Geothink & Learn citizen science session

The following recording is from the Geothink & Learn lunchtime webinar.

The call for the event stated:

“Should it be only people with graduate degree who make extraordinary scientific discoveries? Maybe not. Citizen scientists around the world have contributed to new discoveries in fields such as astronomy, biology, meteorology, geography, public health, and more. It can also address social and environmental inequalities, and allow individuals and communities to address issues that concern them through the application of scientific methods and tools. Efforts to harness the work of many hands or crowdsource important data collection or transcription have gained popularity because of their ability to help scientists in tasks that they wouldn’t be able to accomplish, increase public engagement with science, and potentially raise awareness and understanding of scientific issues. They also open up new lines of data in important areas of research, to the benefits of scientists and society. Citizen science requires the participation of ordinary citizens outside of scientific research in universities, governmental bodies, or other research institutions. Participation in citizen science provides individuals with new skills in technology, science, and community organization, as well as informal education on scientific issues. Crowdsourcing can take place as part of citizen science as it relates to large-scale participation that can include tens of thousands of people joining projects online.”

The webinar included me, Victoria Slonosky, principal organizer for ACRE–Canada and the Data Rescue: Archives and Weather Project (DRAW); and,  Caren Cooper, a research associate professor at North Carolina State University.

Advertisements

New paper: Innovation in Citizen Science – Perspectives on Science-Policy Advances

cstp-3-1-114-g2From time to time, there are opportunities to become a co-author with a lot of people that you are very happy to be associated with – to demonstrate a shared piece of work that represents a common understanding. The participation in the first European Citizen Science Association conference in 2016 created such an opportunity, with a paper that was written by a core group of people from the organising committee and keynote speakers. The paper “Innovation in Citizen Science – Perspectives on Science-Policy Advances” is a report of the issues that were covered in the conference and the lessons and recommendations that emerge from it. The list of authors is impressive: Susanne Hecker , Rick Bonney, Muki Haklay, Franz Hölker, Heribert Hofer, Claudia Goebel, Margaret Gold, Zen Makuch, Marisa Ponti, Anett Richter, Lucy Robinson, Jose Rubio Iglesias, Roger Owen, Taru Peltola, Andrea Sforzi, Jennifer Shirk, Johannes Vogel, Katrin Vohland, Thorsten Witt, and Aletta Bonn.

The writing was led by Susanne Hecker (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UFZ / German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig) and also led to an innovation in the journal “Citizen Science: Theory and Practice” by creating the space to report meetings. There is a long tradition in science of producing meeting’s reports, and there is an assumption that this is now obsolete in the age of blogs – but this paper provides the demonstration that this is incorrect. First, the paper provides a clearer and well-structured statement of the event and its outcomes. Unlike blogs, it is appearing two years after the event, but this also means that the content needs to stand the test of time and point to the long-term outcomes from the event. Secondly, the longer period of editing and the process of peer review made the paper a better record of the event.

The paper is open access and you can find it here. The abstract is:

Citizen science is growing as a field of research with contributions from diverse disciplines, promoting innovation in science, society, and policy. Inter- and transdisciplinary discussions and critical analyses are needed to use the current momentum to evaluate, demonstrate, and build on the advances that have been made in the past few years. This paper synthesizes results of discussions at the first international citizen science conference of the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) in 2016 in Berlin, Germany, and distills major points of the discourse into key recommendations. To enhance innovation in science, citizen science needs to clearly demonstrate its scientific benefit, branch out across disciplines, and foster active networking and new formats of collaboration, including true co-design with participants. For fostering policy advances, it is important to embrace opportunities for policy-relevant monitoring and policy development and to work with science funders to find adequate avenues and evaluation tools to support citizen science. From a society angle it is crucial to engage with societal actors in various formats that suit participants and to evaluate two-way learning outcomes as well as to develop the transformative role of science communication. We hope that these key perspectives will promote citizen science progress at the science-society-policy interface.

Lessons learned from Volunteers Interactions with Geographic Citizen Science – Afternoon session

The context of the workshop and the notes from the first part of the workshop is available here. The theme of the second part of the day was Interacting with geographical citizen science: lessons learned from urban environments

Volunteer interactions with flood crowdsourcing platforms – Avi Baruch talk is based on a completed PhD on the aspects of volunteers in flood monitoring and response. There are different types – incident reporting floodline, media outreach, online volunteering, and collaborative mapping. He looked at Tomnod as a system that is currently used to engage volunteers in tagging satellite images. Looked at forums and interviews with the most active participants. Most volunteers where over 50 and there is a good balance by gender. 23% stated that they had a long-term health problem – finding it addictive and spending 8-10 hours a day. Engaging volunteers is an issue: there was not enough feedback on how the information was used and how they are performing, which Tomnod team haven’t done. at least 10% of comments were concerned with the quality of their contributions. Without feedback, it is hard to judge. Tomnod allow people to explore the map and they can share location, but then people concentrate in one area. Restricting people to an area didn’t work well. Core motivations were based on altruistic reasons, and retirement, disability and health were reasons for engagement. The second part of the PhD project includes the development of a citizen science platform to report (floodcrowd.co.uk) and doing the development through an iterative process. The form allows people to report flooding incidents. All the information that is provided is location, and type of flooding, and then people can report further details. In communities, that experience flooding preferred a hard copy. All sort of information was submitted, mostly about surface mapping – many people who are potential participants didn’t want to engage with the app. Need further co-production with the people who contribute the data.

Volunteers Interaction in Technology Driven Citizen Science contexts: Lessons learned from senseBox and openSenseMap – Mario Pesch & Thomas Bartoschek SenseBox have been developed over the past 4 years. It came out from teaching computer science in school – focus on environmental sensing which the students wanted to see on the web. Sensing temp, humidity, pressure, light, UV-light. People wanted to participate in the project from outside school. in 2014, they had 50 sesneBoxes – most connected only for few weeks (8m records). After a while, people find it complicated and they wanted to do something on their own. They created a DIY sensing box for home and for school. The component allows people to create things without soldering. They set out reference stations next to official monitoring station – people asked about it. You always need to consider the limitation of the system. SensorBox home 2.0 was looking more at air quality and more options to send the data – measuring in places without WiFi so they added GSM and now they have 1500 sensing stations and people also want to work with the data and you can do basic interpolation. The platform is device independent and people use it for other systems. Also supporting mobile stations, They keep the project open – it can be adjusted to people own needs.

Lessons learned from volunteers’ use and feedback of the Cyclist GEO-C App – Diego Pajarito, Suzanne Maas, Maria Attard and Michael Gould the experience of the cycling app is part of the PhD network GEO-C – open city toolkit. A lot of application target sports or data collected but not linked to the experience on the road. The location Cyclist GEO-C app is for Android and can be competition or cooperation based, and collect GPS tracks and up to 3 tags. Tried in Castello, Munster and Valletta and Malta. There are different levels of cycling used. 20 participants – that commute regularly and using an Android phone. Different participation methods – as a group to get common views. They captured 793 trips, the response was generally positive. People seeing a potential for personal use but also to lobby and promote cycling. Can be a motivational tool for beginners. They also identify the issue of remembering to use the app when the need to use it, improve control over recording and improving the tags. Ideas about mapping interface and using wearable devices, social interaction and gamification were suggested.

Invisible Citizen Science: the case of Járókelő in Hungary – Bálint Balázs & Le Marietta thinking of the citizen science in Eastern Europe, which thinking about modes of public participation in scientific discourse and policy-making, there are multiple silences: there are many projects that offer it, and in the level of initiative – the term haven’t exist and used. The interview from an NGO suggested lack of familiarity. In eastern countries in Europe, citizen science is only recently emerging, not many initiatives, and little-published articles and only a few members of ECSA, and how it is connected. Methods are limited. Need to reconceptualise. There is invisible citizen science – the specific knowledge that is produced in the projects that they are looking at it are uncommon to scientists. An example for this is jarokelo – for addressing local issues – looking at the example for “fix my street” (or “letter to the mayor” in the Czech Republic). Civic technology to report street fixing and there are 20 volunteers who can transfer it to the authority – there are 50-100 reports per day and the reporting back from the authority can take 30 days. Most authorities report back, they also received reports on homeless people and had to agree on what to do with this types of report. The issue of participants is about trust in the state and also think of cooperative research ideas – analysing users’ statistics, thinking of involvement pathways and better communication.

Citizens as Shoppers: Lessons learned from the EnvBodySens application – Eiman Kanjo  looking into mobile sensing – the challenge for retail in the centre of cities and there is also all sort of noise and air pollution that people are concerned about. Done work around a popular shopping area in Nottingham city centre – what kind of sensors – environment, physiology, motion, timestamps, location, continuous self-reporting and the zoning (understanding which shops they are in, or the area that they are visiting). Issues of collecting data involve selecting types of sensors (e.g. the characteristics of the sensors). There was issue of demography, shopping behaviour (men/women), challenges with how many volunteers you get and how to prepare volunteers – but for shopping, we need them to be relaxed and enjoy the shopping and how you start the experiment. There is also the aspects of the journey (real-life shopping experience and temporal aspect of it) which also raise ethical concerns. They needed to consider if the phone is on all the time or should it use voice and audio information. Self-reporting and self-assessment is something that needs consideration. They ended with 50 participants, wristband devices and mobile phone and a 45 shopping journey – they looked at the impact of noise and they also consider how they can visualise all this information.

Lessons learned from the recent landlside mitigation efforts: citizen science as a new approach – Sultan Kocaman & Candan Gokceoglu volunteer contribution can provide important information – increase world population and climate change (extreme weather) is a major natural hazard. Wanted to explore how citizen science is relevant to address uncertainties because there is a lack of reliable temporal data. Risk assessment s base on knowledge of past events – then assessing susceptibility, hazard assessment and then you can understand the risk assessment and manage it. Landslide susceptibility requires a lot of information and data. The risk assessment needs all this information as otherwise there will be too much uncertainty. The majority of landslides are in mountainous areas and we can’t have sensors, but information is coming from observers evidence, and volunteers can provide the time and location in a better way. Shallow landslides disappear after a short period. Need volunteers at the right time and the right place – distributed participation. The scale of movement can also be measured with volunteers. Currently working on the project and consider what can be done – what the frequency and quality of spatial and temporal data and in any case rely heavily on local knowledge but need to be improved.

