Participatory design of citizen science experiments

Senabre, Enric and Ferran-Ferrer, Núria and Perelló, Josep Participatory design of citizen science experiments. Comunicar, 2018, vol. 26, n. 54, pp. 29-38. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[img]
Preview
Text (In English)
c5403en.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

Download (1MB) | Preview
[img]
Preview
Text (En español)
c5403es.pdf

Download (1MB) | Preview

English abstract

This article describes and analyzes the collaborative design of a citizen science research project through cocreation. Three groups of secondary school students and a team of scientists conceived three experiments on human behavior and social capital in urban and public spaces. The study goal is to address how interdisciplinary work and attention to social concerns and needs, as well as the collective construction of research questions, can be integrated into scientific research. The 95 students participating in the project answered a survey to evaluate their perception about the dynamics and tools used in the cocreation process of each experiment, and the five scientists responded to a semistructured interview. The results from the survey and interviews demonstrate how citizen science can achieve a “cocreated” modality beyond the usual “contributory” paradigm, which usually only involves the public or amateurs in data collection stages. This type of more collaborative science was made possible by the adaptation of materials and facilitation mechanisms, as well as the promotion of key aspects in research such as trust, creativity and transparency. The results also point to the possibility of adopting similar codesign strategies in other contexts of scientific collaboration and collaborative knowledge generation

Spanish abstract

Este artículo describe y analiza el diseño colaborativo de un proyecto de investigación de ciencia ciudadana a través de la cocreación. Tres grupos de estudiantes de centros de educación secundaria y un equipo de científicos idearon de forma participada tres experimentos sobre comportamiento humano y capital social en espacios públicos y urbanos. El objetivo del estudio es abordar cómo pueden integrarse en una investigación científica el trabajo interdisciplinar y la atención a preocupaciones y necesidades sociales, así como la construcción colectiva de preguntas de investigación. Los 95 estudiantes participantes en el proyecto respondieron una encuesta para evaluar su percepción sobre las dinámicas y herramientas utilizadas en el proceso de cocreación de cada experimento, y los cinco científicos respondieron a una entrevista semiestructurada. Los resultados de las encuestas y entrevistas demuestran cómo la ciencia ciudadana puede alcanzar una modalidad «cocreada» más allá del paradigma habitual «contributivo», el cual únicamente suele implicar al público o amateurs en la recopilación de datos. Esta modalidad de ciencia más colaborativa con la ciudadanía fue posible gracias a la adecuación de materiales y mecanismos de facilitación, así como al fomento de aspectos clave en una investigación como pueden ser la confianza, la creatividad y la transparencia. Los resultados apuntan también hacia la posibilidad de adoptar estrategias similares de codiseño en otros contextos de colaboración científica y generación colaborativa de conocimiento

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Citizen science, cocreation, codesign, knowledge, toolkit, interdisciplinarity, participation, open science, Ciencia ciudadana, cocreación, codiseño, conocimiento, herramientas, interdisciplinariedad, participación, ciencia abierta
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BJ. Communication
G. Industry, profession and education.
G. Industry, profession and education. > GH. Education.
Depositing user: Alex Ruiz
Date deposited: 16 Jan 2018 11:55
Last modified: 16 Jan 2018 11:55
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/32170

References

"SEEK" links will first look for possible matches inside E-LIS and query Google Scholar if no results are found.

