Authorship Protocols Must Change to Credit Citizen Scientists

Ward‐Fear, Georgia; Pauly, Gregory B.; Vendetti, Jann E.; Shine, Richard

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.10.007

Cited by 42 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Alternatively, if recognition and additional training through program support were provided to the CSV, participation would likely continue owing to the extrinsic (reward-based) nature of the motivation. After sustained involvement, the motivations for participation shift from egoism to collectivism and altruism as a result of the inclusion in community involvement and advocacy, e.g., how the CS data are used and disseminated (Ward-Fear et al 2020). However, if this level of involvement in the community is not reached, participation is likely to cease (Rotman et al 2012, p. 224).…”

Section: Motivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motives for Citizen Science Program Participation and the Role of the Organization: Lessons from Water Quality Monitors in Texas

Lopez¹

2021

CSTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citizen science (CS) programs often question what motivates their volunteers and how volunteer participation can be sustained. Using a case study of citizen scientist volunteers (CSVs) who monitor water quality in Texas, I apply here a novel approach-the Dispositional-Organizational Interactions Framework (DOIF)-that provides a nuanced understanding of CSVs. The DOIF allows for consideration of how dispositional variables, such as sociodemographic characteristics and motivations for participation, may relate to organizational variables (e.g., program efficacy, results, and recognition); both overarching variables relate to indicators of commitment. The purpose of this study is to examine interactions among different aspects of a CS program and CSVs-observations that can improve CSV satisfaction and possibly retention. In a community geography partnership, volunteers of a statewide CS program were surveyed (n = 327). Results of exploratory factor analyses and a series of nonparametric tests indicate the DOIF offers insights into five major motivational factors; it uncovers between-group differences in how CSVs value organizational variables and indicate a commitment to volunteerism. This study contributes to the broader literature by incorporating the role of the organization in assessments of motivations through the creation of a novel framework and through empirical findings. The paper considers implications of results for CS programs and practice, then concludes with suggestions for future research.

show abstract

Section: Motivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motives for Citizen Science Program Participation and the Role of the Organization: Lessons from Water Quality Monitors in Texas

Lopez¹

2021

CSTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, partners may not be compensated for time spent to publish or have publications factor into career advancement; some groups might have limited internet access, familiarity with or access to specialized computer programs, or seasonal activities that make it difficult to turn around manuscripts. Where individual authorship is not appropriate (e.g., community science, degree of involvement), authorship that recognizes the contributions of a group can provide an alternative (Ward-Fear et al 2020).…”

Section: Acknowledge Partnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

On “success” in applied environmental research — What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental decision-makers and practitioners need and deserve high quality environmental evidence for effective decision-making. We collate and share a suite of best practices for applied environmental researchers to support their capacity to inform such decision-making processes. This raises a number of important questions: What does “relevant” and informative evidence look like? How do we know when evidence has been applied? We assembled an experienced team of knowledge generators and users in Canada to identify insights that have emerged from their work and that could serve as guideposts for others who seek to apply environmental research to policy challenges. By reflecting on successes and failures, we define “success” in applied environmental science as respectfully conducted, partner-relevant research that is accessible, understandable, and shared, and that can create opportunities for change (e.g., in policy, behaviour, management). Next, we generated a list of best practices for delivering “successful” applied environmental research. Our guidance emphasizes the importance of engaging early and often, in a respectful manner, with partners, generating high-quality, relevant research (which requires flexibility), having a plan for communicating and sharing outputs, and being transparent about uncertainties and limitations. Other important considerations include acknowledging partners for involvement and training early career researchers in applied partnership research. Finally, we generated a list of specific, measurable indicators for evaluating success including: quality and quantity of scientific outputs, the relationship with the partner(s), relevance and connectedness of the research, accessibility and availability of outputs to users, provision of outputs that are digestible and usable by different audiences, training and capacity building, and ultimate outcomes (e.g., including social, environmental, and economic outcomes, as well as partner satisfaction). We encourage those embarking on applied environmental research to consider embracing the strategies, to continuously reflect on progress toward shared research goals, and to be flexible. Doing so will increase the likelihood of delivering research that is “successful” and in doing so contribute to overcoming and addressing environmental issues and problems.

show abstract

“…For example, how do established authorship norms promote inequity and dominance in Western science (e.g. Pender and Shaw 2020, Ward-Fear et al 2020)? Furthermore, while our work examines dynamics between the global North and South within a Western context, these dynamics are mirrored in broader structures of dominance between Western science and Indigenous science (as defined by Ogawa 1995).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global inequity in scientific names and who they honor

DuBay

Palmer

Piland

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linnaean taxonomy is a cornerstone of Western biology in which organisms are given a two-part name (a genus and species), creating biological units that help us order and manage our knowledge of the living world. In this system, the names of species themselves take on additional functions, such as describing features of the organism or honoring individuals (known as eponyms). Here, we interrogate how power and authority over the natural world are claimed through Western scientific naming practices to evaluate the legacies of imperialism, dispossession, and exclusion in these practices. We compile and analyze a dataset of all bird species descriptions from 1950 to present, asking: who has access and power to name species, and who is honored in species names? We show that 95% of newly described species are described from the global South, but the majority of species and eponyms are described by authors, and named after individuals, from the global North. We find an increase through time in authors from the global South, which is associated with a rise in eponyms that honor individuals from global South countries. However, this formal inclusion of global South authors has not translated into increases in first authorship (a primary form of credit and authority in Western science). We contextualize these disparities in naming and authorship within broader global structures of access and power put in place through centuries of European and U.S. imperialism, but a historical perspective alone ignores institutional and individual agency and incentives in present-day actions. As we increasingly reflect on the social foundations and impacts of our science, these findings show how research and labor in the global South continue to be disproportionately translated into power and authority in the global North, upholding and re-enacting imperial structures of domination.

show abstract

Authorship Protocols Must Change to Credit Citizen Scientists

Cited by 42 publications

References 14 publications

Motives for Citizen Science Program Participation and the Role of the Organization: Lessons from Water Quality Monitors in Texas

Motives for Citizen Science Program Participation and the Role of the Organization: Lessons from Water Quality Monitors in Texas

On “success” in applied environmental research — What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved?

Global inequity in scientific names and who they honor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About