Citizen science’s transformative impact on science, citizen empowerment and socio-political processes

Abstract

Citizen science (CS) can foster transformative impact for science, citizen empowerment and socio-political processes. To unleash this impact, a clearer understanding of its current status and challenges for its development is needed. Using quantitative indicators developed in a collaborative stakeholder process, our study provides a comprehensive overview of the current status of CS in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Our online survey with 340 responses focused on CS impact through (1) scientific practices, (2) participant learning and empowerment, and (3) socio-political processes. With regard to scientific impact, we found that data quality control is an established component of CS practice, while publication of CS data and results has not yet been achieved by all project coordinators (55%). Key benefits for citizen scientists were the experience of collective impact (“making a difference together with others”) as well as gaining new knowledge. For the citizen scientists’ learning outcomes, different forms of social learning, such as systematic feedback or personal mentoring, were essential. While the majority of respondents attributed an important value to CS for decision-making, only few were confident that CS data were indeed utilized as evidence by decision-makers. Based on these results, we recommend (1) that project coordinators and researchers strengthen scientific impact by fostering data management and publications, (2) that project coordinators and citizen scientists enhance participant impact by promoting social learning opportunities and (3) that project initiators and CS networks foster socio-political impact through early engagement with decision-makers and alignment with ongoing policy processes. In this way, CS can evolve its transformative impact.

The potential of citizen science to transform science: Lessons for a sustainable future

“…Furthermore, they can be vital in strengthening data quality assurance, adapting standardised protocols, and ensuring adequate resources. Finally, since sharing new scientific knowledge by publishing data and results is a core element of research and also applies to citizen science, this is also an important step in gaining recognition and credibility in the science system and in offering evidence for action that professional scientists can significantly help with (von Gönner et al., 2023).…”

“…search and also applies to citizen science, this is also an important step in gaining recognition and credibility in the science system and in offering evidence for action that professional scientists can significantly help with(von Gönner et al, 2023).Crucially, what we have sketched here are two extremes with institutionalised science as being formal and selective on one end and citizen science as being open and permeable on the other. However, in practice, there are many signs of both logics interweaving: elements of citizen science are taken up by institutionalised science, become more mainstream and in the process become tweaked and adapted (cf Pel, 2016;Wittmayer et al, 2021)…”

“…Considering the many challenges of current‐day knowledge production and the institutionalised science system, citizen science practice acts as an impulse for transformation in science (Jaeger et al., 2023) to increase scientific disciplines' effect in addressing sustainability challenges (Sauermann et al., 2020), possessing the potential to address the public crisis of trust in science and evidence‐based policymaking by treating science as a commons (Haklay et al., 2021; Pelacho et al., 2021). However, although universities and research institutions are important citizen science partners for fostering transformation, citizen science is not yet sufficiently established in either of these types of institutions (von Gönner et al., 2023). At the same time, citizen science is not a panacea or silver‐bullet solution, it comes with its own limitations and challenges, such as data accuracy levels or questions of participation (Hecker et al., 2018).…”

Non‐experts’ participation in processes of scientific knowledge creation: The case of Citizen Science

“…Currently the debate at the policy level has evolved significantly in the direction of considering non‐experts as an added value. Practitioners' opinion converges on the idea of Citizen Science as a promising way to perform engagement, have a positive impact on scientific knowledge creation processes and influence positively policymaking (van Gönner et al., 2023). The analysis of policy discourse about Citizen Science seems confirm that the approach is seen in a positive light (Hecker et al., 2019) with clear endorsement by policy documents both in the EU (European Commission, 2018, 2020) and the U.S. (U.S. House of Representatives, 2016).…”

“…More specifically the section will discuss the delegation to scientific authority and the separation between a ‘lay‐people class’ and an ‘expert class’ as an institutional basis that reflects such a social contract (Bush, 1945; Fischer, 2000) a key tension in science governance (Borrás, 2012). A subsequent section will review Citizen Science as a tool to address issues of the democratisation of science and its impact on science, citizen empowerment and policy (Von Gönner et al., 2023), specifically considering challenges explored by the PCST and STS literature (Strasser et al., 2019) in response to what are considered the failures of a regime of exclusion of non‐experts. The review will then focus on the role assigned to Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the current context of datafication (van Dijck et al., 2018), as ICTs serve as a triggering factor for participation and Citizen Science (Haklay, 2015; Triezenberg, et al., 2012; Wynn, 2017).…”