Alan Irwin talk on Citizen Science and Scientific Citizenship (JRC, October 2015)

The EU Joint Research Centre in Ispra has recently released the recording of a talk by Alan Irwin at the Joint Research Centre as part of the STS “Contro  Corrente” series of seminars from 15 October 2015, with Jerome Ravetz and Silvio Funtowicz (famous for their post-normal science) as discussants. The talk, titled Citizen Science and Scientific Citizenship: same words, different meanings? is using the two keynotes at the Citizen Science Association 2015 conference (by Chris Filardi and Amy Robinson) as a starting point for a discussion about the relationships of citizen science to scientific citizenship.

If you are interested in the wider place of citizen science within the scientific enterprise, this seminar is an opportunity to hear from 3 people who thought about this for a long time (and their work influenced my thinking). It’s very much worth to spend the time to follow the whole discussion).

Two very valuable points from Irwin’s talk are, first, the identification ‘that the defining characteristics of citizen science is its location at the point where public participation and knowledge production – or societal context and epistemology – meet‘.

Secondly, the identification that scientific citizenship is having the following characteristics – focus on sociotechnical futures with specifically asking question about the relationship between knowledge and democracy; which highlights the political economy of knowledge and the changing nature of citizenship as practised engagement.

Also valuable is the linkage of knowledge, power, and justice and how these play out in citizen science in its different forms.

I’ll admit that I was especially interested in the way that my model of participation in citizen science was used in this seminar. However, having a blog is also an opportunity to respond to some of the points that were discussed in the seminar!

First, Alan Irwin note that scientific citizenship does not happen at the top level of participation but throughout the levels. This is something that I’m emphasising in every talk in which I use this model. As Silvio Funtowicz correctly identified, the model is (yet another) borrowing from Sherry Arnstein ladder of participation as I clearly indicated. However, it is wrong to put the value judgement that is at the centre of Arnstein analysis of participation into citizen science – there might be just as much engagement in volunteer computing as in ‘extreme’ citizen science.

Second, Funtowicz commented that the equivalent of ‘extreme citizen science’ in Arnstein ladder does not reach very high level of participation. I disagree. Arnstein top level is ‘Citizen Control, have-not citizens obtain the majority of decision-making seats, or full managerial power’. If in citizen science project we shift into more equal mode of knowledge production where the project is shaped by all participants, especially marginalised ones, and the scientists working as facilitators in service of the community, aren’t we at the same place?

 

Extreme Citizen Science in Esri ArcNews

The winter edition of Esri ArcNews (which according to Mike Gould of Esri, is printed in as many copies as Forbes) includes an article on the activities of the Extreme Citizen Science group in supporting indigenous groups in mapping. The article highlights the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) aspects of the work, and mentioning many members of the group.

You can read it here: http://www.esri.com/esri-news/arcnews/winter16articles/mapping-indigenous-territories-in-africa

UCL Institute for Global Prosperity Talk: Extreme Citizen Science – Current Developments

The slides below are from a talk that I gave today at UCL Institute for Global Prosperity

The abstract for the talk is:

With a growing emphasis on civil society-led change in diverse disciplines, from International Development to Town Planning, there is an increasing demand to understand how institutions might work with the public effectively and fairly.

Extreme Citizen Science is a situated, bottom-up practice that takes into account local needs, practices and culture and works with broad networks of people to design and build new devices and knowledge creation processes that can transform the world.

In this talk, I discussed the work of UCL Extreme Citizen Science group within the wider context of the developments in the field of citizen science. I covered the work that ExCiteS has already done, currently developing and plans for the future.

Eye on Earth (Day 2 – Morning) – moving to data supply

Eye on Earth (Day 2 – Morning) – moving to data supply The second day of Eye on Earth moved from data demand to supply . You can find my posts from day one, with the morning and the afternoon sessions. I have only partial notes on the plenary Data Revolution-data supply side, although I’ve posted separately the slides from my talk. The description of the session stated: The purpose of the the session is to set the tone and direction for the “data supply” theme of the 2nd day of the Summit. The speakers focused on the revolution in data – the logarithmic explosion both in terms of data volume and of data sources. Most importantly, the keynote addresses will highlight the undiscovered potential of these new resources and providers to contribute to informed decision-making about environmental, social and economic challenges faced by politicians, businesses, governments, scientists and ordinary citizens.

The session was moderated by Barbara J. Ryan (GEO) the volume of data that was download in Landsat demonstrate the information revolution. From 53 scene/day to 5700 scene/day once it became open data – demonstrate the power of open. Now there are well over 25 million downloads a year. There is a similar experience in Canada, and there are also new and innovative ways to make the data accessible and useful.

The first talk was from Philemon Mjwara (GEO), the amount of data is growing and there is an increasing demand for Earth Observations, but even in the distilled form of academic publications there is an explosion and it’s impossible to read everything about your field. Therefore we need to use different tools – search engines, article recommendation systems. This is also true for EO data – users need the ability to search, then process and only then they can use the information. This is where GEO come in. It’s about comprehensive, effective and useful information. GEO works with 87 participating organisations. They promote Open Data policies across their membership, as this facilitate creation of a global system of systems (GEOSS). GEOSS is about supply, and through the GEO infrastructure it can be share with many users. We need to remember that the range of sources is varied: from satellite, to aerial imagery, to under-sea rovers. GEO works across the value chain – the producers, value added organisation and the users. An example of this working is in analysis that helps to link information about crops to information about potential vulnerability in food price.

