Transdisciplinary sustainability research and citizen science: Options for mutual learning

GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 222-225

  Pettibone, Lisa ^a   Blättel Mink, Birgit ^b   Balázs, Bálint ^c   Di Giulio, Antonietta ^d   Göbel, Claudia ^a   Heubach, Katja ^e   Hummel, Diana ^f   Lundershausen, Johannes ^g   Lux, Alexandra ^f   Potthast, Thomas ^g   Vohland, Katrin ^a   Wyborn, Carina ^h,i  

^a LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTION AND BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE   (Germany)

^b GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c Environmental Social Science Research Group   (Hungary)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^e Financial Systems Development Section   (Germany)

^f Institute for Social Ecological Research ISOE   (Germany)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^h IUCN   (Switzerland)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

Author keywords

Citizen science; Co design; Co dissemination; Co production; Sustainability; Transdisciplinary research

Indexed keywords

EID: 85052079202     PISSN: 09405550     EISSN: 26255413     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14512/gaia.27.2.9     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Beck, S. et al. 2014. Towards a reflexive turn in global environmental expertise - The cases of the IPCC and IPBES. GAIA 23/2: 80 - 87.
2. Belcher, B. M., K. E. Rasmussen, M. R. Kemshaw, D. A. Zornes. 2015. Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. Research Evaluation. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvv025.
3. Bergmann, M., T. Jahn, T. Knobloch, W. Krohn, C. Pohl, E. Schramm. 2012. Methods for transdisciplinary research. A primer to practice. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
4. Blättel-Mink, B. et al. 2016. Report of DFG round table discussion on co-design, co-production and co-dissemination. Working group report to the German Committee Future Earth.
5. Bonney, R. et al. 2009. Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59/11: 977-984.
6. Brossard, D., B. Lewenstein, R. Bonney. 2005. Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education 27: 1099 -1121.
7. Chase, S. K., A. Levine. 2015. A framework for evaluating and designing citizen science programs for natural resources monitoring. Conservation Biology 30: 456 - 466.
8. Crain, R., C. Cooper, J.L. Dickinson. 2014. Citizen science: A tool for integrating studies of human and natural systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39: 641-665.
9. Defila, R., A. Di Giulio. 1999. Evaluating transdisciplinary research - Evaluation criteria for inter- and transdisciplinary research. Panorama. Special Issue 1/99.
10. Defila R., A. Di Giulio. 2015. Integrating knowledge: Challenges raised by the “Inventory of Synthesis”. Futures 65:123-135. DOI:10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.013.
11. Di Giulio, A., R. Defila, T. Brückmann. 2016. “Das ist halt das eine … Praxis, das andere ist Theorie” - Prinzipien transdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit im Forschungsalltag. In: Transdisziplinär forschen - zwischen Ideal und gelebter Praxis. Hotspots, Geschichten, Wirkungen. Edited by R. Defila, A. Di Giulio. Frankfurt am Main: Campus. 189 - 286.
12. Dickel, S. 2016. Trust in technologies? Science after de-professionalization. Journal of Science Communication 15/5: C03.
13. Groom, Q., L. Weatherdon, I. R. Geijzendorffer. 2016. Is citizen science an open science in the case of biodiversity observations? Journal of Applied Ecology 54: 612 - 617.
14. Heigl, F. et al. 2018. Quality criteria for citizen science projects on österreich forscht. Report by the Citizen Science Network Austria working group on quality criteria. https://zenodo.org/record/1161953#.WrC8LIIh3NB (accessed May 23, 2018).
15. Jahn, T., F. Keil. 2015. An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research. Futures 65: 195 - 208.
16. Kullenberg, C., D. Kasperowski. 2016. What is citizen science? A scientometric meta-analysis. PLOS One 11/1: e0147152.
17. Mauser, W. et al. 2013. Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5/3 - 4: 420 - 431.
18. Melo-Escrihuela, C. 2008. Promoting ecological citizenship: Rights, duties and political agency. ACME Editorial Collective, Keele University. citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.459.381&rep= rep1&type=pdf (accessed May 21, 2017).
19. Ottinger, G. 2009. Buckets of resistance: Standards and the effectiveness of citizen science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 35/2: 244 - 270.
20. Pettibone, L. 2015. Constructing “citizens” in the citizen science literature: Who are they and what do they do? Paper presented at the Interpretive Policy Analysis Conference. July 8-10, Lille, France.
21. Pettibone, L. et al. 2016. Citizen science for all: A guide for citizen science practitioners. www.buergerschaffenwissen.de/sites/default/files/grid/2017/11/20/handreichunga5_engl_web.pdf (accessed May 23, 2018).
22. Pettibone, L., K. Vohland, D. Ziegler. 2017. Understanding the (inter)disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen science: A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria. PLOS One 12/6: e0178778.
23. Potthast, T. 2015. Ethics and sustainability science beyond Hume, Moore and Weber - Taking epistemic-moral hybrids seriously. In: Ethics of science in the research for sustainable development. Edited by S. Meisch, J. Lundershausen, L. Bossert, M. Rockoff. Baden-Baden: Nomos. 129-152.
24. Schmeller, D.S. et al. 2009. Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Conservation Biology 23: 307-316.