Papers from PPGIS 2017 meeting: state of the art and examples from Poland and the Czech Republic

dsc_0079About a year ago, the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland, hosted the PPGIS 2017 workshop (here are my notes from the first day and the second day). Today, four papers from the workshop were published in the journal Quaestiones Geographicae which was established in 1974 as an annual journal of the Faculty of Geographical and Geological Sciences at the university.

The four papers (with their abstracts) are:

Muki Haklay, Piotr Jankowski, and Zbigniew Zwoliński: SELECTED MODERN METHODS AND TOOLS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN URBAN PLANNING – A REVIEW “The paper presents a review of contributions to the scientific discussion on modern methods and tools for public participation in urban planning. This discussion took place in Obrzycko near Poznań, Poland. The meeting was designed to allow for an ample discussion on the themes of public participatory geographic information systems, participatory geographic information systems, volunteered geographic information, citizen science, Geoweb, geographical information and communication technology, Geo-Citizen participation, geo-questionnaire, geo-discussion, GeoParticipation, Geodesign, Big Data and urban planning. Participants in the discussion were scholars from Austria, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the USA. A review of public participation in urban planning shows new developments in concepts and methods rooted in geography, landscape architecture, psychology, and sociology, accompanied by progress in geoinformation and communication technologies.
The discussions emphasized that it is extremely important to state the conditions of symmetric cooperation between city authorities, urban planners and public participation representatives, social organizations, as well as residents”

Jiří Pánek PARTICIPATORY MAPPING IN COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION – CASE STUDY OF JESENÍK, CZECH REPUBLIC “Community participation has entered the 21st century and the era of e-participation, e-government and e-planning. With the opportunity to use Public Participation Support Systems, Computer-Aided Web Interviews and crowdsourcing mapping platforms, citizens are equipped with the tools to have their voices heard. This paper presents a case study of the deployment of such an online mapping platform in Jeseník, Czech Republic. In total, 533 respondents took part in the online mapping survey, which included six spatial questions. Respondents marked 4,714 points and added 1,538 comments to these points. The main aim of the research was to find whether there were any significant differences in the answers from selected groups (age, gender, home location) of respondents. The results show largest differences in answers of various (below 20 and above 20 year) age groups. Nevertheless, further statistical examination would be needed to confirm the visual comparison”.

Edyta Bąkowska-Waldmann, Cezary Brudka, and Piotr Jankowski: LEGAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE USE OF GEOWEB METHODS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SPATIAL PLANNING IN POLAND: EXPERIENCES, OPINIONS AND CHALLENGES “Geoweb methods offer an alternative to commonly used public participation methods in spatial planning. This paper discusses two such geoweb methods – geo-questionnaire and geo-discussion in the context of their initial applications within the spatial planning processes in Poland. The paper presents legal and organizational framework for the implementation of methods, provides their development details, and assesses insights gained from their deployment in the context of spatial planning in Poland. The analysed case studies encompass different spatial scales ranging from major cities in Poland (Poznań and Łódź) to suburban municipalities (Rokietnica and Swarzędz in Poznań Agglomeration). The studies have been substantiated by interviews with urban planners and local authorities on the use and value of Geoweb methods in public consultations.”

Michał Czepkiewicz, Piotr Jankowski, and Zbigniew Zwoliński: GEO-QUESTIONNAIRE: A SPATIALLY EXPLICIT METHOD FOR ELICITING PUBLIC PREFERENCES, BEHAVIOURAL PATTERNS, AND LOCAL KNOWLEDGE – AN OVERVIEW “Geo-questionnaires have been used in a variety of domains to collect public preferences, behavioural patterns, and spatially-explicit local knowledge, for academic research and environmental and urban planning. This paper provides an overview of the method focusing on the methodical characteristics of geo-questionnaires including software functions, types of collected data, and techniques of data analysis. The paper also discusses broader methodical
issues related to the practice of deploying geo-questionnaires such as respondent selection and recruitment, representativeness, and data quality. The discussion of methodical issues is followed by an overview of the recent examples of geo-questionnaire applications in Poland, and the discussion of socio-technical aspects of geo-questionnaire use in spatial planning”

These papers provide examples from Participatory GIS in Poland and the Czech Republic, which are worth examining, as well as our review of the major themes from the workshop. All the papers are open access.

Advertisements

Digital Representations of Place: Urban Overlays and Digital Justice

dsc_1026Summary of the session on Digital Representation of Place at the RGS-IBG conference in Cardiff. The session aim was to address the following challenge: “Over the last few decades, our cities have become increasingly digital. Urban environments are layered with data and algorithms that fundamentally shape our geographic interactions: impacting how we perceive, move through, and use space. Spatial justice is thus inextricably tied to data justice, and it has become imperative to ask questions about who owns, controls, shapes, and has access to those augmented and hybrid digital/physical layers of place. Now that over half of humanity is connected to the internet, do we see greater levels of representation of, and participation from, previously digitally disconnected populations? Or are our digitally dense environments continuing to amplify inequalities rather than alleviate them? A growing body of knowledge documents the societal impact such digital representations can have, for example when they favour the interests of one privileged group (such as tourists) at the expense of others. We seek to systematise this knowledge, and to provide guidance for practitioners, researchers, and policy-makers to address imbalances and inequalities in representation.”
An Introduction to Digital Representations of Place
Mark Graham (University of Oxford, UK) Martin Dittus (University of Oxford, UK)
dsc_1027A bit of background on information geography.  Information geography is about a way to represent a place online – e.g. a place on Wikipedia – place, coordinates, and the fact that the information is coded also as a database, so it’s possible to map the unevenness of digital representation of the work. So information geography is asking at looking at the digital and the physical world (definition in Graham, Zook and Boulton 2013). We then can ask questions about where the imbalances coming from – for example, the cost of bandwidth, there are still places in the world that can’t access and participate. There is also questions about who owns, controls, shapes, and has access to those augmented and hybrid digital/physical representations of place.There is difference about the degree in which people at a place edit the information about the place. Which parts of the world telling about the place and you can see it in different parts of the world – down to a city. It matter, because the world is shaped through devices and everywhere you go, you have a digital overlay of the world that influence actions. Examples are the way restaurants are coming in Hebrew, Arabic, and English in Google in Tel Aviv and getting very different representations. We can ask about the concepts and framing that we use to talk about it.
The persistent environmental digital divide
Muki Haklay (University College London, UK)
Over 25 years ago, as the web was emerging as a medium for distributing public information, it was promoted as a tool for increased democratisation. From the age of dial-up modem and PCs to the use of mobile phones and smartphones, concerns about digital divides and how they impact the ability of local participation in environmental decision-making never resolved. These digital divides are creating a tapestry of marginalisation through different devices, skills, and communication potentials, and it is valuable to reflect on their dimensions – both technical and social, and consider how we can consider them in a systematic way. The talk will attempt to reflect on technological and social changes and the attempts to address them.
The talk itself started with the vision of Agenda 21 and Principle 10, and the promises that they’ve made about the potential of information to make a transformation in public engagement in environmental decision-making. It then looks at the developments in each time period – the first 10 years to 2002, with rapid development, and examples of the use of the internet and the Web in sharing information, but also challenges of access – that’s the period when concerns over digital divide started emerging. The next decade brings with it promises about open data, but create new challenges – use of smartphones and payment of data access. The digital divide mutates, though the know how is rather similar to the first period. Finally, we get to the last 6 years, where we actually seeing some challenges, such as the closure of some data and risks for the continuation of open data programmes. Overall, we can identify 7 digital divides that are fairly persistent over these 26 years and they raise some issues about the potential of access to environmental information.
Hybrid forms of public participation in Madrid and Taiwan : how can we bridge digital inequalities?
Yu-Shan Tseng (Durham University, UK)
dsc_1028This paper seeks to uncover forms of digital inequalities within new processes of public participation in Madrid and Taiwan (Decide Madrid and vTaiwan).
Preliminary analysis from Taiwan and Madrid – hybrid forms of public participation in Madrid and Taiwan. There are different contexts in global North and global South. The background is that the two cases are linked to the Occupy Movement and opening up democracy – e.g. Indignados/ 15M and Sunflower Movement. With the background, Kinsley suggest that there is a material turn in virtual geography. We get infrastructuring of the digital platforms and to think about the way we can see bridges between digital and material. There is agency of infrastructures – based on Thrift and Star. The concepts provide a basis for understanding the “Decide Madrid” and vTaiwan systems. There is an infrastructure that point to a collaborative process that require people to work together and you are supposed to see a visualisation of where your opinion sit. The Decide Madrid have five processes, and each process include collaboration. In the Decide Madrid, the infrastructure is not only the user interface but also the link to urban space and objects – ballot papers is linked to OCR in order to be input to the system. Another aspect is the invisible infrastructure – the algorithms that show information, sort it and present it. In Decide Madrid, they try to make some of the sorting algorithms visible. The implications – connecting objects and urban spaces is a way to diversify the form of public participation. The infrastructures are becoming political agents – they specify the space of operating and the boundaries. The wider implication – vTaiwan present a post-political community, in which the most influential actors are the powerful citizens and senior politicians – the system is not supposed to disrupt current power structures, where as in Decide Madrid there is participatory budgeting of 100m Eur