Citizens as volunteer cartoghraphers: A pedestrian map case study – Manousos Kamilakis exploring the field of cartography for pedestrian – based on ideas from VGI so people can share information. Most of the online maps are focusing on motorised transport, and less about the aesthetic pleasantness of the journey, the condition of the pavement etc. The two journeys are suggested as equivalent and only one of them is offering a better journey. Created an app for pedestrian reporting and recording the journey, then evaluate and review the journey and also editing a path. They carried out an experiment with people who never edited a map and had various motivations – the leaderboard wasn’t of interest, although half were motivated by gamification and were willing to cheat to score points. Creating motivation is difficult – need to design gamification carefully and external incentives encourage unacceptable data uploading – consider peer review. People do not volunteer to all tasks in an equal way.

Interacting with Community Maps – Mapping for Change Louise Francis and Rosa Arias cover the development of international odour observatory.  Building on Principle 10 of Rio and the right of access environmental information – different authorities produced maps, such a noise map.When talking with communities, people are pointing that they have a different experience and reflect their own understanding of their local conditions using citizen science. Citizen collect information and Mapping for Change visualise it on behalf of the community. Community evolved over the years. it is a flexible system that allows people to decide on the grouping of information – the themes are being groups in different ways. There is also a need to make conversation – interact with contributions that other people added. The data is to drive change – for example leading to a change in buses through campaign and publicity to change things around them. Lessons learned: communities, where adding data – demonstrating that community members wanted to share a lot of data and they wanted information on their balcony and putting a point on top of a point, wasn’t possible in the past and require changed. The map is allowing clustering that shows 115 points in a small area. Some communities wanted to have their own classification – so they took the data and created their own visualisation. We learned that and want to be part of the D-Noses: odour pollution. The top-down approaches to address issues of odour and there is fairly little addressing of issues. OdourCollect focuses on bottom-up approach – using the nose to notice odour problems. The OdoucrCollect allow data capture.

A Case Study on the Impact of Design Choices on Data Quality in Geographic Citizen Science – Jeffrey Parsons, NL Nature design choices – ecologist and looking at data management and data quality. Looking at a specific design choice. Looking at two archetypes of systems – on one end well defined and stable use of data (close) precise focus on data collection and data collection standards – citizen scientists with requisite domain knowledge and motivated to do the work well. The other end ill-defined, open use, which provides opportunities for data collection in an opportunistic way, ambiguous data collection standard and unclear domain knowledge. eBird is an example of a project that is towards the closed version. The research setting in traditional science lead to design principles for closed citizen science and these don’t work in open and that can lead to a problem in the application. Information quality is a major challenge in User Generated Content (UGC) – there is all sort of comments about it. Fitness for use is a major one – in close: training, data collection protocol, clean data – but this is a problem in an open environment and it can inhibit contributors from communicating unique knowledge. They suggest crowd IQ – from the contributors’ perspective (Lukyanenjo et al 2014). The question is how do we design in such a way that matches the contributors’ mental models of the information and align with contributors’ capabilities. Design principles focus on conceptual modelling – describing in a way that you use a class-based approach of setting the categories and the model drive the design. Design choice of conceptual model of the producer and not necessarily of the contributors. The alternative is to do instance-based modelling which is based on an ontological view of a world made of things and cognitive approach. The information quality impacts – if you think about data completeness as a way to describe the engagement of volunteers to add information. They checked a website that was focused on species only and another one that focuses on the attributes. The hypotheses are that they’ll get more observation and novel species. NLNature.com is about observations of wildlife. They allow people to type species name or the Latin name, the other option is typing whatever you want. They collected data over 6 months, they have 4 times more observations in the instance based condition, and also observe that class-based condition frustrated the contributors and left compared to the class-based case. They got many more species in the instance based when it is open to people to define insects, fish. They even discover a new type of wasp. The bottom line, modelling choices affect dataset completeness – class based lead to fewer observations and especially of species that are not in the schema.

 

From paper prototyping to citizen participation: Co-designing geolocated cultural heritage applications that trigger personal reflection – Kate Jones – looking at cultural heritage. The aim is to create a serendipitous outdoor exhibition to reflect on historical topics and encourage thoughtful play on historical issues. The topic that they focused on was that of migration – 45% of the population is made of migrants in Luxembourg and that influence way to thinking of a location for historical and contemporary memories and experiences. Two places – Luxembourg city and Valletta and they are both touched by migration and are UNESCO sites. They have Mobile app, moderator app, and point of interest management system and they check the information and want to use CrowdFlower to moderate. The application is to allow people to tag history places and be able to record journeys and stories about spaces and memory. Complexity is being hidden behind the levels. The app informs the user that they are being tracked. It was designed in an iterative process – user scenario, requirements, wood game to try how people use the application action – then develop and evaluate. A board game prototyping allowed the development of scenarios. Postcards symbolic of the user interface. The content needs to be valid, and interesting – want to reflect when people are out and about it the city. They included game designer and the developer and they can see the perspective of the player. People used stickers on the board card to indicate what they liked and disliked – people wanted a stronger connection between migration and experience. They used a digital humanities methods and figured out that it can be too complex so the levels can help in unlocking it. Questions had to be changed to address the emotional response of participants, and the multi-city connection was complex and need to develop carefully. A board game for the design was fun and collaborative but also helped in the development of the game. Going t the field, the launched the application in September 2017. out of 500 students, 40 app download, and only two trajectories. They created a new iteration. People don’t like reading the lengthy text – so they put it text to voice and that brought different issues with the interface. They see different types of people in the user population. Exploration have led to a change in perspective in the final application and grounded in participant experience. How do we give people the motivation to give it a go?

Geographical expertise and citizen science: planning and -design implications – Colin Robertson & Robert Feick considering different levels of geographical expertise – what does it mean to be a geographical expert – what are the expert/non-expert into a spectrum. We can look at some ideas of expertise: Collins 2013 pointed to the 3 dimensions of expertise – contributory, interactional and esotericity – exposure to tacit knowledge in a domain, recognised accomplishments or is it expertise that is common or uncommon we can look at it in a continuum – locale familiarity: place-based expertise related – might be fuzzy. Other geographical knowledge is about place-types – say urban environments or glacial environment. We can think about expertise in the cube – for a soil scientist it is in position A, long-term residents of the area might be a huge locale expertise B and so on. We can think of different projects – from Stresscapes – tweets as a place-based emotional expression but realise that this need validation with participants to check if the tweet related to the surroundings. The engagement was trying to be generic and ignored place and context. Everything was done through surveys on Twitter. RinkWatch looked at outdoor rink skateability – over 2000 rink people are passionate about it. The – a level of skateability level. the level of expertise is high in local knowledge and in thematic specificity. The Wildlife Health Tracker – where dead animals are – knowledge from hunters to capture information about what they have seen. Information that was reported is the type of animal – moderate thematic and local knowledge and low domain knowledge. The participants weren’t involved and much interested. The GrassLander is looking at private land – birds and habitats. Looking at farming community reporting. The cases here are where they’ve seen two types of birds (bobolink or eastern meadowlark) and – high thematic specificity, and moderate to high local knowledge and moderate domain knowledge (two species identification). Farmers were involved and there was a need to restrict access between participants. No project required high domain knowledge, the successful cases include place type or locale familiarity knowledge – though it’s a small sample. Many questions: metrics, credibility and trust models are all interesting.gfg

Following the day, group discussions explored the issues with people, technology, and future directions. Here are the future directions that were supposed in the group that I chaired with the help of Dan Artus (a future report from the workshop will be available)

 

 

Lessons learned from Volunteers Interactions with Geographic Citizen Science – Morning session

On the 27th April, UCL hosted a workshop on the “Lessons learned from Volunteers Interactions with Geographic Citizen Science“. The workshop description was as follows:

“A decade ago, in 2007, Michael Goodchild defined volunteered geographic information (VGI) as ‘the widespread engagement of large numbers of private citizens, often with little in the way of formal qualifications, in the creation of geo­graphic information, a function that for centuries has been reserved to official agencies.’ (p.2). The collection and use of this type of crowdsourced geographic data have grown rapidly with amateurs mapping the earth’s surface for all kind of purposes (e.g. collecting and disseminating information about accessibility in urban centres, for crisis and emergency response purposes, mapping illegal logging in remote areas and so on). A subset of these activities has been described as ‘geographic citizen science’ and includes scientific activities in which amateur scientists (volunteers) participate in geographic data collection, analysis and dissemination within the context of a scientific project (Haklay, 2013) or simply by using scientific methods and equipment. Although, there is an extensive discussion in the VGI and geographic citizen science literature about opportunities as well as implications (e.g. data coverage, data quality and trust issues, motivation and retainment of volunteers and so on), examples from the actual interaction are not so widely discussed, neither has evidence been collected from a broad spectrum of case studies to demonstrate how volunteers interact with those technologies and applications, what they are looking for and what it is that they need/try to accomplish (at a scientific, project and personal level) and what are the common design mistakes that influence interaction.” The following is a summary of the talk and presentations:

Welcome & Instructions – Artemis Skarlatidou the workshop is linked to our ERC funded project Intelligent Maps (ECSAnVis) and  EU funded Doing It Together science (DITOs) and the COST action – our work deal with geographical applications of citizen science and data collection. There is the COST Action CA15212 which got 243 members in 39 countries – all exploring aspects of citizen science – Work Group 1 (WG1) for scientific quality, WG2 education, WG3 society-science policy, WG4 the role of volunteers in citizen science, WG5 data and interoperability, and the synergies in WG6. In WG4, which Artemis lead. we’re looking at stakeholder mapping, motivation, needs and interaction issues, and mapping citizen science across Europe. Another relevant group is the ICA Commission on use user and usability issues, the International Society for Photogrammetry & remote sensing that have a WG V/3 that look at citizen science and crowdsourced information. Sultan Kocaman explained the ISPRS link – WG V/3 focus on the promotion of regional collaboration in citizen science and geospatial technologies within the focus of ISPRS area of education and outreach.

