Combining citizen science and public engagement: The open airlaboratories programme

Journal of Science Communication

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2013, Pages

  Riesch, Hauke ^a   Potter, Clive ^b   Davies, Linda ^b  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890836837     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18242049     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.22323/2.12030203     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. R. Bonney, H. Ballard, R. Jordan et al. (2009), Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education, Centre for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) Washington, U.S.A.
2. J. Silvertown (2009), A new dawn for citizen science, Trends Ecol. Evol. 24(9): 467-471.
3. J. Cohn (2008), Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research?, BioScience 58(3): 192-197.
4. C.B. Cooper, J. Dickinson, T. Phillips et al. (2007), Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems, Ecol. Soc. 12(2): 11.
5. Royal Society (2006), Factors affecting science communication: A survey of scientists and engineers, retrieved June 7, 2013, http://rovalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/RoYal Society Content/Influencing Policy/Themes and Proje cts/Themes/Governance/Final Report - on website - and amended by SK no navigation.pdf.
6. F. Danielsen, N.D. Burgess and A. Balmford (2005), Monitoring Matters: Examining the Potential of Locally-based Approaches, Biodivers. Conserv. 14(11): 2507-2542.
7. B. Prainsack (2011), Voting with their mice: personal genome testing and the "participatory turn" in disease research, Accountability in research 18(3): 132-147.
8. J.L. Dickinson, J. Shirk, D. Bonter, R. Bonney, R.L. Crain, J. Martin, T. Phillips and K. Purcell (2012), The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement, Front. Ecol. Environ. 10(6): 291-297.
9. D. Brossard, B. Lewenstein and R. Bonney (2005), Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27(9): 1099-1121.
10. D. Trumbull, R. Bonney, D. Bascom et al. (2000), Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project, Sci. Educ. 84(2): 265-275.
11. A.W. Crall, R. Jordan, K. Holfelder, G. Newman, J. Graham and D.M. Waller (2012), The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy, Pub. Underst. Sci. 22(6): 745-64.
12. D.L. Kountoupes and K.S. Oberhauser (2008), Citizen Science and youth audiences: Educational outcomes of the monarch larva monitoring projects, Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship 1(1): 10-20.
13. R. Cronje, S. Rohlinger, A.W. Crall et al. (2011), Does Participation in Citizen Science Improve Scientific Literacy? A Study to Compare Assessment Methods, Applied Environmental Education & Communication 10(3): 135-145.
14. R.C. Jordan, S.A. Gray, D.V. Howe et al. (2011), Knowledge Gain and Behavioral Change in Citizen-Science Programs, Conserv. Biol. 25(6): 1148-1154.
15. S. Lock (2008), Lost in translations: Discourses, boundaries and legitimacy in the public understanding of science in the UK, unpublished Ph.D., University College London, U.K.
16. S. Miller (2001), Public understanding of science at the crossroads, Pub. Underts. Sci., 10(1): 115-120.
17. B. Wynne (2006), Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science - hitting the notes, but missing the music?, Public Health Genomi. 9(3): 211-220.
18. M.W. Bauer, N. Allum and S. Miller (2007), What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda, Pub. Underts. Sci. 16(1): 79-95.
19. A. Irwin (2007), Public dialogue and the scientific citizen, in R. Flynn and P, Bellaby eds., Risk and the Public acceptance of new technology, Palgrave, Basingstoke, U.K., pp. 24-39.
20. A. Irwin and M. Michael (2003), Science, social theory and public knowledge, Open University Press, Maidenhead, U.K.
21. K. Burchell (2007), Empiricist selves and contingent "others": the performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy, Pub. Underts. Sci. 16(2):145-162.
22. S. Davies (2008), Constructing Communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public, Sci. Commun. 29(4): 413-434.
23. E. Jensen and R. Holliman (2009), Investigating science communication to inform science outreach and public engagement, in R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt and J. Thomas eds., Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., pp. 55-71.
