2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.044
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Profiles of engagement in online communities of citizen science participation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
116
0
7

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(136 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
4
116
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…There is a traditional stereotype that the tasks volunteers perform tend to be simple and unimportant, such as giving directions and distributing leaflets. However, in recent years there has been growing interest in recruiting volunteers for citizen science projects to take part in scientific studies (Aristeidou, Scanlon, & Sharples, 2017;Chien, 2017); accordingly, there has been continued growth in the involvement of the general public in shared scientific activities and science understanding (Aristeidou, Scanlon, & Sharples, 2017). The benefits of public engagement (PE) include (i) contributing to building a more scientifically literate society, (ii) injecting differing perspectives and creativity into research design and results, and (iii) fostering more societally relevant and desirable research and innovation outcomes (Martin, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is a traditional stereotype that the tasks volunteers perform tend to be simple and unimportant, such as giving directions and distributing leaflets. However, in recent years there has been growing interest in recruiting volunteers for citizen science projects to take part in scientific studies (Aristeidou, Scanlon, & Sharples, 2017;Chien, 2017); accordingly, there has been continued growth in the involvement of the general public in shared scientific activities and science understanding (Aristeidou, Scanlon, & Sharples, 2017). The benefits of public engagement (PE) include (i) contributing to building a more scientifically literate society, (ii) injecting differing perspectives and creativity into research design and results, and (iii) fostering more societally relevant and desirable research and innovation outcomes (Martin, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clustering players to identify engagement profiles does not give the same results as in the cited citizen science analyses [17,18]. Cross-validation between different methods (within groups sum of squares and Silhouette statistics) suggests an optimal clustering with 3 groups.…”
Section: [Q4]mentioning
confidence: 79%
“…The mean values (and in brackets standard deviation) of the four main engagement metrics defined by [17] are shown in Table 2. For Night Knights, we distinguish the global values and those measured during the competition only (extrinsic motivation period); for comparison, we also report the values for the citizen science initiatives illustrated in [17,18]. Daily devoted time for Night Knights is measured by approximation, multiplying the number of game rounds per 1-minute duration (the actual time is higher, because players also browse leaderboards, badges, played pictures, etc.…”
Section: [Q4]mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An increase in effort through social information may also be applied to citizen science. By providing digital footprints of previous users, researchers can gather richer data using the same number of participants in citizen science projects, which often suffer from low long‐term engagement (Aristeidou, Scanlon, & Sharples, ; Nov, Arazy, & Anderson, ; Ponciano & Brasileiro, ). It is proposed that displaying the quantity of peers' contributions is an effective means to increase contributions through upward social comparison (Diner et al, ; Laut et al, ; Massung, Coyle, Cater, Jay, & Preist, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%