Citizen science and social movements: A case of participatory monitoring of genetically modified crops in Japan

Abstract

Agrifood related social controversies tend to involve scientific issues and advocacy groups increasingly turn to citizen science (CS), participatory data taking by regular people, to produce health and environmental data. A common assumption is that CS’s value lies in the data produced, and its volume and quality decide its persuasive power. This article describes participatory monitoring of genetically engineered rapeseed (canola) in Japan to suggest that social movements can leverage CS not only for the production of scientific data but also as occasions for recruitment, political awareness-raising, and collaboration with other civic organizations. The article proposes a new framework for understanding CS–social movement relations that is multi-actor (vs. expert–laypeople dyad); process-oriented (vs. product/data-oriented); and long-term (vs. one-shot and isolated data taking). There is an increasing awareness of the diversity of CS. Even those that are led by grassroots organizations have multiple and shifting uses of data and foster varying political subjectivity among participants. The proposed framework helps to understand the dynamics that shape such heterogeneous pathways of CS.

Data arenas: The relational dynamics of data activism

“…At the same time, however, the new technological possibilities associated with datafication may become the subject of dispute around standards for the quality of evidence (Lampland and Star, 2009). This may also force organizations to seek partners among dominant actors, especially scientists as a group that in a practical sense will influence the procedures of data collection and analysis and in a political sense will play a role in legitimizing the demands of initiatives (Kimura, 2021). From the perspective of an actor within the arena, it is crucial to react to the standard – whether by accepting it and playing by the dominant rules, negating it and rejecting it or using data as an intermediary tool, e.g.…”

“…This means that the anti-smog movement can use commercial sensors to articulate the problem, but the role of its data ends with community awareness, whilst the influence on public policy can only be achieved through traditional social movement repertoires like petitions and protests. The bottom-up infrastructure allows for the creation of shared meanings; however, it remains vulnerable to de-legitimization by other actors in the arena, including public institutions and private companies that accuse citizen initiatives of methodological flaws and poor-quality evidence, in an attempt to de-legitimize their allegations and demands (Kimura, 2021).…”

Scientific expertise and volunteer power in the Cook County forest preserves

“…As is true of citizen science in other political contexts, prairie restoration implicitly challenged the district's prevailing scientific paradigm—forestation (see also Kimura, 2021: 594–595). Therefore, to secure permission to restore prairies, Packard set out to build a constituency.…”

“…Consequently, this authority was put in question when a counter movement of Cook County residents launched a campaign to end ecological restoration in the forest preserves. It is common for citizen scientists to face critics who cast doubt on the data they collect and the claims they make (Brown, 2007: 19; Kimura, 2021: 581; Lave, 2015: 249; Ottinger, 2010: 246). Volunteer stewards first encountered systematic lay critique of their activities in 1996, when residents of Edgebrook and Sauganash began denouncing ecological restoration.…”

“…Volunteers forcefully performed their expertise at the 1996 public hearings, by capitalizing on the political network they had built, however inadvertently, over nearly two decades of ecological restoration (see also Kimura, 2021: 582). Stewards used their regional newsletters for coordination, with Brush Piles advising readers to present impactful testimony by “bring[ing] 30 copies of your remarks to give to the Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners” (NBRP, 1996).…”