Louis Liebenberg presents Smartphone Icon User Interface design for Oralate Trackers – Louis Liebenberg who for 3 decades have been developing software to allow hunter gatherer to protect their knowledge of tracking. One of the challenges that Louis address is the understanding how our scientific thinking evolved. Louis suggests that tracking is an example for hypothesis testing and rational thinking that evolved in in tracking by hunter gatherers. He worked with !Nate from the San people since 1985 – the context of technology use by San for a long time. Already 100 years ago, hunters discovered that arrow points can be made from fence wire and started using them. This is an example of how hunter-gatherers adopt to technologies around them. Hunter-gatherers are not isolated: they always interacted and traded. Developing a software for a smartphone (you can get an Android phone for $10 in South Africa today), is similar to adopting the fence wire for the arrows 100 years ago. He learned from master trackers – the level of sophistication of trackers is astonished him since the mid 1980s. In the Kalahari, dogs were introduced in the 60s, and therefore the knowledge of tracking and the practices of hunting change. He used tracking and certification in it in order to secure employment. Master trackers are expected in an egalitarian society to show humility, so it is possible to miss them if you go and ask “who’s the best tracker here?” – the certification is a way to provide recognition and work. The tracking provided employment in the 1990s in surveying the movement of animals in the Kalahari. The persistent hunt – when you do it without any equipment, running animals down until they die from exhaustion which is an adaptation that humans have to be able to do that. Karoha was one of the persistence hunters but also able to use CyberTracker and use the system. Parallel to the software, Louis develop the tracker certification, to know if the data is reliable. As Master Trackers die, the knowledge is lost, so the certification provides an opportunity to encourage the younger generation to develop the knowledge and benefit from it. The level of details in animal tracks is very high. There is a high level of ambiguity in tracking and requirement to learn about claw marks and knowing what are the possibilities then it is possible with high certainty to understand which animal it was. Trackers also develop hypotheses on why the shape of hoofs is the way it is, and interpret activities of animals from the track – for example, identifying new ways of interpreting the behaviour of an animal that was not observer before. For example, the ability to guess that caracals are jumping upright in an attempt to catch a bird. CyberTracker started with the early Apple Newton with a GPS module, and then evolved into the Palm Pilot and continue to evolve. The interface was very limited in drawing icons – icons are either phonetic symbols (e.g. using a wheelbarrow to describe an item that sounds similar to the word in Africans). The details can be very extensive – species, age, number, male/female and so home. The data can provide information on abundance and potential of work are the communities. In a project in the Congo, they follow the trackers of different animals and they could show they Ebola impact Chimpanzees, Gorilla, but also other animals and then this was important to understand that you can identify Ebola in wildlife before it spreads into the human population. There is also a wide use of CyberTracker in citizen science on monitoring endangered species, and different projects by indigenous communities  Australia. They can also show that there are different results from what ecologists identify. A paper from 1999 about Rhino was co-authored by a tracker, demonstrating different models of publishing with citizen scientists. The first high impact that was co-authored by trackers was published recently in biological conservation. Questions: how to communicate from hypothesis by hunter-gatherers to the scientific sphere? The need is collaboration: data collected and organised by the trackers, and then the scientists write the report, but providing a report is challenging. The reality is co-authoring as there is always need for mentoring, reciprocal approach between scientists. Louis also circulates papers with experienced scientists to improve the paper. We all need peer review support. In terms of consent and engagement: there is a need to develop the relationship of trust and understanding – the first people who were involved in CyberTracker worked with Louis for 5 years, and Louis engaged as a tracker before they were willing to work with him. Some of the early papers in the Kalahari used trackers without mentioning their name even though the trackers carried out the research. Scientific institutions are one of the last authoritarians institutions – citizen science. Scientific elitism is intransigent and this makes citizen science exciting.

Lessons from supporting non-literate forest communities in the Congo-Basin to record their Traditional Ecological Knowledge – Michalis Vitos & Julia Altenbuchner the context of the Congo-basin is the second largest rainforest. This is a forest with 29 million people, with at least 500,000 nomadic communities that rely on resources. The forest is divided into concessions and then they are sued for resource extraction – how to make local groups heard? Local communities are excluded from protected areas. In the last few years, some legislation is changing – e.g. the FLEGT of the EU to control timber import and request for social payback and responsibility. ExCiteS collaborated with communities to support such process with technology. The challenges are dealing with non-literate groups who are also non-technologically literate. We use pictures as a way to communicate: the application working in a simple fashion – showing categories of things that people want to map, each category is leading to more specific options – the information can be captured and deciding if we want to save information and we can collect video and audio that are geotagged. In 3 simple steps, information can be captured. The process starts with a dialogue of what important for the communities, and then with this agreement on what will be collected. We do explore the usability of the application. About 70% can use the application, but 30% have a problem with categories – you follow a path of mapping banana, avocado and cacao – this requires categories, e.g. one of the set. Some participants found that confusing. Adding more icon to the category is becoming more complex. One approach was to test audio feedback in a local language – explaining the icons and what they mean. The experiments with the audio feedback help a bit, but not a lot. The next step was to go directly to the final icons and go directly to the final card – adding an NFC chip and adding the control to it. Participant finds the specific icon and then touch the card with the phone. With Tap&Map the success rate gets close to 100%.

Julia – the next issue is making sure that communities can manage their data- the vision is of intelligent maps  – having data collection, then local data repository and management, and then visualisation. But there is a challenge of the mapping and this was done by using UAVs and creating within a short time a high-resolution imagery. However, people don’t need maps as they know their area, but the maps are for communication. The maps are being used to check how the map is used – people felt under a lot of pressure when using the map. and the next experiment was not to put under pressure, and instead of doing a treasure hunt: going and looking for data by trying to find German Christmas decorations. The tracks of the people who participated in the study we can see how they looked for information. What we know is that people can use maps and understand them – the reference map. Now we want the thematic information – so when people take ownership and correct issues: this was done using the icons that were used as a resource and then to correct information. People were doing well in correcting information using a Tap&Map approach. We get feature corrections over 90%. This an ad-hoc approach: even without much exposure – we need to allow people to be sensors and the brains behind it.

Forest hunter-gatherers and Extreme Citizen Science: Reporting wildlife crime in collaboration with local and indigenous communities in Cameroon through community-led co-design – Simon Hoyte work in Cameroon for the last year and a half with Baka hunter-gatherers. Working in Cameroon in the south-east corner.Working with Dja reserve, working ZSL and 5 communities. In Cameroon, there are many issues with conservation – gorillas, chimpanzees, parrots, pangolins and elephants. Indigenous communities are lots of time are forgotten – those groups are familiar with the forest, with knowledge of 50,000 years and colonial approaches exclude. The technologies that are being used are Sapelli data collection tool, then there is the data management tool GeoKey and the CommunityMaps from Mapping for Change. The process starts with the community free prior informed consent – first starting with the concerns of the community and also building trust by staying overnight in the village and connect on a personal level. That is an important recommendation. Icons are being drawn from the sand, to a paper and then into the app. Functional actions changed from tick to thumbs app, or recording changed. XML layout of the project allow changes in the field. The second recommendation is the co-design that increases motivation. Audio and video are allowing information to be shared, including tracks – it allows a verification. Audio provides more information. Describing what people found. Indicators on the device are important – when recording is active a red icon allows you to see that something is working. The phone is checking for connection every 4 minutes. Using ID screen to recognise reported – can be used elsewhere. The community protocol also addresses who manage who will manage the phone and look after it. The report is upload and shared with the authorities – we need the diverse outcome. So in summary: trust building, co-design, media, feedback, simple tools, anonymous ID, community-led, and diverse outcomes. The map providing further more information.

Community based monitoring of tropical forests using information and communication technology (ICT) – Søren Brofeldt an example for a study that rely on Sapelli and expand the software to create the Prey Lang App: working in Cambodia, in the Prey Lang – 200,00 people who rely on the forest, and huge pressure of deforestation and a lot of the logging is illegal and it is supposed to be protected. The Prey Lang Community Network (PLCN) created around 2005-2007 and it is now a group of 600 people who are doing work over that last 10 years, and patrolling the area, confiscating chainsaw and catch wood and logs. Trying to address logging in the area. 2013 they try to communicate the problem to international society – to do what they wanted to set a forest monitoring programme and create a system to document illegal logging and provide evidence-based advocacy. The issue is to compile information and document breaches. The data is captured by Sapelli, and the information is validated by PLCN and scientists, which then helped in compiling report locally and globally, which then led to the positive platform. The platform was tweaked a bit and include information through a decision tree, they have different aspects. The things that they developed: unique functions – choosing icons or doing activities – they had basic activities in the first version: they have seen it as too simple. They started with 9 basic functions with 614 end-points of activities. By the third version, they had 9 functions, and 1663 options: types of trees, types of information, species and so on. They now have 10 functions (e.g. dropdown, word complete). Complexity does not lead to incorrect use (if training is adequate and added functionality is done in co-designed way). When people are experienced – people who use the app for 2 years can get into more complex functionality over time. Some of the issues with data – poor documents, double counting. over time, human errors are decreasing, and also technical issues. Poor connectivity and technical issue are a major issue – more than local ability to use. High quality is possible with active data management is needed.

Designing Human-Computer Interaction for Citizen Science Initiatives in Rural Developing Regions – Veljko Pejovic & Artemis Skarlatidou we need to understand how we move initiative from developed to developing regions in citizen science application. ICT4D point to environmental constraints: roads, electricity, There are also that this area lack skills in the workforce and cultural constraints. Clashes with assumptions. in the Extreme Citizen Science context: we need to identify solution adaptation in participatory design, there is a need for holistic implementation, and we need to make sure that we think about the whole process – from data collection to policy and this challenging. Finally, we also to consider the champions and engaging then (the book “Geek Heresy” by Toyama talks about it). The aim is to identify guidelines – this was done through participatory studies that are similar in the rural developing world and carried out 9 interviews with researchers with extensive experience in the field. An hour-long interviews x 2. The questions explored different aspects including interactions. The finding – need to mobilise the community by taking into account societal organisation (e.g. egalitarian aspects). Need to find local champions. We need to identify the ecosystem of the technology: chargers, cables. Also need to consider how the technology that was built to a different context work: rough fingertips, reflection in the screens and so on. There is also the issue of using hierarchical icon organisation which is pretty intuitive for educated people but it is challenging for participants (users) and also navigation buttons. This matches evidence from Medhi et al. Chi 2013. Juxtaposing this with illiterate users in urban Brazil, they managed to deal with hierarchical organisation and navigation – might be that the exposure to smartphones helped in developing these hierarchies. Icon design is different, but we can see that realistic icons with context are more suitable to use, not just an object. There are issues of actions and how to represent them. Getting honest feedback on the spot is a challenge – users don’t criticise before (Dell et al CHI 2012 – “yours is better”). Long trust relationship help in getting honest feedback. The participants lack the vocabulary to discuss HCI issues. To maintain motivation, there is a need to make data collection visible and ensure the real-world impact of data collection. Recommendation: develop context-specific apps – not genetic, and consider application interface that matches user’s skills and geographical information is a key.