Mary Glackin (the Weather Corporation), reviewed how weather data is making people safer and business smarter. The Weather Company is about the expression of climate in the patterns of weather. Extreme events make people notice. Weather is about what happen in the 100 km above the Earth surface, but also the 3.6 km average depth of the oceans, which we don’t properly observe yet and have an impact on weather. There are 3 Challenges: keep people safe, helping businesses by forecasting, and engage with decision makers. Measuring the atmosphere and the oceans is done by many bodies which go beyond official bodies – now it includes universities, companies, but also citizens observations which is done across the world (through Weather Underground). The participants, in return, receive a localised forecast for their area and details of nearby observations. It’s a very large citizen science project, and engagement with citizen scientists is part of their work. Forecasting require complex computer modelling – and they produce 11 Billion forecasts a day. Engaging decision makers can be individual fisherman who need to decide if to go out to sea or not. There is a need for authoritative voice that create trust when there are critical issues such as response to extreme events. Another example is the use of information about turbulence from airplanes which are then used to improve modelling and provide up to date information to airlines to decide on routes and operations. Technology is changing – for example, smartphones now produce air pressure data and other sensing abilities that can be used for better modelling. There are policies that are required to enable data sharing. While partnerships between government and private sector companies. A good example is NOAA agreeing to share all their data with cloud providers (Microsoft, Amazon, Google) on the condition that the raw data will be available to anyone to download free of charge, but the providers are free to create value added services on top of the data.

Next was my talk, for which a summary and slide are available in a separate post.

Chris Tucker (MapStory) suggested that it is possible to empower policy makers with open data. MapStory is an atlas of changes that anyone can edit, as can be seen in the development of a city, or the way enumeration district evolved over time. The system is about maps, although the motivation to overlay information and collect it can be genealogy – for example to be able to identify historical district names. History is a good driver to understand the world, for example maps that show the colonisation of Africa. The information can be administrative boundaries, imagery or environmental information. He sees MapStory as a community. Why should policy makers care? they should because ‘change is the only constant’, and history help us in understanding how we got here, and think about directions for the future. Policy need to rely on data that is coming from multiple sources – governmental sources, NGOs, or citizens’ data. There is a need for a place to hold such information and weave stories from it. Stories are a good way to work out the decisions that we need to make, and also allow ordinary citizens to give their interpretation on information. In a way, we are empowering people to tell story.

The final talk was from Mae Jemison (MD and former astronaut). She grow up during a period of radical innovations, both socially and scientifically – civil rights, new forms or dance, visions of a promising future in Start Trek, and the Apollo missions. These have led her to get to space in a Shuttle mission in 1992, during which she was most of the time busy with experiments, but from time to time looked out of the window, to see the tiny sliver of atmosphere around the Earth, within which whole life exist. Importantly, the planet doesn’t need protection – the question is: will humans be in the future of the planet? Every generation got a mission, and ours is to see us linked to the totality of Earth – life, plants and even minerals. Even if we create a way to travel through space, the vast majority of us will not get off this planet. So the question is: how do we get to the extraordinary? This lead us to look at data, and we need to be aware that while there is a lot of it, it doesn’t necessarily mean information, and information doesn’t mean wisdom. She note that in medical studies data (from test with patients) have characteristics of specificity (relevant to the issue at hand) and sensitivity (can it measure what we want to measure?). We tend to value and act upon what we can measure, but we need to consider if we are doing it right. Compelling data cause us to pay attention, and can lead to action. Data connect us across time and understanding a universe grater that ourselves, as the pictures from Hubble telescope that show the formation of stars do. These issues are coming together in her current initiative “100 years starship” – if we aim to have an interstellar ship built within the next 100 years, we will have to think about sustainability, life support and ecosystems in a way that will help us solve problems here on Earth. It is about how to have an inclusive journey to make transformation on Earth. She completed her talk by linking art, music and visualisation with the work of Bella Gaia

After the plenary, the session Data for Sustainable Development was building on the themes from the plenary. Some of the talks in the session were:

Louis Liebenberg presented cybertracker – showing how it evolved from early staged in the mid 1990s to a use across the world. The business model of cybertracker is such that people can download it for free, but it mostly used off-line in many places, with majority of the users that use it as local tool. This raise issues of data sharing – data doesn’t go beyond that the people who manage the project. Cybertracker address the need to to extend citizen science activities to a whole range of participants beyond the affluent population that usually participate in nature observations.

Gary Lawrence – discussed how with Big Data we can engage the public in deciding which problem need to be resolved – not only the technical or the scientific community. Ideas will emerge within Big Data that might be coincident or causality. Many cases are coincidental. The framing should be: who are we today? what are we trying to become? What has to be different two, five, ten years from now if we’re going to achieve it? most organisations don’t even know where they are today. There is also an issue – Big Data: is it driven by a future that people want. There are good examples of using big data in cities context that take into account the need of all groups – government, business and citizens in Helsinki and other places.