Smart Cities in the Making: Learning from Milton Keynes
Gillian Rose (University of Oxford, UK)
dsc_1030How do smart technologies and policies bed into a city, creating new layers and networks of urban experience and differentiation? SCiM-MK is a social science research project which seeks to answer that question by examining Milton Keynes as a smart city ‘in the making’. Focusing on the citizens, governance, workplaces, data and visualisations of smart, SCiM-MK looks at the social effects of smart city technologies. In particular, SCiM-MK will find out how social difference affects participation in smart, and whether smart creates new forms of social difference.
The results emerge from an ESRC project that look at Milton Keynes development. The city is a living lab for urbanism, and hosting different smart cities activities. From autonomous vehicle to open data. The open data portal is a specific focus. The data hub started as an early data repository, to gather all the data about the city to provide access to information. The portal was used in particular to address issues of social inequality, and data was used by third sector body. Use was done people calling technical people and asking to provide an answer. As apart of the observatory was moved to MK Insight which is done with BT as a commercial data hub, and the assumption is that it will be sold elsewhere. It was design by engineers at BT and OU, with “Will built it and they will come” – dealing with ownership and considering aspects about privacy. There was excitement on the data side, but less on how it is going to be used by non-experts. There is a whole set of activities to make the data available and usable for people “without PhD in computer science” – e.g. an app for elderly people who the young person assumed they need cheap things and toilets, which the user group was not happy with it. The model of the data hub – it is assumed to represent the offline world, and ignores other parts of the world we can make normative claims on how it need to be created to be more representative. Is data actually a thing that can be commodify, or are we think about it as a thing by default? Is the ownership and costs should we ask about it? What we think of as data – with senior managers from engineering and technology background raised the issue of “what data set do we need?” not how many time you jump on a tube – we need to think of selfies, family photos, social media- the rich and detailed way to understand how city function properly. There are issues of privacy, and surveillance that we need to consider. There is always relationality in the city – relationship of giving, and many data feeds are affective and we can think of social media as such. The engagement of people in apps demonstration that it was passion about changing the life and doing something more than just the technology . Two more point: looking at social media, is to think about feminists and researchers of colour – women have feminists accounts and it might be the reasons that we ignore. We can also think about recialisation about who can participate and who can’t. Secondly, there is much more visual
Data-driven urbanism, citizenship and justice
Rob Kitchin (National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Ireland)
dsc_1031Covering the normative discussion – there are some concepts about smart cities technology – they are influencing across services, government, and infrastructures – from security, to transport, waste, environment, building, homes and civic forms. We also see the data driven urbanism, in the way that you get control rooms of different types with a concept of managing the city through data use – from Rio to dealing with the whole city, to a specific infrastructure (a tunnel). So how are citizens framed and thought about across the technology. The original critique of smart cities was that they are about controlling and creating new-liberal logic of the city – not city focus. The response was to make it citizen-centric or citizen-focused and the question is: did it happen? e.g. how citizens framed, what action they can form? There is too little about identities and exclusion in the smart cities? There is a need to balance state/market/civic society and we need to shape how the negotiations will progress. To answer, we have to think about the citizenship, social justice. The scaffolding of the citizen in the smart city and what is the role as a consumer. As you go through different levels, we have different numbers of participants and their relative influences. We can therefore think of citizenship and social justice – the are different levels and they are trying to get away with “pragmatic” or “practical” and not working through what it mean. When we work through citizenship, we can see Marshall (1950) concepts of civil/legal, political, social and then add to it symbolic, cultural and ask questions on how this is linked and should be operationalised. The smart citizenship is underpinned by neo-liberal concept of citizenship in consumption choice, individual autonomy and civic paternalist way. We also need to think which concept of justice we need to think about distributional, procedural, retributive, restorative. Smith (1994) suggest different models in Geography and Social Justice and there are different models that we need to think about it.
This short intervention will discuss and critique the creation of data-driven urbanism and urban science, focusing on notions of citizenship and social justice. In particular, an argument is made that smart city interventions are underpinned by a narrow instrumental rationality and top-down forms of civic paternalism and stewardship, rather than being rooted in notions of more political and philosophically grounded notions of citizenship, justice, fairness, equity, democracy, and rights. However, while there is some critique of data-driven urbanism that it should be more citizen-centric and just, what that means in theory and practice is rarely articulated. There are many theories of social justice for example – egalitarianism, utilitarianism, libertarianism, contractarianism, Marxism, communitarianism, etc – and of citizenship, and each envisions a different set of principles, rights, entitlements and social relations. In other words, digital justice underpinned by each one of these theories would be markedly different. This then raises the question, so what kind of justice and citizenship are we hoping to enact when we call for digital and spatial justice?
Discussion: A question about data stories and the media – comparing the story of the Chemical Release Inventory and FoE in the 1996, which is clearly to create the opportunity for the government to share information, to the oddities of the data refuge which didn’t look into archiving, FoI, legal instruments, and the rest to gain access to the system. There was also an issue of using proprietary systems for archiving.
The Decide Madrid and vTaiwan are both led by civic hackers from the occupy movement, but the platforms are not that open – they are open to people who know how to code, but for ordinary people the system is not open to change. The balloting with the OCR – if you can only access through paper ballot you need to have the physical access to do the paper for you, and it is therefore both opening and closing the process.
Framing by injustice creating a certain set of problems – to a degree, but getting a purchase on what is happening in systems which are rooted in political ideological – privatisation, control, marketisation, and we need to counter them within their  concepts. Notions of participation, citizenship, are not shared by different actors. The issue is problematic in any case. One of the reasons the conversations are difficult is that it is not Habermasian public sphere, rather a very complex ideological space with different motivations.
Methodological approaches to images – the access to it become harder and harder. It got performative aspects. In terms of access and how to access Instagram – lot’s of time it is open and close in different ways. It is a changing field and we need to think about it.
There are questions about representation and the way that it creates inequalities and these representations are creating new ways of injustice and representation. The different sources have different forms of inequalities embedded when we look how they are produced. This is also true for the digital platforms and the way that different people understand systems and how they operate.

Ecsite 2018 conference – day 1 Morning: Opening speeches, and citizen science frontiers

img_20180607_094946.jpgThe Ecsite conference took place in Geneva from the 7 to the 9 June. It followed the ECSA conference (or more accurately, ECSA conference was set to coincide with Ecsite). The conference theme was “creative collisions”. The conference was opened by the director of Geneva’s Natural History Museum Jacques Ayer. Organising an Ecsite conference is a crazy adventure – but enriching. Science and the transmission of knowledge are important and it at a risk of dealing with ignorance. By reimagining science and its communication, we can deal with the pressure on science from different directions. The richness and beauty of the world come from its diversity and we need society to appreciate it.