Introducing user issues of the Global Forest Watch application – Jamie Gibson – developing with Vizzuality better maps and visualisation. Trying to think of citizen-focused GIS, interacting with the citizen in the design. Global Forests Watch (GFW) was developed in the last 3 years, and it is allowing to see the world’s forest and how they change. They wanted to tell a simple story: where forest is gained and lost. With few clicks, you can see the impact of conservation. GFW allow seeing how deforestation is implemented and how it is stopped. There is a need for global engagement – opening it to a whole crowd of people. Forest don’t have a connection to the web, and try to take data online to the field, walk to the area, investigate recent forest loss and report new areas – 4000-5000 users. They aim to integrate citizens into the design process. Forest Watcher is being used in important areas of the world and not where the most connected people area. They analyse where people use the app – when there are forest fires in Spain, people are updating GFW and explore. Use the analytics to find the places where we want more people to look and explore. This is integrated with interviews and usability testing. Working with experts who been working for a long time – including Jane Goodall Institute, Amazon Conservation Team, CAGDF, and BirdLife. As people use the application they build ownership and they provide a better feedback and richer information. In terms of what they learn, including the use of persona to think about monitors: need to have lots of other things that try to sync after the 14 days offline – the internet is slow and changed the app and the back end to make it faster. Use it to understand frustrations and find ways to wow moment. Face, name and story improve the quality of the thinking and understand their frustrations.

Lessons learned from Missing Maps – Jorieke Vyncke Her personal background is in interest in work that links to humanitarian purposes, and since 2017 is the missing maps coordinator. She is looking at the humanitarian organisation focus -more than 34,000 staffers in MSF and about 470 locations around the world. In many parts of the world there are empty maps and not geographical data. They discover OpenStreetMap and working with the American and British Red Cross, HOT and over 40 partners. They have principles from the Ostrom on working with groups. They compare rural and urban parts. In Idjiwi in DRC, the east of Congo – working with a multitude of problems: violence, refugees and more. Due to a measles outbreak, they needed population and mapping data. Included 250 remote volunteers who mapped 28,000 building in about a week. This helped in creating population estimation – critical for the logistical planning. They managed to identify 94% of the population. An example from Bangladesh in Hazaribagh informal settlement. The area was mapped with both local and remote mapping – including factories and tanneries – locating the workers that they wanted to reach – combining students from the university with workers that were reached through the union. The experience of mapping is done by the technical local students to make things happen. Using smartphones and field papers process. Paper is still effective, and then also the edit data in pairs on how to do the mapping – the end result provided an occupational health survey. The process motivated the community and they continue to use it. In different areas, they use remote mapping but the most important thing is to create a local mapping community and that makes a decision between empowerment and remote mapping with the importance of saving life.

Keynote: Approximated Reality: the use of digital tools by traditional communities in the Amazon – Vasco van Roosmalen working in Ecam – Equipe Conservacao Amazonia in Brazil since 1999. The big challenge is how to reconcile different visions of what the world is. In the Xingu area in Brazil, there was a need to create an ethno-map of the region. The community discusses what they want to map and how they want to represent them, but it also needed to be cartographically accurate as this is how you communicate with external bodies. The whole map is created for the community: to use resources, to remember the dead and to defend their land (using patterns of body paint). We can see that protected areas in the Xingu. Another area that he was involved in mapping is near Surinam – in an area the size of Holland with 2000 people, the community recorded information about their region. This helped in justifying the resources and the protection of the area. An area that is very rough to access, and the local survey by the community managed to map the area done that in 6 maps. The community collected much more data than what the map can show – over the coming years, they mapped with different groups millions of hectares and they developed a process of creating the maps. The collaboration with Google Earth Outreach led to the interaction with Chief Amir of the Surui. The link with commitment with Rebecca Moore helped in filling up areas that are missing and attaching video and audio to the map. They then wanted to record illegal logging using mapping tools and this was done with OpenDataKit – the data collection challenges are accuracy, ease of use, speed, etc. In 2008 started to understand REDD and developed the Surui Carbon Project – need a tremendous amount of data from the air and from the ground. The use of information such as the circumference of trees was done with ODK. They use Garmin devices: they weren’t scratch resistance. Now they use a Samsung smartphones that are cheap and can be replaced easily. For the GPS in the rainforest, it is challenging and they use barcode on the trees. They used the ODK build but discovered that it is not an easy interface: using a programmer in the staff and that is a limitation in terms of allowing to build forms easily. The project managed to demonstrate that indigenous people can collect data but the REDD credits were more challenging and they got them in 2013. Cultural maps where created in other indigenous lands in Brazil. The importance not just to demarcate the land but to collect data and help them to manage the area. Today there are many challenges – 13% of the Brazilian territory. In the Brazilian Amazon, there are many communities – 25 mil people of which only 350,00 indigenous for example, Quilombola groups and many other groups. There was no information on other groups and some of them are disadvantaged – e.g. Quilombola required mapping 7000 communities, they are descendent of West African slaves – they were persecuted, faced a lot of violence, and when slavery was abolished they were forgotten, but from the 1980s they are recognised in the constitution, but not enough recognised officially. His team was involved in creating a new map of the 7000 communities for which only on a team of 40 is looking after in the government level in Brasilia. They used approaches that are similar to the Indigenous mapping in order to record information and manage the land. They had people who became experts in mapping and then demonstrating how to map the land using google earth and demonstrating data collection. The communities also collect socio-economic data – using ODK and understanding their community and developing a life plan for the area (plan for the next 10-30 years). The question is who is listening to the information but by whom. A social network analysis of Facebook (which is 83% of users in Brazil use) Looking at interactions show that local association are not linked to environment, human right and there is missing links to health, to a specific campaign on the Belo Monte Power Plant but it is not linked to the community. They care about health, education, income, and only fifth is the environment – need to talk about what matters to communities. How to make conversations about them in the centre of the discussion and move beyond putting them in the corner of the environment. We need to engage with people with their communities in a way that makes sense to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GSF-NESTI Open Science & Scientific Excellence workshop – researcher, participants, and institutional aspects

The Global Science Forum – National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators (GSF-NESTI) Workshop on “Reconciling Scientific Excellence and Open Science” (for which you can see the full report here) asked the question “What do we want out of science and how can we incentivise and monitor these outputs?”. In particular, the objective of the workshop was “to explore what we want out of public investment in science in the new era of Open Science and what might be done from a policy perspective to incentivise the production of desired outputs.” with an aim to explore the overarching questions of:
1. What are the desirable (shorter-term) outputs and (longer-term) impacts that we expect from Open Science and what are potential downsides?
2. How can scientists and institutions be incentivised to produce these desirable outcomes and manage the downsides?
3. What are the implications for science monitoring and assessment mechanisms?

The session that I was asked to contribute to focused on Societal Engagement: “The third pillar of Open Science is societal engagement. Ensuring open access to scientific information and data, as considered in the previous sessions, is one way of enabling societal engagement in science. Greater access to the outputs of public research for firms is expected to promote innovation. However, engaging with civil society more broadly to co-design and co-produce research, which is seen as essential to addressing many societal challenges, will almost certainly require more pro-active approaches.
Incentivising and measuring science’s engagement with society is a complex area that ranges across the different stages of the scientific process, from co-design of science agendas and citizen science through to education and outreach. There are many different ways in which scientists and scientific institutions engage with different societal actors to informing decision-making and policy development at multiple scales. Assessing the impact of such engagement is difficult and is highly context and time-dependent“.

For this session, the key questions were

  • “What do we desire in terms of short and long-term outputs and impacts from societal engagement?
  • How can various aspect of scientific engagement be incentivised and monitored?
  • What are the necessary skills and competencies for ‘citizen scientists’ and how can they be developed and rewarded?
  • How does open science contribute to accountability and trust?
  • Can altmetrics help in assessing societal engagement?”

In my talk, I’ve decided to address the first three questions, by reflecting on my personal experience (so the story of a researcher trying to balance the “excellence” concepts and “societal engagement”), then consider the experience of the participants in citizen science projects, and finally the institutional perspective.


I’ve started my presentation [Slide 3] with my early experiences in public engagement with environmental information (and participants interest in creating environmental information) during my PhD research, 20 years ago. This was a piece of research that set me on the path of societal engagement, and open science – for example, the data that we were showing was not accessible to the general public at the time, and I was investigating how the processes that follow the Aarhus convention and use of digital mapping information in GIS can increase public engagement in decision making. This research received a small amount of funding from UCL, and later from ESRC, but not significantly.

I then secured an academic position in 2001, and it took to 2006 [Slide 4] to develop new systems – for example, this London Green Map was developed shortly after Google Maps API became available, and while this is one of the first participatory GIS applications on to of this novel API, this was inherently unfunded (and was done as an MSc project). Most of my funded work at this early stage of my career had no link to participatory mapping and citizen science. This was also true for the research into OpenStreetMap [Slide 5], which started around 2005, and apart from a small grant from the Royal Geographical Society, was not part of the main funding that I secured during the period.

The first significant funding specifically for my work came in 2007-8, about 6 years into my academic career [Slide 6]. Importantly, it came because the people who organised a bid for the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), realised that they are weak in the area of community engagement and the work that I was doing in participatory mapping fit into their plans. This became a pattern, where people approach with a “community engagement problem” – so there is here a signal that awareness to societal engagement started to grow, but in terms of the budget and place in the projects, it was at the edge of the planning process. By 2009, the investment led to the development of a community mapping system [Slide 7] and the creation of Mapping for Change, a social enterprise that is dedicated to this area.