B – the Big Data in ESPA experience www.espa.ac.uk – data don’t have value until they are used. International interdisciplinary science for ecosystems services for poverty alleviation programme. Look at opportunities, then the challenges. Opportunities: SDGs are articulation of a demand to deliver benefits to societal need for new data led solution for sustainable development, with new technologies: remote sensing / UAVs, existing data sets, citizen science and mobile telephony, combined with open access to data and web-based applications. Citizen Science is also about empowering communities with access to data. We need to take commitments to take data and use it to transforming life.

Discussion: lots of people are sitting on a lots of valuable data that are considered as private and are not shared. Commitment to open data should be to help in how to solve problems in making data accessible and ensure that it is shared. We need to make projects aware that the data will be archived and have procedures in place, and also need staff and repositories. Issue is how to engage private sector actors in data sharing. In work with indigenous communities, Louis noted that the most valuable thing is that the data can be used to transfer information to future generations and explain how things are done.

Eye on Earth Summit 2015 talk – Extreme Citizen Science – bridging local & global

Thanks to the organisers of the Eye on Earth Summit, I had an opportunity to share the current state of technological developments within the Extreme Citizen Science (ExCiteS) group with the audience of the summit: people who are interested in the way environmental information sharing can promote sustainability.

The talk, for which the slides are provided below is made of two parts. The first is an overview of current citizen science and where are the extremities of current practice, and the second covering the current state of development of the technological work that crease the tools, methodologies and techniques to allow any community, regardless of literacy, to develop their own citizen science projects.

I have addressed the issues at the beginning of the talk in earlier talks (e.g. the UCL Lunch Hour Lecture) but now found a way to express them in several brief slides which demonstrate the changes in science and education levels in the general population as an important trends that powers current citizen science. If we look at early science (roughly until the early 19th Century), professional science (roughly from the middle of the 19th Century all the way throughout the 20th Century) and the opening of science in the past decade, we can see an ongoing increase in the level of education in the general population, and this leads to different types of participation in citizen science – you couldn’t expect more than methodological basic data collection  by volunteers in the early 20th Century, while today you can find many people who have good grasp of scientific principles and are inherently sharing data that they are interested in.

After exploring the limits of current citizen science in terms of the scientific process and levels of education that are expected from participants, I turn to our definition of extreme citizen science, and then focus on the need to create technologies that are fit for use within participatory processes that take into account local and cultural sensitivities, needs and wishes about the use of the data. In particular, I’m explaining the role of Sapelli and its use with participatory processes in the Congo basin, Amazon and potentially in Namibia. I then explain the role of GeoKey in providing an infrastructure that can support community mapping, ending with the potential of creating visualisation tools that can be used by non-literate participants.

The slides are available below.

Citizen Cyberlab Summit (day 2)

DSCN1165The second day of the Citizen Cyberlab Summit followed the same pattern of the first day: Two half day sessions, in each one short presentations from guest speakers from outside the project consortium, followed by two demonstrations of specific platform, tool, pilot or learning, and ending with discussion in groups, which were then shared back.

The first session started with History of Citizen Sciences – Bruno Strasser (Uni Geneva) – looking at both practical citizen science and the way it is integrated into the history of science. The Bioscope is a place in Geneva that allowing different public facing activities in the medical and life science: biodiversity, genetic research etc. They are developing new ways of doing microscopy – a microscope which is sharing the imagery with the whole room so it is seen on devices and on turning the microscope from solitary experience to shared one. They are involved in biodiversity research that is aimed to bar-coding DNA of different insects and animals. People collect data, extract DNA and sequence it, and then share it in a national database. Another device that they are using is a simple add-on that turns a smartphone can be turned into powerful macro camera, so children can share images on instagram with bioscope hashtag. They also do ‘Sushi night’ where they tell people what fish you ate if at all…
This link to a European Research Council (ERC) project  – the rise of citizen sciences – on the history of the movement. Is there something like ‘citizen sciences’? From history of science perspective, in the early 20c the amateur scientist is passing and professionals are replacing it. He use a definition of citizen science as amateurs producing scientific knowledge – he is not interested in doing science without the production of knowledge. He noted that there are a lot of names that are used in citizen science research. In particular, the project focus is on experimental sciences – and that because of the laboratory revolution of the 1930s which dominated the 20th century. The lab science created the divide between the sciences and the public (Frankenstein as a pivotal imagery is relevant here). Science popularisation was trying to bridge the gap to the public, but the rise in experimental sciences was coupled with decline of public participation. His classification looks at DIYbio to volunteer computing – identifying observers, analysers etc. and how they become authors of scientific papers. Citizen science is taken by the shift in science policy to science with and for society. Interest in the promises that are attached to it: scientific, educational (learning more about science) and political (more democratic). It’s interesting because it’s an answer to ‘big data’, to the contract of science and society, expertise, participation and democratisation. The difference is demonstrated in the French response following Chernobyl in 1986, with presentation by a leading scientists in France that the particle will stop at the border of France, compared that to Deep Horizon in 2010 with participatory mapping through public lab activities that ‘tell a different story’. In the project, there are 4 core research question: how citizen science transform the relationship between science and society? who are the participants in the ‘citizen sciences’ – we have some demographic data, but no big picture – collective biography of people who are involved in it. Next, what is the ‘moral economies’ that sustain the citizen sciences? such as the give and take that people get out of project and what they want. Motivations and rewards. Finally, how do citizen sciences impact the production of knowledge? What is possible and what is not. He plan to use approaches from digital humanities process. He will build up the database about the area of citizen science, and look at Europe, US and Asia. He is considering how to run it as participatory project. Issues of moral economies are demonstrated in the BOINC use in commercial project. 