24. S. Davies, E. McCallie, E. Simonsson, J.L. Lehr and S. Duensing (2009), Discussing dialogue: perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy, Pub. Underts. Sci. 18(3): 338-353.
25. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse et al. (2009), Learning science informal environments: People, places and pursuits, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
26. B. Lewenstein (2011), Changing our ideas, Int. J. Sci. Educ., Part B: Communication and Engagement 1(1): 17-21.
27. M.P. Mueller, D. Tippins and L.A. Bryan (2012), The future of citizen science, Democracy and Education 20 (1), article 2.
28. S.A. Gray, K. Nicosia and R.C. Jordan (2012), Lessons learned from citizen science in the classroom. A response to "The future of citizen science ", Democracy and Education 20(2), article 14.
29. B. Zoellick, S.J. Nelson and M. Schauffler (2012), Participatory science and education: bringing both views into focus, Front. Ecol. Environ. 10: 310-313.
30. A. Irwin (1995), Citizen Science, Routledge, London, U.K.
31. C.C. Conrad and K.G. Hilchey (2011), A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities, Environ. Monit. Assess. 176(1-4): 273-291.
32. J. Stilgoe (2009), Citizen Scientists: reconnecting science with civil society, Demos, London, U.K., p.22.
33. D. Hemment, R. Ellis and B. Wynne (2011), Participatory mass observation and citizen science, Leonardo 44(1): 62-63.
34. What is extreme citizen science?, retrieved 7 June 2013, https://uclexcites.wordpress.com/about/.
35. L Leydesdorff and J. Ward (2005), Science shops: a kaleidoscope of science-society collaborations in Europe, Pub. Underts. Sci. 14(4): 353-372.
36. J. Wilsdon and R. Willis (2004), See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream, Demos, London, U.K.
37. H. Riesch and C. Potter (2013), Citizen science as seen by scientists: methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions, Pub. Underts. Sci., published online before print, DOI: 10.1177/0963662513497324.
38. See also A. Wiggins and K. Crowston (2011), From conservation to crowdsourcing: a typology of citizen science, 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 4-7 Jan 2011.
39. M. Toogood and G. Everett (2013), Engaging Publics: Biodiversity Data Collection and the Geographies of Citizen Science, Geography Compass 7(9): 611-621.
40. J. Chilvers (2008), Environmental risk, uncertainty, and participation: mapping an emergent epistemic community, Environ. Plann. A 40(12): 2990-3008.
41. G. Rowe and L.J. Frewer (2004), Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda, Science, Technology and Human Values 29(4): 512-556.
42. See note 1.
43. L. Davies, J.N.B. Bell, J. Bone.et al. (2011), Open Air Laboratories (OPAL): A community-driven research programme, Environ. Pollut. 159(8-9): 2203-2210.
44. T. Lee, M. Quinn and D. Duke (2006), Citizen, science, highway and wildlife: Using a web-based GIS to engage citizen in collecting wildlife information, Ecol. Soc. 11 (1):11.
45. C.B. Cooper, J. Dickinson, T. Phillips et al. (2007), Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems, Ecol. Soc. 12(2): 11.
46. D.G. Delaney, C.D. Sperling, C.S. Adams et al. (2008), Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks, Bird Invasions 10: 117-128.
47. Indicia, retrieved 7 June 2013, http://www.indicia.org.uk/.
48. iSpot: Your place to share nature, retrieved 7 June 2013, http://www.ispot.org.uk/.
49. It is important to note that while not every interviewee identified all three of these tensions in their own work, a majority of our respondents referred to at least one of them.
50. OPAL Soil survey results map, retrieved 7 June 2013, http://www.opalexplorenature.org/SoilSurveyResults.
51. OPAL West Midlands, Bird research. retrieved 7 June 2013, http://www.opalwestmidlands.org/page5/page5.html.
52. See also M. Piezka and O. Escobar (2010), Dialogue: Innovation in policy making and the discourse of engagement, 60h Conference of the Political Studies Association, PSA, Edinburgh, U.K.
53. See note 36.
54. See also S. Davies, note 22.
55. M.C. Van der Sanden and F.J. Meijman (2008), Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science: an essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches, Pub. Underts. Sci. 17(1): 89-103.
56. For example B. Lewenstein (2011), Changing our ideas, Int. J. Sci. Educ., Part B: Communication and Engagement 1(1): 17-21.
57. See note 1.