Fast forward to today [Slide 8-10], and I’m involved in creating software for participatory mapping with non-literate participants, that support the concept of extreme citizen science. In terms of “scientific excellence”, this development, towards creating a mapping system that anyone, regardless of literacy can use [Slide 11] is funded as “challenging engineering” by EPSRC, and as “frontier research” by the ERC, showing that it is possible to completely integrated scientific excellence and societal engagement – answering the “reconciling” issue in the workshop. A prototype is being used with ZSL to monitor illegal poaching in Cameroon [Slide 12], demonstrating the potential impact of such a research.

It is important to demonstrate the challenges of developing societal impact by looking at the development of Mapping for Change [Slide 13]. Because it was one of the first knowledge-based social enterprises that UCL established, setting it up was not simple – despite sympathy from senior management, it didn’t easily fit within the spin-off mechanisms of the university, but by engaging in efforts to secure further funding – for example through a cross universities social enterprise initiatives – it was possible to support the cultural transformation at UCL.

There are also issues with the reporting of the impact of societal engagement [Slide 14] and Mapping for Change was reported with the REF 2014 impact case studies. From the universities perspective, using these cases is attractive, however, if you recall that this research is mostly done with limited funding and resources, the reporting is an additional burden which is not coming with appropriate resources. This lack of resources is demonstrated by Horizon 2020, which with all the declarations on the importance of citizen science and societal engagement, dedicated to Science with and for Society only 0.60% of the budget [Slide 15].

Participant experience

Alice Sheppard presenting her escallatorWe now move to look at the experience of participants in citizen science projects, pointing that we need to be careful about indicators and measurements.

We start by pointing to the wide range of activities that include public engagement in science [Slide 17-18] and the need to provide people with the ability to move into deeper or lighter engagement in different life stages and interests. We also see that as we get into more deep engagement, the number of people that participate drop (this is part of participation inequality).

For specific participants, we need to remember that citizen science projects are trying to achieve multiple goals – from increasing awareness to having fun, to getting good scientific data [Slide 19] – and this complicates what we are assessing in each project and the ability to have generic indicators that are true to all projects. There are also multiple learning that participants can gain from citizen science [Slide 20], including personal development, and also attraction and rejection factors that influence engagement and enquiry [Slide 21]. This can also be demonstrated in a personal journey – in this example Alice Sheppard’s journey from someone with interest in science to a citizen science researcher [Slide 22].

However, we should not look only at the individual participant, but also at the communal level. An example for that is provided by the noise monitoring app in the EveryAware project [Slide 23] (importantly, EveryAware was part of Future Emerging Technologies – part of the top excellence programme of EU funding). The application was used by communities around Heathrow to signal their experience and to influence future developments [Slide 24]. Another example of communal level impact is in Putney, where the work with Mapping for Change led to change in the type of buses in the area [Slide 25].

In summary [Slide 26], we need to pay attention to the multiplicity of goals, objectives, and outcomes from citizen science activities. We also need to be realistic – not everyone will become an expert, and we shouldn’t expect mass transformation. At the same time, we shouldn’t expect it not to happen and give up. It won’t happen without funding (including to participants and people who are dedicating significant time).

Institutional aspects

The linkage of citizen science to other aspects of open science come through DITOs bus in Birmingham participants’ right to see the outcome of work that they have volunteered to contribute to [Slide 28]. Participants are often highly educated, and can also access open data and analyse it. They are motivated by contribution to science, so a commitment to open access publication is necessary. This and other aspects of open science and citizen science are covered in the DITOs policy brief [Slide 29]. A very important recommendation from the brief is that recognition that “Targeted actions are required. Existing systems (funding, rewards, impact assessment and evaluation) need to be assessed and adapted to become fit for Citizen Science and Open Science.”

We should also pay attention to recommendations such as those from the League of European Research Universities (LERU) report from 2016 [Slide 30]. In particular, there are recommendations to universities (such as setting a single contact point) and to funders (such as setting criteria to evaluate citizen science properly). There are various mechanisms to allow universities to provide an entry point to communities that need support. Such a mechanism is called “science shop” and provide a place where people can approach the university with an issue that concerns them and identify researchers that can work with them. Science shops require coordination and funding to the students who are doing their internships with community groups. Science shops and centres for citizen science are a critical part of opening up universities and making them more accessible [Slide 31].

Universities can also contribute to open science, open access, and citizen science through learning – such as, with a MOOC that designed to train researchers in the area of citizen science and crowdsourcing that we run at UCL [Slide 32].

In summary, we can see that citizen science is an area that is expanding rapidly. It got multifaceted aspects for researchers, participants and institutions, and care should be taken when considering how to evaluate them and how to provide indicators about them – mix methods are needed to evaluate & monitor them.

There are significant challenges of recognition: as valid excellent research, to have a sustainable institutional support, and the most critical indicator – funding. The current models in which they are hardly being funded (<1% in NERC, for example) show that funders still have a journey between what they are stating and what they are doing.


Reflection on the discussion: from attending the workshop and hearing about open access, open data, and citizen science, I left the discussion realising that the “societal engagement” is a very challenging aspect of the open science agenda – and citizen science practitioners should be aware of that. My impression is that with open access, as long as the payment is covered (by funder or the institution), and as long as the outlet is perceived as high quality, scientists will be happy to do so. The same can be said about open data – as long as funders are willing to cover the costs and providing mechanisms and support for skills, for example through libraries then we can potentially have progress there, too (although over protection over data by individual scientists and groups is an issue).

However, citizen science is opening up challenges and fears about expertise, and perceptions about it risking current practices, societal status, etc. Especially when considering the very hierarchical nature of scientific work – at the very local level through different academic job ranking, and within a discipline with specific big names setting the agenda in a specific field. These cultural aspects are more challenging.

In addition, there seem to be a misunderstanding of what citizen science is and mixing it with more traditional public engagement, plus some views that it can do fine by being integrated into existing research programmes. I would not expect to see major change without providing a clear signal through significant funding over a period of time that will indicate to scientists that the only way to unlock such funding is through societal engagement. This is not exactly a “moonshot” type funding – pursue any science that you want but open it. This might lead to the necessary cultural change.

OECD Open Science and Scientific Excellence Workshop – Paris

The OECD organised and hosted a Global Science Forum (GSF) and National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators (NESTI) Workshop on  “Reconciling Scientific Excellence and Open Science: What do we want out of science and how can we incentivise and monitor these outputs?” (9 April, 2018, OECD). In agreement with the OECD Secretariat, the information here is not attributed to anyone specific (Here is the blog post about my own presentation).

The workshop opened with the point that speaking about reconciling open science and science seem contradictory. Scientific excellence was based on the value of publications, but the digital transformation and the web have changed things – from elite access to a library where outputs are held to one that is available to everyone over the web, and we can see citizens accessing data. We also need to look at the future – opening even more, which is something positive but there are challenges in measuring, the impact of different bibliometrics and other indicators.

The openness happens quickly, and we need to understand the transformation and then think about the statistical aspects of this information. There is an effort of developing a roadmap to see the integration of open science across science policy initiatives.

The area is fairly complex: excellence, how science is changing, incentivise and measuring science – all these are tightly related to each other. Some of the fundamental questions: what do we want from science? only excellence or other things? How can we incentivise the academic community to move in the direction of open science – and what the policy community of science need to do about it. National Statistical communities and Global Science Forum are two important groups that can influence it in terms of policy and the measurement the impacts and processes.

The meeting is looking at open science, publishing, open data, and engagement with society, as well as indicators and measurement.

The slides from all the talks are available here. 

Session 1. Scientific excellence through open science or vice versa? What is excellence and how can it be operationalised in the evidence and policy debate?

Paula Stephan (Georgia State University, USA) addressed the challenges of science – lack of risk-taking, and lack of career opportunities to Early Career Scientists in their research. The factors that impact that – especially short-term bibliometrics and then, how open science can help in dealing with the issues.

The original rationale for government support science is the high risk that is associated with basic research. The competitive selective procedures reducing risk and leading to safer options to secure funding (including NIH or ERC). James Rothman who won Nobel prize in Physiology pointed that in the 1970s there was a much higher level of risk that allows him to explore things for 5 years before he started being productive. Concerns about that aspects appeared by AAAS in 2008 ARISE report, and NASA and DARPA became much more risk-averse.

In addition, there is lack of career opportunities for ECRs – the number of PhD is growing, but the number of research position declining – both in industry and academia. Positions are scare and working in universities is an alternative career. Because of the way that the scarce jobs or research applications are based on short citation windows – high impact journal paper is critical for career development. Postdocs are desperate to get a Nature or Science paper. Assessment of novel papers (papers that use references never before made together) showed that only 11% of papers are novel, and highly novel papers is associated with risk: disproportionate concentration at the top and bottom in citations distribution, and also get cited outside the field. The more novel the paper is, the less likely it is to appear in high ranking journal. The bibliometrics discourage researchers from taking these risks with novel paper.

Open science gives opportunity – citizen science give an opportunity for new ways of addressing some issues  – e.g. through crowdfunding to accommodate risky research. In addition, publication in open access can support these novel paper strategies.

Richard Gold (McGill University, Montreal, Canada) looked at why institutions choose open science – exponentially increasing costs of research, but it’s not enough and there are requests to ask for more funding. Productivity is declining – measured by the number of papers per investment. Firms are narrowing their focus of research.

We can, therefore, consider Open Science partnerships – OA publications, Open Data and no patents on co-created outputs as a potential way to address these challenges. This can be centred around academic and not-for-profit research centre, and generally about basic understanding of scientific issues, with data in the centre. Institutions look at it as a partial solution – decreasing duplication as no need to replicate, provide quality through many eyes, and providing synergies because there is a more diverse set of partners. It can increase productivity because data can be used in different fields, using wider networks of ideas and the ability to search through a pool of ideas. We can see across fields – more researchers, but fewer outputs in. In patent applications, we see that also the 1950s was the recent peak in novelty in terms of linking unrelated field, and this is dropping since.

An alternative to this is a system like the Structural Genomics Consortium – attracting philanthropic and industrial funding. There is also a citizen science aspects – ability to shape the research agenda in addition to providing the data. The second thing is that the data can be used with their communities – patients and indigenous groups are more willing to be involved. Open science better engages and empower patients in the process – easier to get consent.

