisciplinary research team conducted a case study of the life stories of three families using information from in-depth interviews and performed a descriptive qualitative content analysis and triangulation processes. Findings Findings provide insights into social circumstances of the research subjects’ lives; particularly, on how exposure to Trypanosoma cruzi infection affects their daily lives in terms of seeking comprehensive health care. Research subjects revealed needs and shared their experiences, thus providing an understanding of the complexity of Chagas disease from the socioeconomic, sociocultural, political, and biomedical perspectives. Results enlighten on three dimensions: structural, psychosocial, and plural health system. The diverse perceptions and attitudes toward Chagas within families, including the denial of its existence, are remarkable as gender and ethnocultural aspects. Findings support recommendations to various stakeholders and translation materials. Conclusions Intersectional disease management and community involvement are essential for deciding the most appropriate and effective actions. Education, detection, health care, and social programs engaging family units ought to be the pillars of a promising approach.

show abstract

An Innovative Online Tool to Self-evaluate and Compare Participatory Research Projects Labelled as Science Shops or Citizen Science

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

Impact assessment of citizen science: state of the art and guiding principles for a consolidated approach

Impact assessment of citizen science: state of the art and guiding principles for a consolidated approach

Self-evaluating participatory research projects: A content validation of the InSPIRES online impact evaluation tool

Social determinants in the access to health care for Chagas disease: A qualitative research on family life in the “Valle Alto” of Cochabamba, Bolivia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About