Lifelong learning & DIY AFM – En-Te Hwu (Edwin) from Academia Sinica, Taiwan). There are different ways of doing microscopy at different scales – in the past 100 years, we have the concept of seeing is believing, but what about things that we can’t see because of the focused light of the microscope – e.g. under 1 micron. This is possible with scanning electron microscope which costs 500K to 2M USD, and can use only conductive samples, which require manipulation of the sample. The Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) is more affordable 50K to 500K USD but still out of reach to many. This can be used to examine nanofeatures – e.g. carbon nanotubes – we are starting to have higher time and spatial resolution with the more advanced systems. Since 2013, the LEGO2NANO project started – using the DVD head to monitor the prob and other parts to make the AFM affordable. They put an instructable prototype that was mentioned by the press and they called it DIY AFM. They created an augmented reality tool to guide people how to put the device together, and it can be assembled by early high school students – moving from the clean room to the class room.  The tool is being used to look at leafs, CDs – area of 8×8 microns and more. The AFM data can be used with 3D printing – they run a summer school in 2015 and now they have a link to LEGO foundation. They are going through a process of reinventing the DIY AFM, because of patenting and intellectual property rights (IPR) – there is a need to rethink how to do it. They started to rethink the scanner, the control and other parts. They share the development process (using building process platform of MIT media lab). There is a specific application of using the AFM for measuring air pollution at PM2.5. using a DVD – exposing the DVD by removing the protection layer, exposing it for a period of time and then bringing it and measuring the results. They combined the measurements to crowdcrafting for analysis. The concept behind the AFM is done by using LEGO parts, and scanning the Lego points as a demonstration, so students can understand the process. 

wpid-wp-1442566370890.jpgThe morning session included two demonstrations. First, Creativity in Citizen Cyberscience – Charlene Jennett  (UCLIC, UCL) – Charlene is interested in psychological aspects of HCI. Creativity is a challenge in the field of psychology. Different ideas of what is creativity – one view is that it’s about eureka moment as demonstrated in Foldit breakthrough. However, an alternative is to notice everyday creativity of doing thing that are different, or not thought off original. In cyberlab, we are looking at different projects that use technologies and different context. In the first year, the team run interviews with BOINC, Eyewire, transcribe Bentham, Bat Detective, Zooniverse and Mapping for Change – a wide range of citizen science projects. They found many examples  – volunteers drawing pictures of the ships that they were transcribing in Old Weather, or identifying the Green Peas in Galaxy zoo which was a new type of galaxy. There are also creation of chatbots about their work -e.g. in EyeWire to answer questions, visualisation of information, creating dictionaries and further information. The finding showed that the link was about motivation leading to creativity to help the community or the project. They created the model of linking motivation, learning through participation, and volunteer identity that lead to creativity. The tips for projects include: feedback on project progress at individual and project level, having regular communication – forum and social media, community events – e.g. competitions in BOINC, and role management – if you can see someone is doing well, then encourage them to take more responsibility. The looked at the different pilots of Cyberlab – GeoTag-X, Virtual Atom Smasher, Synthetic Biology through iGEM and Extreme Citizen Science. They interview 100 volunteers. Preliminary results – in GeoTag-X, the design of the app is seen as the creative part, while for the analysts there are some of the harder tasks – e.g. the georeferencing of images and sharing techniques which lead to creative solutions. In the iGEM case they’ve seen people develop games and video. in the ExCiteS cases, there is DIY and writing of blog posts and participants being expressive about their own work. There are examples of people creating t-Shirt, or creating maps that are appropriate for their needs.They are asking questions about other projects and how to design for creativity. It is interesting to compare the results of the project to the definition of creativity in the original call for the project. The cyberlab project is opening up questions about creativity more than answering them. 