Discussion: during the selection of projects, the bibliometrics indications need to be removed from the application and from funding decisions. Need people to read the research ideas, and need to move away from funding only a single person as the first author – need to incentivise teams and support. Need to think how to deal with impact of research and not only on the original research (someone might use the dataset that was produced in open science for a publication, not by the person who did the work).

There is a sense that the “lack of risk-taking” is an issue, but there is a need for measuring and showing if it is happening. Lots of scientists censuring their work and there is a need to document this happening. The global redistribution of people is about which areas people concentrate on – e.g. between physics and agriculture.

Session 2 – Open access publication and dissemination of scientific information

Rebecca Lawrence (Faculty of 1000) described how F1000 is aiming to develop a different model of publication – separating publication from evaluation. The publication is there because of funders and researchers evaluate others around where they publish. There are all sort of manipulations: overselling, p-value fishing, creative outliers, plagiarism, non-publication by a journal that don’t want low impact papers and more. There is a growing call for the move towards open access publication – e.g. the open science policy platform, European open science cloud, principles such as DORA, FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and an increase of pre-print sources. There is also a new range of how science is being organised – how to make it sustainable in areas where there aren’t receiving much funding – use of pre-print services, and also exploring the peer review funding. F1000 is about thinking about the speed of s finding. The model was developed with Wellcome, Gates foundation and creating a platform that is controlled by funders, or institutions, and by researchers. In this model, publishers are service providers. F1000 support a wide range of outputs: research article, data, software, methods, case studies. They check that the paper technically: is the data behind it accessible and that it was not published before. The publication is done a complete open peer review – so you can see who is reviewing and what was done by the author. Within the article, you can see the stage in the research – even before peer review. Making the paper a living document – usually 14 days between submission and publication, and usually a month including being reviewed. The peer review here is transparent and the reviewers are being cited. This is good for ECRs to gain experience.

The indicators need to take into account career levels, culture (technical and reflective) and not only fields, and thinking about different structures – individual, group, institution. Need open metrics, and certain badges that tell you what you are looking for and also qualitative measures- traditional publications can curate articles.

2. Vincent Tunru (Flockademic, Netherlands) explored the issue of incentivising open science. Making science more inclusive – making more people being able to contribute to the scientific process. Open access can become the goal instead of the means to become more inclusive. If the information is free, people can read the results of publicly funded research, but there is a barrier to publish research within the OA model – publication costs should be much lower: other areas (music, news) have gone down in costs because of the internet. In some disciplines, there is the culture of sharing pre-print and getting feedback before submission to journals – although places like ArXiv is doing the work. The primary value of the submission to a journal is the credentialing, High-level journals can create scarcity to justify the demand. Nature scientific reports is taking over PLOS ONE because of that. We need to decouple credentialing from the specific journals. Different measures of excellence are possible, but we need to consider how we do it today – assuming that it is reviewers and editors are the ones who consider what excellence means. Need to focus on inclusivity and affordability. [See Vincent blog post here]

Kim Holmberg (University of Turku, Finland) focused on altmetrics –  Robert Merton pointed already in the 1950s that the referencing system is about finding a work that wasn’t known before but also about recognition of the other researchers. That leads then to how the journal impact factor and the H-Index became part of research assessment. These are being used more and more in research evaluation especially in the past 15 years. Earlier research has pointed out many flaws with them. In addition, they fail to take into account the complexity of scientific activities, nor do they tell you anything about the societal impact of research. One way to look at the complexity is the Open Science Career Assessment Matrix (OS-CAM).

We can think about the traces that people leave online as they go through the research process – discussing research ideas, collecting data, analysing, disseminating results. These traces can become altmetrics – another view of research activities. It is not just social media: the aim is to expand the view of what’s impact is about. With altmetrics we can analyse the networks that the researcher is involved in and that can give insights into new ways of interaction between the researcher with society. Citations show that a paper has been used by another researcher, while altmetrics can indicate how it has been disseminated and discussed among a wider audience. But there are still lots of questions about the meaning and applicability of altmetrics.

There are reports from the Mutual Learning Exercise europa.eu/!bj48Xg – looking at altmetrics, incentives and rewards for open science activities. For instance, in the area of career & research evaluation, researchers need specific training and education about open science, and in the area of evolving authorship identifying and rewarding peer review and publishing of negative results need to be developed. Implementation of open science needs to guarantee long-term sustainability and reward role-models who can provide a demonstration of this new approach to involving in science. The roadmap from the MLE suggests a process for this implementation.

Discussion: there is the issue of finding a good researcher in a group of researchers and publications is a way to see the ideas, but the link to open science and how it can help in that is unclear. However, finding a good researcher does not happen through all these metrics – it’s a human problem and not only a metric. Will originality be captured by these systems? Publication is only small part of the research activity – in every domain, there is a need to change and reduce the publication, but not only to think that someone will read the same paper again and again (after each revision). Attention is the scarce resource that needs to be managed and organised not to assume that more find a way to filter the information.

The response to this pointed that because of research funding is public, we should encourage publishing as much as possible so others can find the information, but we need good tools for searching and evaluating research so you can find it.

Another confusion – want to see the link between open access publication and open science. Open access can exist in the publish or perish structure. What is it in OA that offer an alternative to the close publishing structure. How can that lead us to different insight into researchers activities? In response to this, it was pointed out that it is important to understand the difference between Open Access and Open Science (OA = openly available research publications, OS = all activities and efforts that open the whole research process, including publishing of research results).

There is growing pressure for people to become media savvy and that means taking time from research.

Altmetrics: originally thought of as a tool that can help researchers find interesting and relevant research, not necessarily for evaluation (http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/).

Discussion: there is the issue of finding a good researcher in a group of researchers and publications is a way to see the ideas, but the link to open science and how it can help in that is unclear. However, finding a good researcher is not through all these metrics – it’s a human problem and not only a metric. Will originality be captured by these systems? Publication is only small part of the research activity – in every domain, there is a need to change and reduce the publication, but not only to think that someone will read the same paper again and again (after each revision). Attention is the scarce resource that needs to manage and organised not to assume that more find a way to filter the information.

The response to this pointed that because of research funding is public, we should encourage publishing as much as possible so others can find the information, but we need good tools for searching and evaluating research so you can find it.

Another confusion – want to see the link between open access publication and open science. Open access can exist in the publish or perish structure. What is it in OA that offer an alternative to the close publishing structure. How can that lead us to different insight into researchers activities?

There is growing pressure for people to become media savvy and that means taking time from research.

Altmetrics: originally as a tool that can help other researchers, not necessarily for evaluation.

Session 3. Open research data: good data management and data access

Simon Hodson (CODATA) – Open Science and FAIR data. The reconciling elements – the case for open science is the light that it shines on the data and make it useful. It allows reuse, reproducibility, and replicability – it is very much matching each other. CODATA is part of the International Council for Science – focusing capacity building, policy, and coordination. The case for open science – good scientific practice depends on communicating the evidence. In the past, a table or a graph that summarises some data was an easy way of sharing information, but as data and analysis grew, we need to change the practice of sharing results. The publications of “Science as an open enterprise” (2012), including pointing that the failure to report the data underlying the science is seen as malpractice. Secondly, open data practices transform certain areas of research – genomics, remote sensing in earth systems science. Can we replicate this in other research areas? Finally, can we foster innovation and reuse of data and finding within and outside the academic system – making it available to the public at large.

Open science has multiple elements – open science is not only open access and open data. We need data to be interoperable and reusable and should be available for machine learning and have an open discussion. There are perceptions of reproducibility of research but also change in attitudes. We need to think about culture – how scientific communities established their practices. In different research areas, there are very different approaches – e.g. in biomedical research, this is open but in social science, there is little experience of data sharing and reuse and don’t see benefits. There is a need for a sociology of science analysis of these changes. Some of these major changes: meetings about genome research in Bermuda and Fort Lauderdale agreement which was because of certain pressures. There is significant investment in creating data that is not being used once – e.g. Hubble. Why data across small experiments is not open to reuse? We need to find making this happen.

FAIR principle allows data to be reusable. FAIR came from OECD work, Royal Society report 2012 and G8 statement. What we need to address: skills, also limits of sharing, need to clarify guidelines for openness. We need to have standards, skills and reward data stewardship. We need to see data citation of data. There is a need for new incentives – the cultural change happened when prominent people in the field set up the agreement.

Fiona Murphy (Fiona Murphy Mitchell Consulting, UK) Working in the area of data publishing and providing the perspective of someone who is exploring how to practice open science. There are cultural issues: why to share, with whom, what rewards, and what is the risk. Technical – how is that is done, what are the workflows, tools, capacity, and time investment. There are issues of roles and responsibilities and who’s problem is it to organise the data.

Examples of projects – SHARC – share research data alliance – international and multi-stakeholders and aim to grow the capacity to share data. The specific group is working a White Paper on recommendations. The main issues are standards for metrics: need to be transparent, need about reputation, and impact on a wider area. Also, what will be the costs of non-sharing? There are different standards in terms of policies, also need persistent identifiers and the ability to reproduce. Equality of access to services is needed – how to manage peer to peer and how is that integrated into promotion and rewards. The way to explore that is by carrying out pilots projects to understand side effects. There is also a need to develop ethical standards.

The Belmont Forum Data Publishing Policy – looking at creating the data accessibility that is part of a digital publication. Developing consistency of message so researchers will know what they are facing. There are lots of issues – some standard wording is emerging, and capturing multiple data sets, clarify licensing etc.

We can also think about what would have started if all the current system was in place – the scholarlycommons.org is suggesting principles for “born digital” scientific practice should evolve. The approach to thinking about commons, they have created some decision trees to help with the project. Working as open scientists is a challenge today – for example, need to develop a decision tree software and other things are proving challenging to act as a completely open scientist. It’s a busy space and there is a gulf between high-level policy and principles and their delivery.

Jeff Spies (Centre for Open Science, Virginia) [via video-link] Jeff is covering open research data, urgent problems, and incremental solutions. looking at strategies that are the most impactful (which is different from the center for open science). We need to broaden the definition of data – we need context: more than just the data itself or the metadata – it is critical for the assessment, metascience work. We can think of knowledge graph – more then the semantic information for the published text, and the relationship of people, place, data, methods, software… but the situation in incentives is – from psychological perspectives, the getting awards for specific publications is so strong that makes the focus on what is publishable. We have rates of retractions go up as impact factor goes up. There is urgency and the lock-in the publishers are trying to capture the life-cycle of research. The problem is that culture change is very slow and we need to protect the data – funders and policymakers that can make a difference. Researchers don’t have the ability to curate data – but libraries are the people that can have a resource for that and focus. Potential – the researcher asked to link to promotion policies and that will force universities to share them, and if the policy mention data sharing (as a way to force universities to change)

Discussion: there is concern about the ability of researchers to deal with data. There is a problem of basic data literacy.