The Mayor of Geneva Sami Kanaan – Geneva have a long history of science, including the academy that was set by Calvin, which became the university and it is central to the city. Scientists left us knowledge and that is managed in the Natural History Museum and the Botanic Gardens – they belong to the city, and therefore to the citizens. They also active in sharing the science with the wider public. Geneva’s citizens are involved and curious – and they use every opportunities to engage with it, including the science night in July in one of the central park. It is a city of dialogue – it specialised in bringing people to organise new norms to organise society. They are interested in the role of science and technology in the life of the city. Thierry Apotheloz – Geneva is the land of sciences from Jean Piaget, Jean Jacque Rousseau. Geneva is also important in the Natural Sciences, and it is been a welcoming place for dialogue and collaboration. Geneva always attributed knowledge as important in its progress, Making science publicly accessible is a mission that the politicians in the city are seeing as very important. We need to maintain social cohesion for democratic functioning – science collides with charlatanism, fake news etc, we need science that is open to the world and respond to it. We need scientists to leave their lab and classroom and go out, this is a critical for societal missions.

Herbert Munder (Ecsite president) – in the conference there are about 1000 participants. In the early 1990s, the opening up to the science – more informed public is more sceptic and critical of research and understood that need to listen and have a dialogue with the public, and then a growth of co-design. The general public is expected to accept scientific finding, but now we experiencing politicians who are not believing in science. Are we back in the 19th and 20th centuries? There is a wide networks of science communication expertise that can address it, there are global challenges and need to address them across the world through network. We have to work together at a European level but we don’t know the challenges and the lack of acceptance of complex model that has been accepted a while ago. There is an effort to ensure funding through programmes such as Horizon Europe.

Catherine Franche – Fact don’t change beliefs, should we change other people language or should we speak other people’s language. Science communicators need to provide the link and the ability to discuss the values that are being integrated into innovations. We need to think about the ongoing changes in society, and we need to offer dignity to everyone in the world and consider how the Sustainable Development Goals are part of our goals.

Philippe Moreillon – the Swiss Academies of Natural Science, followed a rich history in scientific research in Lausanne, and science means knowledge without discrimination – natural science, humanities and social knowledge should be all respected. Ecsite mission of communicating all sciences is important – the academies are there to provide advice on science to policy. We can see the amazing aspect of us as nature studying itself – homo technologicus – it is frightening, but also a success of evolution and nature. The things that we are doing are imitations of the success of nature and the role of museums, in charting these transformation and links. Think about the energy consumption of human brain vs data centres. Museums are the critical in transformation of this knowledge.

It was noticeable how the theme of science under attack, the risk of irrationality, and the solution to it with more science communication was common to the speeches.

Panel: Citizen science: the new frontiers

DSC_0707.JPGBrad Irwin (The Natural History Museum, London) opened the session – talking citizen science, citizen science has got an increasing role in science and engagement, and we have seen new professional societies, activities, and conferences – so what the future holds?

Robert Dunn NCSU – citizen science in the wider context. For example, in anatomy, Galen in early Rome, as a doctor of to gladiators he was starting to make sense of anatomy. While the details were not clear, but the fall of Rome – the next 1000 more forgotten than what was known. With the Renaissance, there was an assumption that the ancient knowledge was correct, and the beginning of understanding that we need new discoveries. Much of what we do is about showing what was already known. Citizen science is to engage people with what is not known – with 20 million animal dissections in class, of which none led to data recording. We also don’t have knowledge of species. Rob’s lab focus on the species that are leaving near us and with us – each breathing bring 1000 species into the lungs. By working with 1000s of students in the class – the outcomes, as related to scientists and the delivery of real science in the context of a museum in which there is sometimes an open, passive-aggressive warfare. Projects include dissecting and learning about the anatomy of humans and animals guts and discovering new things in the process. What is exciting is a collaboration with the museum, from things that scare us to things that we love – sourdough bread is a place that provides a wide range of discoveries. The potential of wide Europe projects – what makes these projects succeed and expand.

Karsten Elmose Vad Senior Consultant The Natural History Museum of Denmark – The NHM in Copenhagen is part of the University of Copenhagen. Two projects, We want to link both ways – citizen doing science which means real science and the linking scientists to the public – public scientists. The Real Science project is for high school students, about eDNA in water sampling. Students are collecting data and analysing the data, and they develop and test new eDNA systems. Students are excited to see a link to research. The evaluation shows that students are motivated by that it makes sense, that it is linked to science and use of data, and it is not just made for students to try. The Ant hunt includes real scientist, doing real research, with real experiment and questions. No tradition of post-school education – Julie, the scientist (PhD student) when around and met participants – and the person who writes back the thank you. Out of 75 responses from participants – about 65% find that it is important to link to scientists and value to have a role model. How close can we get to link citizens and the scientific process and how far we put the scientist in front of the campaign?

DSC_0716.JPGCaren Cooper (North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences) – linked to the museum. Projects are linked to citizen science and wrote stories about citizen science in her book. With all the stories, there are common themes: citizen science is real science – a lot of what we know if not only from science. There are many unknown things that we will discover through citizen science. We also develop new social capital and it can see sustainability, social justice and environmental justice outcomes. We need to ask questions about who is developing them and how we create the ones that will lead to a better world. Museums are a place of exhibits, collection, but also research. In the same way – a lot of people are doing something without becoming professional – athletics, arts, activism – but science is out of it. People are joining citizen science from curiosity and concerns about their area. Museums have a very long history of collections that are from non-professionals – e.g. egg collections of birds which were donated by hobbyists. The restrictions on collecting eggs from the conservation perspective stopped this. She revive the practice in the practice of Sparrows which are not protected. The Sparrow Swap is helping in understanding the patterns, heavy metal in the shell, understanding contaminants and provide replacement eggs as a conservation control. In Sound around Town, there are using lending of professional equipment to let people collect sound samples and classify them in their backyard. The eMammal use camera traps and classifications to allow analysis of animal patterns. The Denver Museum of Nature and Science do human subject research, e.g. taste, or belly button biodiversity to test for the hygiene hypothesis. There are also transcriptions projects of collections – and the WeDigBio as a collection of all these projects. SciStarter provide a gateway to move into specific projects, such as projects for the Girl Scouts and can earn badges in citizen science, and also do that with undergraduates with every student in NCSU will get credits for their effort of joining a project and match it to their study

Where citizen science in the next 10-15 years? Caren – citizen science is evolving into discovery and decision making, and that is needed in smart cities, Internet of Things, etc. We should make them intentional and get them into other areas. Rob – becoming institutional – from schools and universities that integrate it throughout education and that is hard, but it might become with flagship institutions that need to do that. Another part of it, is that tools for discovery are becoming very cheap and how citizen science uses them will be important – e.g. sequencing of DNA is changing rapidly, and when it’s going to be very cheap – same for camera trapping the world, or how we address and build on that is important. There are issues of pollution monitoring and sensors when low costs sensors will become reliable – this will change the very small area. Agriculture: there is the potential for using the new sensing capabilities. Karsten – the scientist role in this need to change, and in that way, we need more scientists that are willing to do citizen science. The Copenhagen university mentioned citizen science in its strategy briefly but it is an issue of how to change them. Caren- Scientists need to make a mind shift on how they engage, and they need the skills. Rob – the skills that are needed will make them better scientists in general. We will end with a better scientist. Brad – how do you change the culture? Very slow transition? Caren -In NCSU there is a buy-in from all levels, but in the people that come into science will drive it.

Q&A – Polish experience: running citizen science in science centre – one where the participants are real scientists, a small number, on the other hand, citizen scientists as just data collectors – you told me that I’m a citizen scientist, this is just data collection. The more scientific it is, the more there is a need to adapt and change the project, and keep the scientists and participants along the same route is hard to manage and run. How to create projects at large scale as real scientists, beyond collecting data. If they only have done the data collection, and not in the analysis, they complain about the experience. Rob – the more quickly we can relate the data collection relate to the wider study, this helps. Also can do a more advanced style of studies, with a small group of participants and have an onlooker effect. Caren – thinking about different levels, and gives a way to allow people to engage at a higher level.