wpid-wp-1442679548581.jpgPreliminary Results from creativity and learning survey – Laure Kloetzer (university of Geneva). One of the aims of Citizen Cyberlab was to look at different aspects of creativity. The project provided a lot of information from a questionnaire about learning and creativity in citizen science. The general design of the questionnaire was to learn the learning outcomes. Need to remember that out of the whole population, small group participate in citizen science – and within each project, there is a tiny group of people that do most of the work (down to 16 in Transcribed Bentham) and the question of how people turn from the majority, who do very little work to highly active participants is unknown, yet. In Citizen Cyberlab we carried out interviews with participants in citizen science projects, which led to a typology of learning outcomes – which are lot wider than those that are usually expected or discussed in the literature – but they didn’t understand what people actually learn. The hypothesis is that people who engage with the community can learn more than those that doesn’t – the final questionnaire of the project try to quantify learning outcomes (informal learning in citizen science – ILICS survey). The questionnaire was tested in partial pilot. Sent to people in volunteer computing, volunteer thinking and others types. They had about 700 responses, and the analysis only started. Results – age group of participants is diverse from 20-70, but need to analyse it further according to projects. Gender – 2/3 male, third female, and 20% of people just have high school level of education, with 40% with master degree or more – large minority of people have university degree. They got people from 64 countries – US, UK, Germany and France are the main ones (the survey was translated to French). Science is important to most, and a passion for half, and integrated in their profession (25% of participants). Time per week – third of people spend less than 1 hour, and 70% spend 1-5 hours – so the questionnaire captured mostly active people. Results on learning – explore feeling, what people learn, how they learn and confidence (based on the typology from previous stages of the project). The results show that – people who say that they learn something to a lot, and most people accept that they learn on-topic knowledge (about the domain itself – 88%), scientific skills (80%), technological skills (61%), technical skills (58%), with political, collaboration skills and communication skills in about 50% of the cases. The how question – people learn most from project documentation (75%) but also by external resources (70%). Regarding social engagement, about 11% take part in the community, and for 61% it’s the first time in their life that they took such a role. There are different roles – translation, moderating forums with other things in the community that were not recognised in the questionnaire. 25% said that they met people online to share scientific interests – opportunity to share and meet new people. Learning dimensions and types of learners – some people feel that they learn quite a lot about various things, while others focus on specific types of learning. wpid-wp-1442679528037.jpgPrincipal Component Analysis show that learner types correlate with different forms of engagement – more time spent correlate to specific type of learner. There are different dimensions of learning that are not necessarily correlate. The cluster analysis show about 10 groups – people who learn a lot on-topic and about science with increase self-confidence. Second group learn on topic but not much confidence. Group 3, like 2 but less perception of learning. Group 4 don’t seem to learn much but prefer looking at resources. 5 learn somewhat esp about computers. 6 learn through other means. 7 learn by writing and communicating, collaborating and some science. 8 learn only about tools, but have general feeling of learning. 9 learn on topic but not transferable and 10 learn a lot on collaboration and communication – need to work more on this, but these are showing the results and the raw data will be shared in December. 

DSCN1160Following the presentation, the group discussion first explored examples of creativity from a range of projects. In crowdcrafting, when people are not active for a month, they get email with telling them that they will be deleted – one participant created activities that link to the project – e.g. tweeting from a transcriptions from WW I exactly 100 years after it happen. In Cornell Lab of Ornithology, volunteers suggest new protocols and tasks about the project – new ways of modifying things. In the games of ScienceatHome are targeted specifically to explore when problem solving become creative – using the tools and explaining to the researchers how they solve issues. In WCG one volunteered that create graphics from the API that other volunteers use and expect now to see it as part of the project. There is a challenge to project coordinators what to do with such volunteers – should they be part of the core project?
Next, there are questions about roles – giving the end users enough possibilities is one option, while another way is to construct modularising choices, to allow people to combine them in different ways. In ScienceatHome they have decided to put people into specific modes so consciously changing activities. There is wide variety of participants – some want to be fairly passive and low involvement, while other might want to do much more. Also creativity can express itself in different forms, which are not always seem linked to the project. The learning from Citizen Cyberlab is that there isn’t simple way of linking creativity and capture it in computer software, but that you need organisational structure and most importantly, awareness to look out for it and foster it to help it develop. Having complementarity – e.g. bringing game people and science people to interact together is important to creativity. Another point is to consider is to what degree people progress across citizen science projects and type of activities – the example of Rechenkraft.net that without the hackspace it was not possible to make things happen. So it’s volunteers + infrastructure and support that allow for creativity to happen. There are also risks – creating something that you didn’t know before – ignorance – in music there isn’t much risk, but in medical or synthetic biology there can be risks and need to ask if people are stopping their creativity when they see perceived risks.

wpid-wp-1442679513070.jpgThe final session of the summit was dedicated to Evaluation and Sustainability. Starting with The DEVISE project – Tina Philips (Cornell Lab of Ornithology). Tina is involved in the public engagement part of Cornell Lab of Ornithology . Starting from the work on the 2009 of the Public Participation in Scientific Research (PPSR) report – the finding from the CAISE project that scarcity of evaluations, higher engagement suggested deeper learning, and need for a more sensitive measures and lack of overall finding that relate to many projects. The DEVISE project (Developing, Validating, and Implementing Situated Evaluation Instruments) focused on evaluation in citizen science overall – identifying goals and outcomes, building professional opportunities for people in the field of informal learning, and creating a community of practice around this area. Evaluation is about improving the overall effectiveness of programmes and projects. Evaluation is different from research as it is trying to understand strengths and weaknesses of the specific case and is less about universal rules – it’s the localised learning that matter. In DEVISE, they particularly focused on individual learning outcomes. The project used literature review, interviews  with participants, project leaders and practitioners to understand their experience. They looked at a set of different theories of learning. This led to a framework for evaluating PPSR learning outcomes. The framework includes aspects such as interest in science & the environment, self efficacy, motivation, knowledge of the nature of science, skills of science inquiry, and behaviour & stewardship. They also develop scales – short surveys that allow to examine specific tools – e.g. survey about interest in science and nature or survey about self-efficacy for science. There is a user guide for project evaluators that allow to have plan, implement and share guidance. There is a logic model for evaluation that includes Inputs, activities, outputs, short-term and long-term impacts. It is important to note that out of these, usually short and long terms outcomes are not being evaluated. Tina’s research looked at citizen science engagement, and understand how they construct science identity. Together with Heidi Ballard, they looked at contributory, collaborative and co-created projects – including Nestwatch, CoCoRaHS, and Global Community Monitor. They had 83 interviews from low , medium and high contributors and information from project leaders. The data analysis is using qualitative analysis methods and tools (e.g. Nvivo). The interview asked about engagement and what keep participants involved and asking about memorable aspects of their research involvement. There are all sort of extra activities that people bring into interviews – in GCM people say ‘it completely changes the way that they respond to us and actually how much time they even give us because previously without that data, without something tangible’ – powerful experiences through science. The interviews that were coded show that data collection, communicating with others and learning protocols are very common learning outcomes. About two-third of interviewees are also involved in exploring the data, but smaller group analyse and interpret it. Majority of people came with high interest in science, apart of the people who are focused on local environmental issues of water or air quality. Lower engagers tend to feel less connected to the project – and some crave more social outlets. The participants have a strong understanding of citizen science and their role in it. Data transparency is both a barrier and facilitator – participants want to know what is done with their data. QA/QC is important personally and organisationally important. Participants are engaged in wide range of activities beyond the project itself. Group projects may have more impact than individual projects.
Following the presentation, the discussion explore the issue of data – people are concerned about how the data is used, and what is done with it even if they won’t analyse it themselves. In eBird, you can get your raw data, and checking the people that used the data there is the issue of the level in which those who download the data understand how to use it in an appropriate way. 