The problem with making the data FAIR it is about 10% of the project costs and where it is useful, or where it is not enough or too much – just organising the data with the librarians is not enough as data requires a lot of domain knowledge. There are significant costs. however, in the same way, that the total costs of science to include the effort of peer review, or getting to publications (either subscription or publication), then we should also pay for the data curation. There is a need for appraisal and decision how data and process will be done.

We need to think about the future use of data – the same as natural history specimens and we can never know what should be done. Questions about the meaning of data are very important – it’s not only specimens but also photographs and not necessarily digital.

Libraries can adapt and can get respects – they are experts in curation and archiving

Session 4. Societal engagement 

Kazuhiro Hayashi (NISTEP, Tokyo, Japan) Open science as a social engagement in Japan. Is in science and technology – is being involved in open access journal and keen about altmetrics – now involved in open science policy. Generally, see multi-role – top down and bottom up – from working in G7 science expert group in open science, and also in creating software and journals. Involved in citizen science NISTEP journal and lectures, and involved in altmetrics, multi-stakeholders workshop and future earth. He would like to showcase studies:

Citizen science – the funding system in Japan for science is coming from the state mainly and they have a difficult time to do public engagement – spontaneous researchers “wild researchers”. Suggesting a more symmetrical system – creating also independent researchers which are getting their budget from a business and they publish in online journals. Wild researchers are based on crowdfunding and relay on the engagement of citizens. From his experience, recognise the new relationship between citizens and scientists: research style, new career paths and funding. Negative aspects of citizen science include populism in crowdfunding – need to be popular but not suitable for the crowd. Als need a new scheme for ECRs and need to include it. Also, there is a potential for misuse and plagiarism because of lack of data and science literacy.

Altmetrics – contributed to NISO Altmetrics initiative working group – difficult to define, and current altmetrics scores in Japanese literature are closely related to Maslow’s hierarchy of need. There are plenty of institutional repositories that – access to journal articles on repositories is more social – readers are non-researchers who would go to journal websites. Need to look at social impact – look mentioning and network analysis but it is difficult to analyse. There is need to look at the flow of data across the web.

Multi-stakeholders workshop – considering the future of open science and society. With environmental sciences and informatics. the outcome is to think about erasing influences of different socio-economic status on participants. Co-development of data infrastructure and the action of social transformation. There is an importance in capacity building. Need to see how open science and transdisciplinary work co-evolved. For social engagement – very time-consuming and need to get funded, and need open for creative activities for citizens and scientists. Think about new relationships between science and society. Need to use tentative indicators to transform society and culture – creating a future of open science and society – move from “publish or perish” to “share or perish”. Japan will have 2 citizen science sessions at the Japan open science summit on June 18-19 2018.

Muki Haklay (UCL, London, UK) [see my separate blog post]

Cecilia Cabello Valdes (Foundation for Science and Technology, Madrid, Spain) Societal engagement in open science. The foundation is aimed to promote science link with society – original with interest of increasing interest of the Spanish citizens. They are managing calls and fund different activities (about 3,250K Eur). More than 200 projects. They do activities such as Famelab – giving events to promote science and technology, in an open way. The science news agency – there is lack of awareness of scientific research – the SiNC agency – the papers are taken by general media – over 1000 journalists who use the information. They carry out summer science camps: 1920 funded students funded in 16 universities.They also manage the national museum of science and technology (Muncyt) and they share the history of science and technology in Spain. It’s a unique type of a science museum.

In citizen science, they have done a lot of work in awareness of the public to science and technology, and to keep public support for science investment. More recently they create a council of foundations for science – there wasn’t awareness of social foundations that haven’t invest in science and not only cultural activities. There are 3 foundations that are involved with the council and they are having a direct contact with the minister to develop this area of funding. The second initiative is crowdfunding for science – they help to carry out a campaign that helps in creating activities – it is also a tool of engagement.

Outreach is difficult – the council support policymakers and the general public is aware of the issues. So there are challenges – and that need to transform and how do we measure it? Some of the roles that the council need to do is to incentivise policymakers to understand what they want to achieve and then have indicators to assist in seeing that the goals are achieved. They participated in the process of policy recommendation about open science, and then translate that into action – for policymakers and society. In Fecyt they also provide resources: access to WoS/Scopus, evaluation of journals, standardised CV of researchers, and open science. Finally they participation in studies that look at measurements of science and the results

Discussion: Science Shops – are there examples that link to Maker spaces? Yes, there are examples of activities such as Public Lab but also the Living Knowledge network

Many societal engagements are not open science – they treat society as a separate entity: a struggle of making citizen science into open science – data remain closed. What are the aspects that lend themselves to open science and citizen science? – there are many definitions and there are different ways to define the two, but for example, the need to access publications, or the participation in the analysis of open data, or the production of open data, are all examples for an overlap.

Part of the discussion is about sharing knowledge, the part that says that researcher is like anyone else? There is a big difference between the scientific community and everyone else? The effort is not recognised in society and might you remove the prestige than no one would want to participate in science?

As you know, public interest – why the citizens want to participate in research? the citizens want the result of public research will help people to improve their quality of life. The science should address social problems.

How much people participate in – precipita is a new project and fund are not matched and they provide the technical help, and the promotion is through a campaign through different institutions

Should citizen science democratise science which is controversial – when information became more accessible as in Gutenberg, we are increasing the ability. Need to make citizen science a way to increase access to science.

How to get to integrated science into pockets and need to find a way to integrate these things together. There is a package that needs to support together: access, data, and public engagement and need to focus on them.

Citizen science needs to be integrated into all the science and needs to make results.

Session 5. Scientific Excellence re-visited

David Carr (Wellcome Trust, London, UK) Wellcome is committed to providing their research outputs – seeing it as part of good research practice. As a funder, they’ve had a long-standing policy on open accessing publications (since 2005) and other research outputs. Need to have also the costs of carrying out public engagement, and open access publications should be part of the funding framework. Also asking reviewers to recognise and value a wide range of research outputs. There are still need to think of reward and assessment structures, the sustaining of the infrastructures that are needed, and the need to create data specialists and managing the process to increase it. There are concerns by the research community about open access. Wellcome established open research team – looking at funder led and community-led activities, and also policy leadership. They now have the “WellcomeOpenResearch.org publishing platform” which is using F1000 platform, they also had the open science prize. They also look on policy leadership – e.g. the San Francisco DORA (declaration on research assessment). Also looking at changes to application forms to encourage other forms of outputs and then provide guidance to staff, reviewers and panel members. They also celebrate with applicants when they do open research, and also inform them about the criteria and options. They also carry out effort to evaluate if the open science indeed delivers on the promises through projects in different places – e.g. the McGill project.

Representation of the people in science: Women in civic and citizen science – event summary

Image of UCL and the speakers in the event

On the 19th March, as part of UCL activities to the that accompany the UCL Exhibition “Disruptors and Innovators: Journeys in gender equality at UCL”, we hosted a panel of talks on how to open up science and engineering to new audiences, especially the representation of women in science. The event was called “Representation of the people in science: Women in civic and citizen science“. The event was sponsored by the Doing It Together Science project.

The event was chaired by Dr Charlene Jennett, a researcher at UCL Interaction Centre. Charlene opened the evening with a short introductory talk on citizen science and her research into this fast-growing phenomenon. Introducing an all-female panel – pointing that this is an opportunity to welcome everyone to science through citizen science – you can go outside and observe nature, or if it is a cold evening, go online and participate in projects on the Zooniverse. There are even games that can be played to contribute to citizen science – The Sea Hero Quest is a project that contributes to dementia research through a game. Citizen science is creating collaboration between citizen and scientists, and we should see it as a way to link people to science.

Following Charlene, Dr Cindy Regalado from UCL Extreme Citizen Science introduced “Doing It Together Science” project.  This is EU funded project, and the people in the room are part of the project by joining the event. This project is special – the different people and organisations that are involved in it came together with the question “what do we want to do” and this created a group of special organisations. People in the project a passionate about doing science together – creating engagement space, curiosity and interest in biodesign and environmental sustainability. We do that through a range of events and also producing different tools and information that allow sharing knowledge between organisations. Facilitators across the projects are sharing information and work together to create many types of events – over 400 of them already. Examples of that include the work of University Paris Descartes (UPD) in Paris, they run activities to engage people to create games for science. In Poland, there are” train the trainers” activities to introduce other people about sustainability. In RBINS in Brussels, people who are excited about stick insect – scientists and amateurs share their interest. People in Medialab Prado run events that are two weeks long and create new ideas and innovations. In Geneva, a biofabrication event took place, bringing people who experiment with biotechnology. The Kersnikova Institute in Ljubljana explored in Freaktion bar issues of science and ethics – provoking questions instead of simple ideas of science. A Polish delegation visited London to learn about citizen participation in air quality monitoring, and at UCL we use Public Lab’s DIY tools for environmental monitoring and invite people to do DIY biological research – enabling people to see for themselves that they too can do science. Finally, the Science Bus toured Europe and allow us to reach out groups that are usually under-represented in science engagement activities.

The next talk was given by Dr Louise Seaward, Research Associate on the Bentham Project, will introduce us to the project and Gill Hague, one of the volunteer transcribers [See Louise report of the evening on the Transcribe Bentham blog]. Louise described the Transcribe Bentham project – a flagship humanities project at UCL where a significant number of the most active volunteers are women. The project asks volunteers to transcribe papers written by UCL’s intellectual inspiration, the philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). The project is about the writing of Jeremy Bentham. Transcribed Bentham launched in 2010 and is the first crowdsourcing project in humanities – the idea is to ask volunteers to type and transcribe papers. Volunteers worked for 7 years and almost 20,000 pages of writing. Transcribe Bentham show manuscripts by him, and volunteers are free to choose a paper and work on it. Some of them are very difficult – the handwriting is very bad and he made changes, crossing text, changing his mind. Within the project system, there are tools to markup side notes and very complex ways of marking the page. The project is creating happiness for scholars – the purpose is to create a scholarly edition of everything that he wrote – the project is running since 1959 and it’s not halfway through, this is also a resource to the wider community – allowing other people to learn about Bentham and his writing. Most of the work done by around 30 super-transcribers and they are finding the project interesting. Currently, 58% of participants are men. People have higher education and based in the UK and US. Gill then described her experience with the project – she had a career in IT, TV, and legal services, and as a freelancer working from home, she had to be available at a call and wanted something more interesting to pass the time than watching daytime television.