People who participate in prototype feel that they don’t feel that they do real science, and it is hard to convince them that. Museum and science centre are places where you don’t expect to do something new – even with scientists who work behind glass, some people think that these are real scientists and not actors. Putting on information – showing the stories of discoveries by scientists is something that needs to communicate.

What is the place of citizen science in museums there is a role of engaging in environmental challenges, and it is not clear what the museums need to engage with societal issues? Caren – museums are still seen as trusted organisations, so discussion about technology and science policy are done in museums. Rob – one model of what museums can be about.

Citizen science from researchers perspective, education, but what about empowering people and addressing local problems – a coalition with engagement organisation (e.g. Science Shops) can be important. It can be promising.

Another question – who is owning the definition of what real science is, and a lot of visitors feel that it is far away, and the scientists are keeping their position. Need to bridge perceptions of participants and scientists are lots of time data collectors.

Are there other examples of addressing questions that the public participates in the question? When we collect information and other forms of knowledge that can be included in science? Rob – linking to food is an opportunity to engage and build on what people know, and demonstrate wider forms of knowledge. People can taste the results.

Final question from Justin Dylon: Is it ever morally acceptable not to pay people for citizen science? [my answer: the wrong question, considering that it’s the most educated in society who participate, the volunteering is a social payback]

Co-designing the Citizen Science Global Partnership

DSC_0691.JPGThe workshop on the Citizen Science Global Partnership (CSGP) – the workshop included people from US, Brazil, Equador, Australia, UK, France, Switzerland, Germany, and Austria, as well as UNESCO. A range of interests in terms of citizen science activities – from health to ecological observations. Martin Brocklehurst summarised where we are – in the UNEA3: there was a range of representative and at the end of a session a statement made a statement about the need for citizen science and coordination at the global level. The role of this partnership is to provide a coordination point for global organisations that are linked to a different association in different parts of the world, following the UN structure.dsc_0692.jpg Creating consortia for a global programme with similar research; support the collection of exchange of open, interoperable, and FAIR data, and understand and track how citizen science contributes to the SDGs. Wilson Center in DC offers an institutional home. Currently, the scope of projects that were put forward in a survey includes about 7 global scope projects and many single projects in specific countries or regions that can be part of the initiative. The common themes across projects are sustainable development goals – organisations that specifically looking at them, e.g. Citizen Science Centre Zurich. There there are an offering of technological assistant. there are conversation internally and externally in the citizen science community to address the SDGs and as we go lower than big institutions globally, there is less awareness, we need to consider a 13 years process and increase strength at a global scale and propose for creating a working group on the topic. Some of the challenges for the partnership is establishing a governance structure to think how to address requests and approaches, and that might be organised with individual volunteering to put an effort in the partnership but having some agreed ToR with their association. There are opportunities with the Geneva effort on Open17 which already have linked with UN, WHO and others. There is a website citizenscienceglobal.org – there will be a discussion forum that will require moderation and probably need to allow for closed conversations about it.

DSC_0693.JPGAnother challenge is the aims of coordination of communication – to UN, businesses etc. Need to help to establish new networks in new places. The participants in the meeting concluded that the top priority is network and lead consortia for global projects. Future meetings might coincide with international conferences that are linked to UN and the global data forum.

European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) 2018 Conference – day 2: Beyond the deficit model, inclusiveness, libraries, and

The second and last day of the conference (day 1 is covered here) started early, with a keynote: “Science society continuum: From ‘deficit model’ to social demand on research – the reform of science in progress” Lionel Larqué, FR – [physicist and head the collaboration of education, civil society organisations, and science. Influenced partnerships between science and society on non-deficit model of science.] The organisation ALLISS was set in 2012 – to address Science & Society Continuum. There is a book on “sciences participatives” and it is in French and aimed at the local community. Speak from the French perspective, the founders of the institution that he runs – 1800 members (institutions) and 15-20 years of cooperation. Science-society concepts: seeing it as good answers for the wrong questions, at the background of the public policy – what we can and can’t do. Science/society came from institutions – a structural bias, it came from scientific and European institutions – the reason to start it. It starts with wrong and incomplete data, ideas from the 1970s and 1980s about mistrust of citizens in science. What is the reality of current public view on science is unknown, we don’t know if the questions were well written. The policy was based on scientific prejudice, and assumptions about public mistrust in science – but generally, from 1972 to today, in France 78%-85% people have trust in the knowledge from science (without linking to technology or how science run). There is no strong data that will show the strong mistrust and mix criticism with mistrust. The French science academy is full of non-rational scientists who feed the discourse of public mistrust. A lot of bad reasons for creating agnotological public debate – some scientists want to instrumentalise the public debate. by saying that there is a mistrust, then you can rely on deficit model and ignore the public and that is useful. It also seems obvious to claim that it is obvious, as all institutions face mistrust – politics, media, law and order, and therefore assume that science is also getting it. The pressure on scientists is getting higher and the scientific community is suffering from the pressure – political power, social actors, finance. Scientific institutions are the last trusted institutions and ask to answer all the questions, and the scientists feel pressured by these demands and they see that as a problem that they want people to leave them to their own actions. There is a vicious cycle of address the deficit model because. ALLISS put forward the idea that we need to ask the new question. We need to face institutional walls – they don’t want to accept that society at large is way more educated and therefore scientific institutions need to change. ALLISS tries to figure out the institutional challenge.

The French situation: high level of trust from the public towards science, but criticism towards the institutions. There is a large scale cooperation between civil society organisations and scientific organisations (CNRS, INRS…). The number is very high, but the institutions are not looking at it in their strategic plans – cooperation developed despite institutional policies. In 2001-2009, the World Social Forum, from 8500 workshops, only 70 talked about science and technology. For a lot of social actors, science is outside the frame and in 2007 launched the “science and democracy world forum” – can we share a common view about it? The workshops show that dialogue was not the issue, but what can we change the context – what can you do to change partnerships. Need to change something: policy, concept, etc. . A mass of initiatives won’t be enough to change policy. The barrier of science institutions is a big barrier and it hasn’t changed from the 1970s to today. The main tradition of science is a problem for citizen science – it is put in a box and put into a specific space so it won’t change the bigger institutions. Citizen science dynamics is one that allows us to change things: we need to understand where we came from – design of research and science policies – the key design was for making Europe stronger, rebuilt, and link science and industry. Now there are local actors, local groups, and the science-policy doesn’t have tools that allow that – a non-industrial research policy focused on society is needed. Scientific institutions we have a wider policy alliance. Are the people that work in museums, institutions. Things won’t change the way we want them – they don’t have a sequential process, e.g. feminism impact in scientific study and what helped: bicycle, war, and image in the mass media in the 1960s of women in the media. Changes are not rational, but even when the forces are strong we need both the cumulative experience and the politics. Open science initiative might help us, maybe close to the SDG initiatives and we can explore them through research. We observe that the sociology of citizen science is that a lot of citizen science is coming from institutions that propagate the deficit model and we need to play both with these institutions and the cost are very high. We need to be clear that we need a change, we understand what we can change and what can’t be changed. The Shock Doctrine is something that we need to be aware of it – think outside ourselves. ALLISS and ECSA need to be ready.

Workshop “Empowerment, inclusiveness & equity in community-based research and CS”

Claudia Göbel, Michael Jorganson , ECSA (DE). Notes on https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/ECSA2018-EIE and there are issues at Michael: CBR – civil society have issues that need to be addressed by authorities but this need to be documented, There is also need for the development of new knowledge or new proposals (e.g. urban agriculture). Empowerment – knowledge might empower – but not enough, there is also translations and alliances to make it effective. There are sometimes need to figure out new methods in the institution and in society. Working deliberately with empowerment. Claudia – looked at the Soleri 2016: empowerment – capacity to make a change. The terminology can be about equity and inclusiveness. It’s about who is participating, and it builds on conversations that evolve from the CSA conference but also ECSA conference in 2016, workshops in Living Knowledge conference, policy roundtables. From the living knowledge conference, there are different ideas about research, especially different epistemologies of science “distant vs engaged research. The idea of a working ground on empowerment and some activities that a group can do.