wpid-wp-1442679499689.jpgThe final guest presentation was Agroecology as citizen science – Peter Hanappe (Sony Computer Science Lab, Paris).  Peter is interested in sustainability, and in previous projects he was involved in working on accessibility issues for people who use wheelchair, the development of NoiseTube, or porting ClimatePrediction BOINC framework to PlayStation, and reducing energy consumption in volunteer computing. In his current work he looks at sustainability in food systems. Agroecology is the science of sustainable agriculture, through reducing reliance on external inputs – trying to design productive ecosystems that produce food. Core issues include soil health and biodiversity, with different ways of implementing systems that will keep them productive. The standard methods of agriculture don’t apply, and need to understand local conditions and the practice of agroecology is very knowledge intensive. Best practices are not always studied scientifically – with many farms in the world that are small (below 2 hectares, 475 millions farms across the world). There are more than 100M households around the world that grow food.  This provide the opportunity for citizen science – each season can be seen as an experiment, with engaging more people and asking them to share information so the knowledge slowly develops to provide all the needed details. Part of his aim is to develop new, free tools and instruments to facilitate the study of agroecology. This can be a basic set with information about temperature and humidity or more complex. The idea to have local community and remote community that share information on a wiki to learn how to improve. Together with a group of enthusiasts that he recruited in Paris, they run CitizenSeeds where they tried different seeds in a systematic way – for example, with a fixed calendar of planting and capturing information People took images and shared information online. The information included how much sunlight plants get and how much humidity the soil have. on p2pfoodlab.net they can see information in a calendar form. They had 80 participants this year. Opportunity for citizen science – challenges include community building, figuring out how much of it is documentation of what worked, compared to experimentation – what are the right way to carry out simple, relevant, reproducible experiments. Also if there is focus on soil health, we need multi-year experiments.  


I opened the last two Demonstrations of the session with a description of the 
Extreme Citizen Science pilots – starting similarly to the first presentation of the day, it is useful to notice the three major period in science (with regard to public participation). First, the early period of science when you needed to be wealthy to participate – although there are examples like Mary Anning, who. for gender, religion and class reasons was not accepted within the emerging scientific establishment as an equal, and it is justified to describe her as citizen scientists, although in full time capacity. However, she’s the exception that point to the rule. More generally, not only science was understood by few, but also the general population had very limited literacy, so it was difficult to engage with them in joint projects. During the period of professional science, there are a whole host of examples for volunteer data collection – from phenology to meteorology and more. As science became more professional, the role of volunteered diminished, and scientists looked for automatic sensors as more reliable mean to collect information. At the same time, until the late 20th century, most of the population had limited education – up to high school mostly, so the tasks that they were asked to perform were limited to data collection. In the last ten years, there are many more people with higher education – especially in industrialised societies, and that is part of the opening of citizen science that we see now. They can participate much more deeply in projects.
Yet, with all these advances, citizen science is still mostly about data collection and basic analysis, and also targeted at the higher levels of education within the population. Therefore, Extreme Citizen Science is about the extremities of citizen science practice – engage people in the whole scientific process, allow them to shape data collection protocols, collect and analyse the data, and use it in ways that suit their goals. It is also important to engage people from all levels of literacy, and to extend it geographically across the world.
The Extreme Citizen Science (ExCiteS) group is developing methodologies that are aimed at facilitating this vision. Tool like GeoKey, which is part of the Cyberlab project, facilitate community control over the data and decision what information is shared and with whom. Community Maps, which are based on GeoKey are way to allow community data collection and visualisation, although there is also a link to EpiCollect, so mobile data collection is possible and then GeoKey managed the information.
These tools can be used for community air quality monitoring, using affordable and accessible methods (diffusion tubes and borrowed black carbon monitors), but also the potential of creating a system that will be suitable for people with low level of literacy. Another pilot project that was carried out in Cyberlab included playshops and exploration of scientific concepts through engagement and play. This also include techniques from Public Lab such as kite and balloon mapping, with potential of linking the outputs to community maps through GeoKey. 

