Citizen Science and Scientific Objectivity: Mapping Out Epistemic Risks and Benefits

Ruphy, Stéphanie; Bedessem, Baptiste

doi:10.1162/posc_a_00353

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many commentators call for strengthening citizens’ voice in citizen science projects (see English 2018 on “extreme citizen science” or Haklay ( 2018 ) on “collaborative science”). Bedessem and Ruphy ( 2020 ) helpfully distinguish between contributory citizen science, collaborative citizen science and co-created citizen science as three main ways to engage citizens with increasing levels of co-determination, whereas Nascimento et al ( 2018 ) documents different participatory models in CS projects (bottom-up vs. top-down, with the latter far more prevalent; see also Leach et al 2005 ). Citizen science projects can, potentially at least, also lead to a broader dialogue about the way science functions and the role it places in society: “citizen science can challenge the ways scientists produce knowledge, including their assumptions and standards about what is valid as scientific knowledge” (Nascimento et al 2018 : 235).…”

Section: Empowering Citizens In Citizen Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Citizen Science in Deliberative Systems: Participation, Epistemic Injustice, and Civic Empowerment

Herzog

Lepenies

2022

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we bring together the literature on citizen science and on deliberative democracy and epistemic injustice. We argue that citizen science can be seen as one element of “deliberative systems,” as described by Mansbridge et al. But in order to fulfil its democratic potential, citizen science needs to be attentive to various forms of exclusion and epistemic injustice, as analyzed by Fricker, Medina and others. Moreover, to tap the potentials of citizen science from the perspective of deliberative democracy, it needs to move towards a more empowered approach, in which citizens do not only deliver data points, but also, in invited or uninvited settings, participate in discussions about the goals and implications of research. Integrating citizen science into the deliberative systems approach embeds it in a broader framework of democratic theory and suggests the transmission of certain practical strategies (e.g., randomized sampling). It can also contribute to realism about both the potentials and the limits of citizen science. As part of a deliberative system, citizen science cannot, and need not, be the only place in which reforms are necessary for creating stronger ties between science and society and for aligning science with democratic values.

show abstract

Section: Empowering Citizens In Citizen Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Citizen Science in Deliberative Systems: Participation, Epistemic Injustice, and Civic Empowerment

Herzog

Lepenies

2022

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That, however, is not the case when it comes to citizen science. Many scholars have pointed out that the various aims of citizen science programs can conflict, and therefore that trade-offs may be necessary when recruiting participants and determining how they will be involved in research (Braun and Schultz, 2010;Eigi, 2017;Bedessem and Ruphy, 2020). Those discussions, though, tend to focus either on trade-offs within the epistemic (e.g.…”

Section: Similarities -And a Key Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some cases, epistemic benefits might best be achieved through recruiting the largest group possible; but in others, greater epistemic improvements might come through taking advantage of the background knowledge possessed by the affected public, or the lack of bias exhibited by the "pure" public. Different roles for the public, combined with the many different members of the public who could fill those roles, mean that any choice comes with potential epistemic advantages and disadvantages (Bedessem and Ruphy, 2020). The ethical and political dimensions will, I think, prove similarly complex.…”

Section: Figure 1 the Source Of The Benefits Of Greater Inclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversifying science: comparing the benefits of citizen science with the benefits of bringing more women into science

Schroeder

2022

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I compare two different arguments for the importance of bringing new voices into science: arguments for increasing the representation of women, and arguments for the inclusion of the public, or for "citizen science". I suggest that in each case, diversifying science can improve the quality of scientific results in three distinct ways: epistemically, ethically, and politically. In the first two respects, the mechanisms are essentially the same. In the third respect, the mechanisms are importantly different. Though this might appear to suggest a broad similarity between the cases, I show that the analysis reveals an important respect in which efforts to include the public are more complex. With citizen science programs, unlike with efforts to bring more women into science, the three types of improvement are often in conflict with one another: improvements along one dimension may come at a cost on another dimension, suggesting difficult trade-offs may need to be made.

show abstract

“…Naturally such problems can be solved by developing new strategies: for instance, by planning the project so that the volunteers do not need to distinguish between the different species. As noted, another fairly common worry in citizen science is that interest groups may be eager to participate in citizen science projects, and that their participation can lead to biased results (Braun & Schultz 2010;Elliott & Rosenberg 2019;Bedessem & Ruphy 2020). In such situations several different epistemic risks can become important.…”

Section: Participation Threatening Objectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Participation and Objectivity

Koskinen¹

2022

Philos. sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many philosophers of science have recently argued that extra-academic participation in scientific knowledge production does not threaten scientific objectivity. Quite the contrary: citizen science, participatory projects, transdisciplinary research, and other similar endeavours can even increase the objectivity of the research conducted. Simultaneously, researchers working in fields where such participation is common have expressed worries about various ways in which it can result in biases. In this paper I clarify how these arguments and worries can be compared, and how extra-academic participation can both increase and threaten the objectivity of the research conducted.

show abstract

Citizen Science and Scientific Objectivity: Mapping Out Epistemic Risks and Benefits

Cited by 14 publications

References 59 publications

Citizen Science in Deliberative Systems: Participation, Epistemic Injustice, and Civic Empowerment

Citizen Science in Deliberative Systems: Participation, Epistemic Injustice, and Civic Empowerment

Diversifying science: comparing the benefits of citizen science with the benefits of bringing more women into science

Participation and Objectivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About