 

Barbara Kieselnger – ideas of citizen social science – building on participatory action research, data activism, action research – but we now combine it with other sources. Done a classification of citizen science projects. Different projects that engage citizens, for example, a project in Barcelona and using an existing of environmental activists and political and street actions. Want to understand ozone pollution. The Careables – it’s a project which involves people with physical limitation and maker communication, sharing the co-design openly.

Balint Balazs – pointing about the silence of citizen science in central Europe (same issues at the UCL workshop on Geographical Cit Sci). Making invisible project visibility. Thinking of citizen social science. Aspects of empowerment: autonomy, competence, belonging, impact, meaning, resilience – need to think how they work.

Thomas Hervé Mboa Nkoudou– question the notion of inclusiveness: e.g. a transgender friend that ask about having us as a bigger group to colour a project. Adding a symbolic inclusiveness. In order to put in evidence the power of community – a summit in Ghana on the AfricaOSH – a big conversation about making/ hacking/bio-hacking and to bring together as a community what is the open science mean to us.

Muki Haklay – I’ve focused on passive and assertive inclusiveness, the need for a more nuanced view of participation as we have societal benefits from highly educated people, and the problem of methodological individualism in the analysis of empowerment and inclusion. Call for also a realistic understanding of resources – the more inclusive you are, the more expensive the process of including them is – e.g. the need to morally justify the intelligent maps effort, where each engagement in very expensive.

Libby Hepburn covered the issue of the global initiative of citizen science, which is providing an opportunity for different organisations and programmes to collaborate and the potential of leveraging the SDG to address societal challenges, demonstrate the needs for citizen science applications and use.

The session’s discussion turned to different aspects of inclusiveness and the creation of an ECSA working group.

Speed Talks “Citizen Engagement”

Nina James, University of South Australia (AUS): Strangers, Stewards and Newcomers in CS identities of those that participate – looked at 9 contributory project, 900 participants, and 1400 non-participants. It is very diverse fields – motivated by different things, she found in conservation 49-69 female mostly (70%). Different from non-participants. highly educated, sense of connection to the environment. First identity is environmental stewards – connected to nature, strong awareness, also actively politically engage, and participate in more than one projects. Science enthusiasts – participate in other cit sci, interested in science, interested in technology and confident about it, and less politically active. Also included in a project that there are introverts and extroverts (a project in a museum and also online). The men are topic oriented, motivated in science and technology, and in the outback in the fireballs in the sky that includes 77% men. There are newcomers – motivated by the topic. Millenials are in small percentage. The strangers are haven’t participated in citizen science – less politically engaged, lower education, too many conflicting interests. People are participating in different projects. The participation of female (70%) is an issue – result of an online survey.

Cat Stylinski, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (US): Embedded Assessment of Skills in CS. Embedded assessment in citizen science – provides an introduction. Volunteers need to develop skills in citizen science to participate, and this is important to upheld scientific standards. Need to identify the skills, train support, then assess the skills and then a need to think how this work. Assessment includes formal tests, informal observations, and data validation. Embedded assessment is done as people involved in the project – so giving an activity and then developing a rubric to compare what people did. Embedded assessment try to streamline the process – data validation is usually focusing on science variable, and instead of looking at the volunteers and how they learn the approach. Figuring out a new way to integrate the assessment with project’s process.

Kate Lewthwaite, Woodland Trust (UK): Engaging older citizen scientists in the digital era. A painful case study of moving people to a new website – working on woods and working with many volunteers in Nature Calendar – many recorders are over 60 and even 80. Important contributors to phenology. They wanted to move the website to a new system because of the technological change – but some people used the website for 10 years. Consulted with the scientific users of the data on improvements – better location information, ask the number of visits, and improving data about participants. Used persona for the design process. Overall the participants struggle much more than expected. Registration through verification links in email and needed to assist in copy and paste, and need to use an alphanumeric password. They haven’t read the website and couldn’t understand why there was a need to add a security information. The manipulation of mapping (survey123 style of moving the map) was confusing. Don’t do change – there was once a decade to do a change and plan support, expect more staff resources to make it happen, and they needed the support. They talked with 20 interviews and the development team explore the issue with infrequent users, That why they thought that everything is ready. Continue to run a paper-based system. They’ve lost some of the people in the transition, and don’t have the ability to provide an app, yet – it’s planned.

Karsten Elmose Vad, The Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen (DK): What motivates families to do CS? evaluation of the Ant Hunt (mentioned in the previous post) – an experiment of food preferences of ants. Take several hours, capturing ant, and sending them. They focused on families with children 6-13, Denmark doesn’t have an after-school science. Put the researcher on video and she wrote back to participants. got 356 experiments, 260 users, 24 species and 6000 ants. The evaluation shows that for more people having scientists connected to the project it was the majority, and it was valuable for them to get a response from a scientist which coordinated the project – felts that it provide participation in something big and the opportunity to work with a scientist. Valuable cross-generation activity, open-ended experiment, the scientific method. They didn’t care about the competition.

Gaia Agnello, ECSA (DE): Motivations and perceived benefits predict citizen
scientists´ level of engagement. Used the volunteer function index (clary & snider 1998) the analytical framework for voluntarism. Looking how these factors influence the programme – looking through an online questionnaire. 174 responses – more motivated to nature issues. It is important to understand motivation in relation to engagement. The initial motivation is not driving the level of engagement.

Talks  – “Social Innovation”

Tiberius Ignat et al., Scientific Knowledge Services (DE): Working Together: CS and Research Libraries – presented with Paul Ayres of UCL libraries. The request to talk at the conference is about the role of libraries in support activities especially research library – these are areas of research libraries that are important. They have supported organisation, highly standardised, well connected in a network and work well. They build collections or resources, data and material. The manage the incoming and outgoing of scientific communication with researchers and world leaders of open science and advocates of it – pushing open access and are experienced advocates. They are also open to innovation and work through transformation for all their roles. Fun people, centrally located, and also have a culture of being politeness towards answers. They have 10 major skills: collaboration between libraries, they have communication skills, have a FAIR concept that is integrated into their practices, good in infrastructure and governing it. They have experience in maintaining and curating collections. They have experience in open access, connecting people. They have demonstrated advocacy as a network – open access and fees campaign for example. The confluences are areas of opportunities – skills development, support, collection, FAIR data, infrastructure, evaluation, communication – general skills but also in the recruitment of volunteers, marketing and in advocacy. In 2017 there was a set of presentation on the “Roles for libraries in the Open Science landscape” and done 12 presentations and in 2918 presenting on 2018 “Focus on Open Science”. There is a demand for citizen science in these events. Looking at the OSPP of the EU, citizen science is one of the 8 pillars of open science. There is a consistent line of supporting open science in 2016 in Amsterdam, then in the OSPP which just produced a recommendations on citizen science, and LERU advice paper on open science in May 2018. Library engagement in citizen science – an example from UCL East – UCL library thinking about a local oral history in the borough of Newham. The other example is the Transcribe Bentham is the crowdsourcing with 624 and it is very cost effective – an example of contribution through the special collection . Another example is the establishment of university press that is dedicated to Open Access . The answers – why do citizens collaborate? What is the motivation to volunteers? and so on. Libraries have a very important role and there is an open survey at knowledge.services/citizenscience

Susanne Hecker et al., Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research
UFZ/German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-JenaLeipzig (DE): Innovation in and with CS. The journey about the ECSA 2016 and the development of the new open access book from the conferences –  bringing the experiences of the conference, bringing 120 researchers and what we can expect from the book – 29 chapters in 5 sections. Part 1 is about innovation in citizen science – setting the scene: it will include the description of the Ten Principles of citizen science, standards for citizen science, then the contribution on scientific impact, my chapter on participation in citizen science, then technology and infrastructure and evaluation. Part II, focus on questions on society – understanding the social theory, empowerment and scientific library, inclusiveness, support (technically and socially) and the integration with the higher education system. We have 40 case studies in the book, but in particular in China, Europe, Global mosquito alert, and water quality. The third part, focus on the science-policy interface, including policy formulation with an input from people at the EC and from Environmental Protection Agencies, also Responsible Research and Innovation. The next section is the innovation in technology and environmental monitoring (part IV) and it looks at technologies, light pollution, data protocol, and national monitoring programmes. The last part – section V – looking at science communication and education – making it education, addressing science capital through citizen science, children, school education, and stories that change the world. Key recommendation complete the book. The discussion included questions about the production of the book at open access and the need to promote it to policymakers and to wider audiences

Closing session

Claudia Appenzeller-Winterberger-  – citizen science is engagement of scientists and of the citizens, and you need to think why are we doing it? Is we summarise the dialogue, it is about the question of scientists and let the public ask questions. Thinking global and acting local. We will have to think about these new questions: a lot of it is testing and doing citizen science.