By Cindy Regalado

In 2011 logged on to learn more about crowdsourcing which was new at the time following an article in the Sunday Times that mentioned the project, and she saw the value in Bentham writing based on previous knowledge in economics and in legal work. She then set out to transcribe one page, and then found the content very interesting, with journeys unfolding and Bentham views on the experience. Having involved in the legal process for a long time, she found Bentham views on legal issues interesting. She can find it as something that she can join more or less as much as she can and interested to do – sometimes 10-15 hours in a week. She very much like the idea of getting an acknowledgement in the next edition of Bentham publication and that is very satisfying. Transcribing is fascinating and there is good feedback and response from the team.

Jo Hurford, local artist and community leader, was part of a group of concerned citizens to approach UCL’s Extreme Citizen Science department to learn how to gather scientific data about deteriorating air quality and further environmental concerns in the context of HS2 development around Euston station. Jo opened up and noted that people who attend UCL have good opportunity to learn new things – and the work that UCL and Mapping for Change are doing with community groups has been mentioned in the report by the chief medical officer recently. The experience of the Euston communities is showing the limitations of citizen science approaches but also the new lessons that are learned from it. The community members knew about air quality issues from reading the news – they suspect that they were living in a polluted part of London – and experienced a building site for 3 years already. They wanted to have a baseline of air quality while the HS2 bill passing through parliament and wanted to know more about it. The community wanted to keep trees in the area of Euston until HS2 have a clear plan for the development of the area. The campaign to try to protect the trees fails. However, using the construction routes they positioned diffusion tubes and found that half of the monitoring locations were above the EU regulation. There are projects with big impact on the area (e.g. making Gower St two way) and they learn through citizen science and tested the particulate matter and seen that air purifiers do work in filtering them – so they ask for air filters for residents that are badly affected by the change to the plan. There are discoveries through collaborations with UCL – for example, Google Scholar is new, but the information that you get from academic publications is overwhelming, and she contacted specific people and look at different academic papers and use them to show the link between poor air and the health impact. When they spoke to HS2 in the House of Lords they used some of their information, but they weren’t convinced by the argument. Because people in power don’t listen to communities, and they have created scarves on trees and explaining the different trees in an area that doesn’t have enough green spaces. They protested against the tree panel of HS2 – they ignore personal views. The community transport working group suggested alternative schemes, but at the middle of the night, the HS2 contractors cut the trees. They organised painting of the cut off trees, and campaigning toward Sadiq Kahn – they did different activities – from chaining to trees to demonstration next to the GLA building. We need to participate in democracy and participate in science – we need to use it to bring evidence and to be listened to.

Next, Dr Alice Bell, science writer and director of communications at climate charity 10:10, drawn on her research on the radical science movement to discuss science activism and community-based research in the 1970s and 80s. Alice has a double interest – day job in addressing climate change through energy issue and hobby interest in the history of science, that talk about similar things: citizen participation in science and technology. In the 1970s we’ve seen the radical science that can be related to citizen science. Today people create DIY solar panels and creating DIY solar panels from the offcuts from solar panels and with some crafting, you can make your own and learn about it. Community events – making is connecting: people doing something together mean that they also talk about other things. Back to the 1970s, she discovered about civic science from the material that came out of clear up at the university library and found the “science for people” – magazines that were produced in the UK. One interesting example is the women’s collective issue that points to the problems that women experience in science with snakes and ladders that help male scientists and work against female scientists. Maybe the public don’t like science and technology because they have a reason – ideas about fixing science to make it batter. As a result, there were projects that are about citizen science. In the 1970s, Battersea air smell was rancid, and there are very little records of it (the Battersea smell) – the radical science group carried out a survey about the smell and the local council said that they can’t smell anything. The group helped citizens to collect evidence. The Sheffield occupational health group provided the ability to build and construct evidence – lots of groups didn’t have the ability to create the evidence that can be used about issues in the workplace. Today, in 10:10, there are projects to help communities and people to access energy and this is a way to do something about climate change: if you dismiss schools as places of social interaction, you miss a major site of activity. We can do these things not only top down through forcing people – we need to shift it in a way that worth saving and a place that community participate. There are examples of people that become experts and developing ideas about using unused energy to the train – new ways of powering electric trains through solar energy. This happens because a local community got interested in setting out energy system in a school and then developed their ideas further.

The last speaker was Professor Sarah Bell, director of Engineering Exchange. Sarah’s talk was as follows: “I’m here because of my work with the Engineering Exchange at UCL, which is about providing opportunities for better engagement between engineering researchers and local communities in London. We work on a model of two-way engagement. The Engineering Exchange give a pro-bono engineering service and we work with community groups and engineers to generate new research projects together. We’ve covered topics such as demolition and refurbishment of social housing, green infrastructure, air quality, traffic congestion.
Our work is relevant to tonight’s discussion for a few reasons. Firstly, I’m a woman, as are many of the people I work with. Secondly, engineering is vitally important to democracy in a complex technological society. And finally, there seems to be a connection between opening up engineering to women and opening it up to the wider public.
Firstly, I am a woman, and I lead a programme at a research-intensive university that is doing some form of what might be called civic science, or indeed civic engineering.
Which inevitably brings me to civil engineering. I’ve just recently become a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers, the oldest professional engineering institution in the world. The ICE is celebrating its 200th anniversary this year, so is 100 years older than women’s suffrage in this country.
The first woman to be admitted to the ICE was Dorothy Donaldson Buchanan in 1927, 9 years after the ‘Representation of the People Act’, which we are talking about tonight, and 8 years after the 1919 ‘Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act’. It was the 1919 Act that meant they could go to university and enter the professions. It became illegal to disqualify anyone from entering a ‘civil profession or vocation, or admission into any incorporated society’ on the basis of sex or marriage. It is not a coincidence that access to education and the professions followed on so quickly from the right to vote. They are equally, if not more, important to democracy. And so in the 1920s Dorothy Donaldson Buchanan could earn her BS in Civil Engineering at Edinburgh University, sit the entry exams for the ICE and join the engineering profession.
And haven’t we moved a long way since Dorothy’s time? No. Not really. Only 9% of all engineers in the UK are women. I am one of only 2% of the Fellows of the ICE who are women. In its 200 year anniversary, 12% of Members and 2% of Fellows of the Institution of Civil Engineers are women.
I’m one of the 2%. Which is actually significant – personally and strategically. For most of my career, I’ve wondered if I was really an engineer. I’ve always struggled a bit on the edges of the profession. But now, there’s no doubt. I am mainstream. You don’t get more mainstream than Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers. It’s nice to have my own work recognised in this way, but it is even more important for the work itself. The Engineering Exchange, which we might call civic engineering, is civil engineering. This is not some radical, outsider practice, it’s mainstream.
And that’s how we’ve positioned ourselves. The Engineering Exchange takes a very conservative line. We are not activists. We are engineers and researchers. As academics, we are encouraged to work with industry and government – the people with power and money. I’ve always pitched the Engineering Exchange as supporting the third leg of the stool of democracy – the public who are impacted by decisions by industry and government. Our basic premise is that by widening access to engineering knowledge, we will improve the overall quality of democratic debate about technical issues. The engineering profession claims to serve the public, so we provide a mechanism for engineers to do that.
And I often wonder is there a connection between my gender and the work I choose to do. This has been a long-standing question for me. I am Professor of Environmental Engineering. Around half of my undergraduate cohort in Australia back in the 1990s were women, and here at UCL, I ran an MSc programme in Environmental Systems Engineering that had consistently more than 50% women. Even given the low numbers of women in the profession, within engineering, women tend to cluster around particular specialisms, which might be related to why we end up more engaged in civic facing work. In the case of environmental engineering, given the public value of what we do, there’s a logical progression from working on environmental issues to engaging with the public in citizen and civic science programmes.
So why is there this clustering of women in public facing engineering? I don’t know the answer. It can’t be because ‘women are nurturing and caring’. It might be because of that outsider experience I mentioned, which operates in two ways – firstly to exclude women from more conventional career paths, and secondly to make us more aware of others who are excluded from the structures of power that operate in our society. If you are in the middle of the engineering establishment, with all the other powerful men, you are less likely to see those on the margins. They are just not in your field of vision. If you are hanging around the edges, you might make friends with others on the outside, and build your own career accordingly. As a woman, I’ve developed a critical framing of my own professional experience in order to stay sane, and this critical framing of my profession has opened up creative possibilities that may be less obvious to those who are actively embraced by conventional constructions of engineering.
So the Engineering Exchange is doing engineering differently. The good news is that the engineering establishment recognises our value. Our budget and our achievements are modest, we are much less powerful than the big firms and government departments. But we are able to do interesting work in partnership with communities, and in our own way are contributing to opening up a very powerful way of knowing the world to wider publics and local communities. ”

Some of the issues that came through the Q&A session:

Louise pointing to that Bentham material available online and in some ways he is showing his forward thinking. Gill has found information in the Sunday Times, and then followed it – and the website said that anyone can do it, and doesn’t need to ask for permission. Sometimes there is interesting correspondence that describes the social history and brings history to life and make this real and it is enjoyable and serving the purpose. She didn’t find the technology problematic and her background in law and IT helped in getting going.

Science for People that jump out – how much work done about what it is to be scientists and how they started looking at the option of co-operative science: instead of the very hierarchical structures – everyone is equal and co-manage each other. Then have community-based cooperative laboratories,. Thinking about the workers in science – cleaners, administrative, and everyone to make it

There was also a question about reaching different populations, including people in jail. Also about the collaborations across disciplines and the nature of expertise.

And at the end, Cindy carried out a quick evaluation of the evening