 Finally, CCL Tracker was presented by Jose Luis Fernandez-Marquez (CERN) – the motivations to create the CCL tracker is the need to understand more about participants in citizen cyberscience projects and what they learn. Usual web analytics  provide information about who is visiting the site, how they are visiting and what they are doing. Tools like Google analytics – are not measuring what people do on websites. We want to understand how the 20% of the users doing 80% of the work in citizen cyberscience projects and that require much more information. Using an example of Google Analytics from volunteer computing project, we can see about 16K sessions, 8000 users, from 108 countries and 400 sessions per day. Can see that most are males – we can tell which route they arrived to the website, etc. CCL tracker help to understand the actions performed in the site and measure participants contribution. Need to be able to make the analytics data public and create advanced data aggregation – clustering it so it is not disclosing unwanted details about participants. CCL tracker library work together with Google tag manager and Google analytics. There is also Google Super Proxy to share the information. 

Science-Society Dialogue – from Citizen Science to Co-Design (ICCB/ECCB 2015 – Day 4)

The final day of the ICCB/ECCB 2015 (see my notes on citizen science sessions from Day 1, Day 2 and Day 3) included a symposium that was organised by Aletta Bonn and members of the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) to explore the wider context of citizen science. The symposium title was Science-Society Dialogue – From Citizen Science To Co-Design. The 6 talks of the session (including mine) were:

Lucy Robinson - 10 principlesTen principles of citizen science: Sharing best practice amongst the citizen science community – Lucy Robinson (NHM) – the London NHM have been active in citizen science for the past 10 years, though indirectly for much longer. They see the importance of developing citizen science as a field, and especially through networks such as ECSA – a network of different people who are involved in citizen science – advancing the field and sharing knowledge. There are different definitions of citizen science, but it is important to think about best practices, and part of the work in ECSA Lucy leads the effort to share best practice. This includes the development of the 10 principles of citizen science, which can be summarised as:
1. Involve citizens in the process in a meaningful way.
2. Activities should have a genuine science outcomes.
3. All involved should benefit.
4. Citizen scientists may participate in multiple stages of the scientific process.
5. Providing feedback to participants.
6. Citizen science should be considered as a research approach and understanding. the limitations, biases and not over estimating what is possible.
7. Data and metadata should be made available and results should be open access.
8. acknowledging participants in results.
9. need for evaluation for scientific output, data quality, participant experience and wider social and policy impacts.
10. Need to pay attention to legal and ethical issues of copyright, IP, data sharing, confidentiality, attribution, and environmental impacts.
The ten principles are open to development over time and the aim of having that is to help with the challenges in the field – such as duplication of efforts, mixed messages, and there are opportunities for collaborations and partnerships. They can help new joiners to start with best practices. There are other tools to improve the work of practitioners – including the 2012 guide on understanding citizen science & environmental monitoring which covered 150 projects. The report identified that one size doesn’t fit all and they identified that projects need to learn from others. There are guides for BioBlitzes and how to conduct them, and there are guides for choosing citizen science, evaluation tools from CLO (See Tina Philipps talk from yesterday).

Helen Roy - 51 years of BRCIn Celebrating 50 years of the biological records centre – Helen Roy covered the history fo the UK Biological Record Centre (BRC). The BRC coordinates 85 recording schemes and societies in the UK which are covering wide range of taxa, with publications of atlases in different topics that are covered by these programmes. The people who are involved in these schemes provide a lot of data, and to celebrate it there is a several papers on the 50 years of the BRC in the Biological Journal. Biological recording have developed with different ways – biological recording don’t have a specific scientific aims – just passion about collecting and identifying the different taxa. The national schemes are diverse – from 500 members of a bees, wasps & ants recording charity or a leafhoppers society that is more ad-hoc, to the completely ad-hoc ladybird recording survey, with 17,000 recorders. All the different schemes are lead by an individual, but involved a wide variety of people and there are now programmes that are involving many young people, which is important for the future of recording. There are mutual benefits – the recorders provide information but they get tools that help them – even stacking envelopes and sending newsletters, as well as data management, website design, editing atlases etc. The BRC is benefits from working with wide range of volunteer experts, and use the data for many purposes. The core activity is to create the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) – collect, review, share, publish and integrate the information. There are different technologies that support it from iRecord to NBN Gateway. Examples of how the Data was used include the analysis of invasion of alien species, as well as predictions of invasive species, informing UK biodiversity indicators, demonstrating impacts of climate change and modelling future distributions. The environmental challenges require a lot of data, and through this extensive community. (summary of her previous talk on the history of BRC at the BES 2014 )

Marisa Ponti - OER valuePotential of digital technologies to enhance openness in learning and science – Marisa Ponti – many citizen science project still happen off line, and there are many digital technologies that can be used to share and use the data. However, it is worth thinking about the potential of educational resources that can be used in such programmes. Open education and resources – learning, teaching and research that is in the public domain under open licence for reuse and modification has a role to play. Openness and access are important to citizen scientists – it can be increased and improve in the outputs of citizen science projects. Outputs are not the final publications, but also the  data, protocols, logs and systems. Open Education Resources (OER) can help in make ideas and scientific knowledge accessible, inspire people to be involved so they are not just passive participants, and can also help to meet funders’ requirements to make the research open. OER can help in reimagining what science is – can build a community outside institutional settings – such as Cornel Lab of Ornithology. It can also support self-driven and peer-based learning approaches, allowing people to run their own investigation, and OER can support experimentation with open practices. There is a specific website in the OER area of citizen science for learning and research. Resources help in creating suitable teaching sessions. There are other training material that can be reused and changed. There are, however, warning – the conditions for broad participation – OER in themselves with digital technology are not a solution unless we create the conditions for engagement of many people. There is a need to create the condition to allow participants to own the project. OER need to be in dialogue in terms of how people use them.