Science & Dissent – Day 2 – Afternoon session, round table and conclusion

The afternoon and concluding session of the workshop (here are part 1 and part 2)

Making as Dissent: The Performance of Producing Pharmaceuticals in Biohacking (Gabriela A. Sanchez, University of Geneva, Switzerland) looking at laboratory protocol to develop insulin and the researchers want to use a 50 years protocol. The Open Insulin Project at the Counter Culture Lab – Maker, DIY bio, citizen science – inviting people to participate in the creation of technoscience. There are similarities between different groups. Thinking about “Impure Science” by Epstein from 1996, looking at the AIDS campaign – the DIe-in at the FDA. The challenged scientific authority. Th Act-up network worked with the medical establishment. The Open Insulin is different – the do things differently – the biohackers are doing a performance, which is not saying that they will be creating a pharma class drug. They are creating stories and narrative. Looking at how the open insulin work we can see three narratives. Greedy pharmaceuticals is the first narrative and arguing about the costs of insulin and costly monopoly of 3 drug companies and activities that block. The pharma insists that they are doing their best -but there is an increased price of drugs significantly. The second story is about empowering patients – Laufer’s alternative of an epinephrine injector (2016). The media is structuring the story around DIY approach as a way to addressed times of needs, with stories from wartime – perceptions of becoming self-sufficient. The concept of open sourcing diabetes therapy as a way to provide a way to remove the financial incentives. Finally, there is the narrative or alternative science – bring the focus on biohackers as challenging and disruptive to big pharma. The biohackers assume a budget of $16,000 and volunteers effort, the equipment is recycled and second hand, and some other bits that are 3D printed – e.g. the Arduino Open PCT. The people on the projects are presenting their background and degree – many have PhDs. The identity of participants is not mentioned in media. The place of work is the Omni in Oakland that link it to the Occupy Oakland Protest. The stories point that the biohackers engage in the performative role of community scientists, working on a shoestring budget, and they materialise a different vision of making drugs and making the critique of society, capitalism structures, and the pharmaceutical industry practice. Using the narrative of the biotechnology industry that insulin. The different sites of biohacking are having an influenced by the location of the laboratory – in the SF area, another famous lab is more educational and focus on hardware and software. There is an element of promoting biotechnology but it is culture dependent.

The Politics of Data in the Intersection Between Hacker Culture and Citizen Science (Christopher Kullenberg, University of Gothenburg, Sweden) merging citizen science and hacker culture and where do they link – looking at different projects that are in citizen science since 2014 in Gothenburg – and looking at collecting and using data for a societal change. Building on the paper on Citizen Science as Resistance – when you use citizen science data to promote change. In this paper, he argue that it’s a power form of using data. What is the role of technology in citizen science? from the perspective of dissent – this is coming from the hacker culture, and hacking initiative is seen as dissenting practices, possibly anti-social. The description is not accepted by hackers – it’s constructive, building new knowledge, learning about technology. The meeting between hacker culture and citizen science is linked to different tools – three cases: Luftdaten.info, Public Lab DIY microscope, and Safecast Geiger counter. Approaching the project on the basis of digital traces. The approach to technology looking at the concept that technology is locked from us unless it is breaking down. We have devices that we don’t understand – the hacker culture is an active disassembly of technology to learn about it, not because it is broken but active breaking down. Opportunity to collapse local/global differences and building on Latour (2013:221) “We shall never find the mode of technological existence in the object itself, since it is always necessary to look beside it: first, between the object itself and the enigmatic movement of which it is only the wake; then, within the object itself, between each of the components of which it is only the temporary assemblage”. What is happening beside the gaze at technology. We can ask about resources – who can afford building technologies? What values are embedded – open/proprietary? is the knowledge complex or simple? and the question of truth or data quality – is the instrument accurate enough. Sensors for measurement station for air quality that is doing measurements of PM2.5 and PM10. The concentration of sensors in different parts of the world. The project started in Germany, in Stuttgart. The project was transferred to Sweden (the project webpage is only in German). Possible to compare Sweden and Germany – the data also allow analysis of who adopted the technology: price, knowledge of setting up, etc. Noticing which areas are covered – looks like that data is collected in middle-class areas. It is also possible to look at social media in facebook groups. The analysis shows how knowledge is transfer – it is based on actual experience and tacit knowledge: German organised a local workshop, and the questions online provide further information. Sensors are cheap and provide false results – e.g. when humidity is high. This allow showing the values – environmental value, public health concerns, also open source, open hardware, sharing results. In terms of actors and networks, we can see low barriers to make the city join in and get help in calibration from officials. There is a way to link the Mertonian norms – Communalism vs open hw/sw, Universalism vs open standards, disinterestedness vs cheap not for profit, Organised Skepticism through community peer-review. See dissent as a relational concept, and the scientific method is a powerful intensifier of dissent science it generates positive knowledge – seen as apolitical.

Discussion day 2 – some of the issues that emerged today: studying the way in which groups of people are doing things in transnational ways across boundaries and the city which operates locally, so there can be institutionally mismatched. Another aspect is to think about patients groups and their interests, such a patient owned organisation that lead to pharmaceutical reorganisation and speculate about it. Dissenting scientists many time reabsorbed in the public system or in UN organisation and even had to move countries. In the US attacks on scientists personally are not new, and there is far less purchase by evidence and official data – e.g. noise and air quality data from the city own instruments are being ignored. There are challenges to the norm of science that we’ve seen in Argentina and doing it alone and without a network is a very risky approach. Potential questions: is science a tool that is central to dissent? Can academics challenge citizen science, or is citizen science challenging mainstream science? There are also question about science as data, facts? Those four questions are framing a large research project and under what conditions the questions play out? There are lots of things happening, and try to reduce them to a very narrow range of issues. Many scientists taking scientific techniques and reject other features, such as the role of it in progressing society, etc. There is also aspects of what expertise and counter-expertise we get inside institutions and outside institutions – people from outside science having local knowledge, or people that travel all the way to become scientists, people who developed skills insides and travel outside (biohackers). The “counter” is depending on context: Germany or Bulgaria where it is about challenging the city, whereas in Sweden it is all about working together between the city and the people who build systems – “the same citizen science is counter and non-counter” (or is it not the same?). It is also about thinking about expertise – need to be understood in a specific place and time, and not making them “immutable mobiles”. How to call people? people are presenting themselves in different names – even using different CV depending on context. Need to consider how science communication needs to transform to support those changes. In terms of the role of universities and colleges – there are in the US emerging practices in colleges that are doing things through undergraduate education – small colleges provide a scope for critical research when they are not under pressure of research. There are also anxieties about employment, changes to neoliberal structures in universities in the US, Europe, and India mean that the scope of getting students engage through their science to societal issues is more limited.

Round Table
Shannon Dosemagen | Public Lab, United States – working with Public Lab, started as 8-9 years ago with the BP oil spill and done community organisation and working on different issues – from kayaking to informal science communities. Working with communities in Louisiana with experience of the Bucket Brigade issues with refineries. Using data that was captured from community effort and then thinking what the data will be used for. The BP spills provided an opportunity to mapping reports of the experience from it in the Gulf. Ushahidi wasn’t a good tool – giving information without the ability to respond. Started doing community “satellites” – balloon and kites mapping 2000-300 fit to capture the situation and that is because there was a restriction of flying over the area. Building with it a robust archive of information of community views. Public Lab is about making technology useful: for an actionable purpose, top-down citizen science, and establishing alternatives.

