What does it mean to build a Citizen Science Project?

Nicola OsborneJisc MediaHub Service Manager /

Digital Education Manager

Multi Faceted Process

• Decision over whether designing the scientific and/or science communication purpose?

• Identifying audience(s), community(s).• Identifying the level of engagement required or

preferred.• Technical considerations: what is neccassary; what is

possible; what can citizens access/use.• Quality considerations.• Establishing required levels of support and engagement.• Designing communication, feedback and reward plans

and mechanisms to ensure citizens remain motived.• Mechanism to conclude, exit or handover project.

Defining Purpose: Science or Science Communication/Engagement/Education?• Does the science matter?• If not, how will volunteers be motivated and expectations

managed?• Does it matter who volunteers? • Are citizens to be empowered? Informed? Awareness

raised? Are they simply undertaking tasks?• How will the task be broken into manageable sub tasks?• What are the benefits and risks of gamifying

tasks/participation for this project and community?• How can quality and reliability of data be assured, or

assessed?• What role will experts or more experienced volunteers play?

Technology and Tool Design Matters

• Impacts accuracy of data collected (e.g. volunteered vs. GPS vs. IP based location).

• Interface design, usability, familiarity and language - can ease or increase complexity of participation.

• Home computer based tasks can exclude participation by e.g. lower income, older, less able, or more remotely located communities (see RSE 2014).

• Mobile devices limit to those with appropriate devices, often also limited to those with iOS/Android/etc. Also require wifi or 3G signals, or apps/interfaces which can function offline.

• App and data upload size may mean volunteers incur costs.

Example: FieldTrip

Quality Assurance

• Trust in Citizen Science by researchers varies, quality impacts re/use.

• Quality Assurance method/process : – Manual/moderation (e.g. Conker Tree Science); – Repetition and redundancy (e.g. Galaxy Zoo);– Targeted comparison with trusted data (e.g. sensors);– Technical measures (e.g. location of submission);– Trust/expertise level (e.g. based on previous submissions).

• Social challenges of managing potential rejection of volunteered data/effort.

Example: COBWEB

Communication & Expectation Management

• What level of participation is required for a success?• How does that participation look: public events; private participation

at home?• How is participation enabled: training or scaffolding; risks/warning

messages; support, guidance, teaching materials etc.• What motivates this community/these volunteers and keeps their

engagement?• Will volunteers be acknowledged and rewarded?• Contingency planning – poor

participation, less successful outcomes, expectation management

• Communication of science, research, project results.

• End point or exit plan?

Issues Raised Include..

• The role of the citizen, and expectations of what it is to be an active citizen.

• Relationship between amateurs and experts.• Role of reward and remuneration for work

undertaken.• Volunteer motivation, engagement, buy in.• Transparency of scientific process.• Quality and credibility of scientific process.• Peer and community education around science.• Community dynamics and roles.

References & Resources• Roy, H. et al 2012. Understanding Citizen Science for

Environmental Monitoring. CEH. Available from: http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news/news_archive/documents/understandingcitizenscienceenvironmentalmonitoring_report_final.pdf

• Royal Society of Edinburgh, 2014. Spreading the Benefits of Digital Participation in Scotland Final Report. Royal Society of Edinburgh. Available from: http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/1058_SpreadingtheBenefitsofDigitalParticipation.html

• COBWEB Project Website: cobwebproject.eu• FieldTrip Website: http://fieldtripgb.edina.ac.uk/authoring/• UoE Citizen Science and Crowd Sourcing Network:

http://citsci.ed.ac.uk/