Learning in citizen scienceCitizen science, social learning and transforming expertise – Taru Peltola – She discuss the learning in citizen science with a paper that is currently under review (part of the ALTER-Net). In citizen science there is plenty of rhetorics – transparency, local knowledge, democracy … but social learning is usually seen with broader benefits that are related to citizen science and didn’t receive enough attention. There is a need to critically analyse the learning within citizen science, and learning is an important mechanism that require mutual learning (by participants, organisers and scientists), and learning can occur in all types of citizen science initiatives. Looking at literature on learning, there are questions on the outcomes (facts, instruments), process (individual/social/institutional), and who is involved (scientists/volunteers). It is wrong to assume that only the volunteers learn in citizen science – there are also important learning that the scientists get from the process. To gain more understanding, they looked at 14 cases across Europe – mostly monitoring species, but also cultural ecosystem services through participatory GIS or reindeer herding. The results from the cases are that the learning processes and outcomes are both intended and unintended, the learning is situated, the learning are unevenly distributed – need to pay attention who is getting the attention and how people are included, and the learning outcomes are continuous. They also found out that factual and instrumental learning outcomes are easier to assess, but it is important to pay special attention to the social and institutional process. These need to included in the design and implementation of citizen science projects.

Extreme citizen science: the socio-political potential of citizen science – Muki Haklay – in my talk, I have situated citizen science within the wider changes in access and use of environmental information. I have used the framework of 3 eras of environmental information (covered in details in the talk in the Wilson Center). The first two eras (between 1969-1992 and 1992-2005) are characterised by experts who produce environmental information and use it to advise decision makers. In the second era, information is shared with the public, but in unidirectional way – experts produce and release information to the public in a form that is suitable to share with other experts – so it is challenging to comprehend it. While the role of civic society and NGOs was recognised in the second era (e.g. Rio’s Principle 10), in terms of citizen science, the main model that was acceptable was the contributory model in which volunteers focus on data collection, so the information is verified by experts. With the third era (since 2005), we are seeing that the public is also accepted as producer of environmental information. This transition is opening up many opportunities for citizen science activities within environmental decision making. However, looking at the state of the art of citizen science, there is plenty of scope of involving people much more in the process of setting up citizen science projects, as well as engaging people with lower levels of education. I used 3 classifications of participation in citizen science (slides 14-16) to demonstrate that there is a range of ways to participate, and that different issues and different people can participate at a level that suit them and their life.
After introducing the vision of ‘Extreme Citizen Science’, I demonstrated that it is a combination of participatory process and use of technology. I introduced the participatory process of Mapping for Change, which deliberately starts with less use of technology so people can discover the issues that they would like to explore, and then decide how system such as Community Maps can be used to address their issues. I introduced GeoKey, which provides the infrastructure for participatory mapping system (such as Community Maps), and then demonstrated how Sapelli (data collection tool for low literacy participants) can be used in a careful participatory process with indigenous groups to design suitable citizen science projects. I used examples from the Congo basin and the work of Gill Conquest, the Amazon in Brazil-Peru border work of Carolina Comandulli and the current crowdfunding effort in Namibia for the Ju|’hoansi people by Megan Laws. I ended with a note that intermediaries (such as conservation organisations) have an important role to play in facilitating citizen science and helping in maintaining and sharing the data. The slides from the talk are provided below.

Annet Mihatsch - German Citizen Science StrategyThe final talk was citizen science strategy 2020 for Germany by Anett Richter – the ‘citizens create knowledge – knowledge create citizens’ project is a German Citizen Science capacity building project: it includes building citizen science platform, scientific evaluation of citizen science, developing resources for teaching and developing projects and a citizen science strategy 2020 for Germany. The need for strategy is that it helps focus on a problem and thinking about how to solve it. There are many projects already happening in Germany, with museums and NGOs, as well as conservation organisations. Lots of technologies are enabling it. However, we don’t have common understanding of where we want to go? Need framework for data use, there are risks of inconsistent communication to stakeholders. The way to open the strategy is involve wide range of stakeholders in the development – public, politicians, funders, community. The wider engagement in development strategy, require time and resources and there might be lack of public interest. They run 5 dialogue forums on different issues with 400 people involved. They explore capacities in science – think of science culture for citizen science – rewards for scientists to do so. Strong data infrastructure – data quality, validation, database management and other issues. Their vision – in 2020 citizen science is integral part of German society and open in all areas of science and for all people. Also want to have reliable web-based infrastructure. They will carry out consultation online in the autumn and publishing the strategy next year.