Dinesh Abrol | JNU-STEPS, India – journey as people science movement activists since 1975. State led science is much practised. In parallel to other activities in different countries, with rural science. Kerala model worked on mobilising science teachers and educating and it led to a movement in 10 states after 1984 – Bophal was an important catalyst and creating science activism that is done in people’s language, abuse of science and technology in pesticides and chemical releases. Not only observe and passively react in mainstream science and technologies but also create new institutions and programmes: a new notion of development itself. There was lots of local knowledge and artisan abilities and started on how to upgrade capabilities, especially the lower class. Taking from the freedom movement ideas and engage with it. Principles: science be reflexive, responsible innovation, encourage participation of all stakeholders (also through All India Science Network), balancing and changing power relationships. Then developing and transforming science capacity, and need to understand the decolonisation – and lots of learning since the 1930s. Need to understand and deal with new colonialism through science.

Muki Haklay | University College London, United Kingdom – covered the background participatory mapping and ExCiteS, and the use of values and STS in our work. In particular, the progression from Public Access to Environmental information to PPGIS, then to Citizen Science in environmental justice context, the merging of VGI and understanding of crowdsourcing through engagement with OpenStreetMap, and finally the creation of the ExCiteS group.

C. Shambu Prassad | IRMA, India – started journey in 1984 and influenced by Bophal and went to be a mechanical engineer. Ask question about technology and development and following the People Science Movement. Looked at science and technology paths in India and then moved into learning. Exploration of artisanal techniques of spinning cotton that showed different potentiality of technology and the history of cotton. The history of technology and science can be helped in understanding what we are seeing now, such as the impact of using the America cotton variety in the industrial revolution, which didn’t match the Indian variety. Interest in innovation in the margin, and exploring controversies around issues – we can see dissent and marginality (e.g. soil experts in the green revolution).  Explore how is that starting to change scientific practice. We need to look beyond the citizens and their experiences. Controversies are happing in journal and blocking of publications of a certain type as a way to influence the discourse.

Kelly Moore | Loyola University, United States – trained in looking at social movement and mostly on the structural way. Became interested in political movement that is about knowledge. Some activism aspects in life (bike) and public space movement in NYC, also in Green Mapping project with Wendy Brewer. Involved in a campaign about O’Hare airport and impact and learn about technopolitics and how power get organised and how unions can push it away. Worked on “Know your rights” in videos that are helping people to address issues in surveillance. We haven’t covered enough decolonisation and work for people without power and justice projects, and more scholarship and engagement on understanding on what count as a citizen science. There is lack of engagement with people in the field with scholars in science studies so trying to copy models between places instead of trying to understand local context.

Follow up discussion: Some open issues: to what a city is a great place for mobilisation, and how it addresses global issues. Elements of governance, municipality, NGOs, good public transport, exposure to inequality, public spaces to meet, and social networks. There are examples from Delhi of suburbs that create marginal residency can be very difficult to engage but it is possible to do citizen science. For city and climate change, there are impacts of dredging and worsening impacts of storms. however, the protection is at the city level. Hyperlocal to the regional is critical. Questions about dissent – how to be explicit about the scale in which things are working, and rejecting that the national is always the right level. A city is a geopolitical unit, and the urban might be another way – networks of places that can be linked together. Need to bring in to these issues gender, ethnic – issues of knowledge from the margin (Logan Williams). There are issues of science and what it should be done – e.g. doing a participatory activity to address trauma instead of dealing with infrastructures. There was an example of the hacking air quality sensors that are not represented in marginalised groups, this is something that needs to take ideas of language, funding. The scientists abilities to deal with issues is coming from the political regime, e.g. issues with NGOs funding? Considering the power and considering how to hack the situation and discuss things that they couldn’t discuss without it.

The literature on participatory research, the pedagogy of the oppressedScience & Dissent – Day 2 – Afternoon session, round table and conclusion , participatory mapping are not appearing in the history of science literature.

Science & Dissent – Day 1

The Science and Dissent workshop was held at the University of Geneva on 1st and 2nd June 2018, hosted by the Citizen Sciences group

Welcome and Introduction – Bruno Strasser opened, pointing Why now? When Trump won the election, Bruno felt that “the age of populism is back” – and within is we need to ask what citizen science does? speak truth to power or in the job of undermining the political authority of science? The Trump administration put out untruth from the start with false information about the inauguration  – it was the emergence of “alternative facts”. How we established facts about the natural environment and about the social realm in this environment? The most explicit demonstration came from Ben Carson – “it is important to remember that amateurs built the Ark and it was the professionals that built the Titanic” – it’s a rhetoric that causes concerns. The surprise impact of the Trump administration is the March for Science with statements about “show me the data” as a way to fight populism. The theme of people-powered research – it was taken by platforms like Zooniverse. The focus of the meeting is Counter-expertise. American researchers who are excited about lay people mobilised science to deal with health and environment. In France, theoretical conversations challenge these understanding and argue that it is to challenge science and put it in its place. Citizen Science is part of the topic. We are also talking about “post-deliberative participation” – going beyond the different forums in the 1990s for deliberate about the science and then moving to go after facts. This also links to debates on participation that go back to 1968 discourses.

Collaborative Dissent: Civic Chemistry at the Dawn of Organized Public Health (Melanie A. Kiechle, Virginia Tech, United States) – there was dissent in the 19th Century – concern about odour, asking the Chemist Goldschmidt to identify the source of the smell as it might lead to miasma. By the time he arrived at the home of Mr Turner, the smell died away. At that time, we see the emergence of health boards in cities in the US with the power to regulate. 1860-80 allow the transition of boards, but also recognised roles for citizens and chemists with an opportunity to raise concerns to scientists. Citizens complaints are leading to action by scientists – they have to follow the request, and there is also recognition of different types of knowledge of the urban environment and shared instrumentation – using their noses. Smell is interesting in bringing people together: the dissent is against major industrial practices at the time. Scientists and citizens are against industrial bodies, and the scientists move into government and gain power. There are several examples: 1873 Miller’s River nuisance in Massachusetts, 1877-1878 Chicago “Stink Cases” against fat renderers and the case that was mentioned above in NYC. The instrumentation didn’t create collaboration. Chicago in 1862 had an increased meat production and the stench was too much. Concerns by businessmen that it will impact the people who come to work with them – a chemist (Miller) is studying the issue, but because it took time, citizen became impatient and in the Chicago Tribune “the public nose is just as sure an index”. The creation of the board bring shared language of Chemists and citizens – e.g. Sulphuretted Hydrogen – in July 1873, lead paint darkened overnight: stench became visible as citizens knew that Chemists use paper with lead acetate in their monitoring. The creation of the health board allowed the integration of citizens and chemists involve citizens in demonstration of smelling samples and demonstrate that people can be correct in their smelling. In debates – citizens refute citizens and chemists refute chemists and not cross. This is performative collaboration. Bringing an external consultant in Chicago didn’t worked as well because of the different configuration of relationships between citizen scientists. In NYC, there is an issue of dispute that is coming from another part of the city – methods that were used in NYC include State Board of Health include visiting by people to smell industries, collecting testimony and hiring chemist (Elwin Waller) – the official report start with officials’ experience, citizen testimony quotation and Waller conclusions are in brief. The continuum of knowledge is not expressed in the decision making – officials invited citizens to join the process, the citizens’ knowledge directed health officials to a certain area and the action forced chemists to follow their complaints. Who are the people that are smelling? a lot of people – women report from home and boards of health don’t want to hear from women (they have a “weak constitution” according to the views at the time), many from the middle class but also from labouring and emigrants communities petitions about issues of nuisance. There are issues of access directly to chemists. Later on, chemists started argue that they are better in smelling and detecting smells because of their experience and slowly pushed out the role of citizens. Different views of people in terms of instrumentation and imperviousness to miasma and seeing different races as less or more sensitive to the issue.

Science, Technology and Protests in Grenoble since 1950s (Thomas Lerosier, Université Grenoble Alpes) – Grenoble was an industrial centre that converted into a centre of technology outside Paris. The critique of science change according to the time. Concerns after the war started with nuclear energy and its use. Then in the 1960s it moved to pollution from factories – a growth of Maoist activism that linked to the New Left and focusing on technologies. In the 1970s there was a convergence of protest on the protection of a green area (Green Hill). There was also a major mobilization against Nuclear Power – focusing on a new type of a reactor and against a large scale programme in an area. The Nuclear site – embodied the system of power, the size and the effort. The effort was part of the wider international protest in 1976 – they also included scientific criticism about nuclear programmes. In the 1980s and 1990s the issues move to legal struggle and development of expertise. For example, monitoring of radioactive pollution around a site. In the 2000s, concerns focusing on issues of nanotechnologies – for example, attempts to block the development of a campus effort to develop nanotechnology and arguements that deliberative processes about synthetic biology are biased and unfair in 2013. The critique of techno-science – over the years must adapt to science technology governance strategies, and invest in new ways of protest, and mostly led to tactical shifts from institutions.

Knowledge Swaraj: Public Participation and Citizen Science in India (C. Shambu Prasad, IRMA, India) – writing a citizen manifesto on scientific knowledge. Our understanding of dissent is changing – we have world leaders who are using dissent as a badge of their activities [maybe hijacking  dissent]. The development of policies in India – science, technology and innovation traditionally ignored citizens in the process. usual domination of scientific expertise. It is useful to see Gandhi as a citizen scientists. There was last year a march for science in India and attempt to develop a manifesto for citizen science asking not to mix science and spiritualism – there is an issue of “Self Rule” (Swaraj) from Gandhi and think about what it means to science and technology. In India, this is based on Nehru view that “the future belongs to science” – “it is science alone that can solve the problems of hunger and poverty” (1937) – the constitution calls for a duty of every citizen to develop scientific temper (1976). The Technology vision 2035 is a document that supposed to be people-centric – only as recipients of the fruit of science. The All Indian Network (AISPN) pointed to the need to pay attention to traditional knowledge – traditional Indian doctors pointed that they asked to get respect and validation. There is an ideological split if it is going to be state-led science or market – also concerns over indigenous or grassroots or traditional knowledge, which terminology should be used? Gandhi pointed to the Hind Swaraj (1909) which is seen as Luddite but it is not necessarily so. When Gandhi talk to people: critique of western science and splits of man-nature/fact-value and call for traditional medicine should learn from Western science but integrate it into their practice. He talks about the agency of self, including self-experimentation – science for sacrifice. He also called for rethinking institution as seeing Ashram as a laboratory. Want to see space for science for civil society and reworking axioms on development, progress (e.g. calling for an Ashram to be built from local material). Public participation in science continue from 1948 to 1964 (in a journal called Ambar – in Hindi). Radical critique of science and appropriate technology movement in the 1970s to the 1990s. Colonialism is “argue us out of our experience” so cognitive justice (Viswanathan 2005) about different forms of knowledge. Creative dissent is include construction of alternative forms of participation. This is the background for the Knowledge Swaraj to look at expertise, being open to critiques of science, society vulnerable without pluralist and need to include S&T in civil society (available at https://steps-centre.org/anewmanifesto/manifesto_2010/clusters/cluster5/Indian_Manifesto.pdf) . S&T need to look at justice, plurality and sustainability. The manifesto was enacted by 5 case studies that were community and civil society led – medical, water issues, ecological farming, reconstructing knowledge, and climate change addressing.   There is a need to engage experts, need to socialise science with newer institutions and capacities. Having these dialogue create important connections that universities are acting as brokerages. There is need of technological responsibility – such as recommendations for hysterectomy for rural women need to be done in much more considerations to the context and practice. Innovation needs creative dissent and following Gandhi politics and constructive action to be seen together. In agriculture there is a special scope for dissent and the green revolution has led to control by institution and research, so there is plenty of scope for understanding and opening local practices.

Critics of Science and Medicine in India in the 1970s and 1980s. People’s Science and People’s Health (Mathieu Quet | IRD, France & JNU, India). Suggesting a critique of science and medicine in industrialised countries in the 1970s and a critique that emerged in the 1970s, but what happened in places like India in comparison to the radical critique in the West. Looks particularly in “Medico Friend Circle Bulletin (1976-1985). In India activities such as People Science Movement (PSM): trust in science but critique lack of communication – science for social revolutions with Bhopal. Influenced by Marxist ideas. The Alternative Science Movement challenges Western science and traditional knowledge. Oppose it with different ways of knowing, highlighting people’s ability to produce knowledge. In the People’s Health Movement (PHM) emerged in the 1960s and connected to PSM, with content that is dedicated to the improvement health care. The critique started with approach of providing medicine to rural zones – the barefoot doctors, an element of Marxist and Christian colleges in it. The Medico Friends Circle is a communication and sharing questions for the PHM. The organisation was loose and keeping discussion simple, and refuse funding but did keep scientific medicine as a core. So discussions deal with different themes – mostly critiquing institutions. Also created alternative hospital and community centres. However, they had tension between traditional and modern medicine: and presenting it in a way that promotes traditional and indigenous medicine (Ayurveda), while the other critiquing medical technocracy with strong debates between them – some oppose the traditional medicine strongly. Attempts to redefine modern and traditional, and hybridisation of practices in the field. The debate was fairly pragmatic more than political or ideological. The convergence point with Western views is the opposition of the industrialisation of medical practice. In comparison to radical critique in France, the Indian case is a mixed argument.

Plastic Speculums and Geiger Counters: Gender of (Dis)Embodied Knowledge in 1970s Protest (Bruno J. Strasser, University of Geneva, Switzerland) – there is periodisation in science that appears in the literature – for example, the role of scientists as: universal intellectual (19th c to 1960) , specific intellectual (1960s- 1970), to counter -expert from the 1980s. Can think about the different shape of protests – from emos to legal action to counter-expertise. The interesting is to move to counter-expertise – different ways in which they can be mobilised by different campaigns. There is also a gender issue – for example in the link between different issues. Women’s liberation movement and anti-nuclear in the 1970s. Thinking on how knowledge is being produced – alternative expertise, compared to counter expertise that uses the same methods and science and doesn’t challenge the method. The Women’s liberation movement was in the 1970s, mostly by lay people that linked to self-help focusing on health issues. The group included people like Rina Nissim which included – trying to capture the power over knowledge, include pelvic self-exams – women who try to learn on their own bodies: collective, subjective, experiential, idiographic, low-tech, domestic, anonymous, and alternative. It was done in domestic place and “practice of self-help seem difficult, but what came out not erotic or medical” so it is done in a way that is addressing the issues of experiences and sharing it with multiplicity. Give ourselves the means to examine issues. Next to it in the archive, Anti-nuclear movement – Superphenix, slow breeder reactor that was developed from 1976. Geneva was a hotbed of mobilisation of concern – started with the campaign against CERN in the 1950s. The ContrAtom – scientists and activists, mostly men. Demonstration that included 1976-1977 some violent. Sabotage took place in 1976 to 1982. Chaim Nissim – one of the activists – shot rocket-propelled grenades at the installation: dissent was seen as masculine. In contrast, scientists mobilise through petition – e.g. letter from CERN 1977: they ask for independent information, public debate and moratorium. A comment pointed that the people trusted the public to see them as experts. They also inform the public – explaining the ignorant public about the risks. They challenge conflict of interest: tainted expertise while science is generally good. Expertise measuring nature, technology and people. One report that demonstrates this about the safety of the factory. The counter expertise is to create “indepndent” expertise, and contracting with an independent expert. The mobilised scientists to which they delegate expertise, or getting a German professor. The strategy is confronting experts – at no time have discussed the health or other impacts, only discrediting official experts.

Different modes and temporalities of alternative/counter-expertise? there is a connection here between knowledge and gender, and how the counter-expertise depoliticise technological choices? Did the independent expertise protect science from a reflexive moment?

 

Counter and alternative are categories – counter: play by the rule and use the same approach, alternative: changing the rules of the game.