Barnes, T.A., Pashby, I.R., & Gibbons, A.M. (2006). Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool. International Journal of Project Management, 24(5), 395-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.03.003<br>Bela, G., Peltola, T., Young, J. C., Balázs, B., Arpin, I., Pataki, G., ... & Keune, H. (2016). Learning and the transformative potential of citizen science. Conservation Biology, 30(5), 990-999. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12762<br>Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C.C. (2009a). Public Participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Online Submission. (https://goo.gl/wsZYQn)<br>Bonney, R., Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K.V., & Shirk, J. (2009b). Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977-984. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9<br>Bonney, R., Shirk, J.L., Phillips, T.B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H.L., Miller-Rushing, A.J., & Parrish, J.K. (2014). Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343(6178), 1436-1437. https://doi.org.10.1126/science.1251554 <br>Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 381-383. https://doi.org.10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806<br>Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2015). Design thinking for social innovation. Annual Review of Policy Design, 3(1), 1-10. (https://goo.gl/1pgucj)<br>Cohn, J.P. (2008). Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience, 58(3), 192-197. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580303<br>Delfanti, A. (2016). Users and peers. From citizen science to P2P science. Cell, 21, 01. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580303<br>Dickinson, J.L., Shirk, J., Bonter, D., Bonney, R., Crain, R.L., Martin, J., ... & Purcell, K. (2012). The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 291-297. In G. Papadopoulos (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference KICSS. Limassol, Cyprus, 6-8 Nov 2014, 446-451. https://doi.org.10.1007/978-3-319-27478-2<br>Ferran-Ferrer, N. (2015). Volunteer participation in citizen science projects. El Profesional de la Información, 24, 6, 827-837. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2015.nov.15 <br>Follett, R., & Strezov, V. (2015). An analysis of citizen science based research: Usage and publication patterns. PloS One, 10(11), e0143687. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143687<br>Gura, T. (2013). Citizen science: Amateur experts. Nature, 496(7444), 259-261. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7444-259a<br>Hand, E. (2010). People power. Nature, 466(7307), 685-687. https://doi.org/10.1038/466685a<br>Hines, P., Holweg, M., & Rich, N. (2004). Learning to evolve: A review of contemporary lean thinking. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(10), 994-1011. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570410558049<br>Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203202395<br>Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223-244. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025557512320<br>Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge. (https://goo.gl/xBNB3C)<br>Kellogg, W.K. (2004). Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action: Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, Michigan: WK Kellogg Foundation. (https://goo.gl/pCPB52)<br>Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7(3-4), 167-185. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008689307411<br>Krippendorff, K. (1990). Metodología de análisis de contenido: teoría y práctica. Barcelona: Planeta.<br>Manzini, E., & Coad, R. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. Cambridge, MA: The Mit Press (https://goo.gl/FRJV3B)<br>Mindell, J.S., Jones, P., Vaughan, L., Haklay, M., Scholes, S., Anciaes, P., & Dhanani, A. (2017). Street Mobility Project: Toolkit. (https://goo.gl/yxDuXk)<br>Nagle, T., & Sammon, D. (2016). The development of a Design Research Canvas for data practitioners. Journal of Decision Systems, 25(sup1), 369-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2016.1187386<br>Newman, G., Wiggins, A., Crall, A., Graham, E., Newman, S., & Crowston, K. (2012). The future of citizen science: Emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 298-304. https://doi.org/10.1890/110294 <br>Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures 1. The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 474-498. (https://goo.gl/dJZ7An)<br>Perelló, J., Ferran-Ferrer, N., Farré, S., & Bonhoure, I. (2017). Secondary school rubrics for citizen science projects. In C. Heredotouand, E. Scanlon, & M. Sharples, (Eds.), Citizen inquiry: Synthesising science and inquiry learning. London: Taylor and Francis. [In press].<br>Sagarra Pascual, O. J., Gutiérrez-Roig, M., Bonhoure, I., & Perelló, J. (2016). Citizen Science Practices for Computational Social Science Research: The Conceptualization of Pop-Up Experiments. Frontiers in Physics, 3(93), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2015.00093<br>Sanders, E. (2006). Design serving people. Cumulus Working Papers, 28-33. (https://goo.gl/JXqodm)<br>Sanders, E., & Stappers, P.J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5-18. http://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068<br>Shirk, J., Ballard, H., Wilderman, C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., ... & Bonney, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04705-170229<br>Tweddle, J.C., Robinson, L.D., Pocock, M.J.O., & Roy, H.E. (2012). Guide to citizen science: developing, implementing and evaluating citizen science to study biodiversity and the environment in the UK. London: Natural History Museum and NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology for UK-EOF. (https://goo.gl/9QSBHr)<br>Wiggins, A., & Crowston, K. (2015). Surveying the citizen science landscape. First Monday, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i1.5520<br>Wylie, S.A., Jalbert, K., Dosemagen, S., & Ratto, M. (2014). Institutions for civic technoscience: How critical making is transforming environmental research. The Information Society, 30(2), 116-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2014.875783<br>Yañez-Figueroa, J.A., Ramírez-Montoya, M.S., & García-Peñalvo, F.J. (2016). Systematic mapping of the literature: Social innovation laboratories for the collaborative construction of knowledge from the perspective of open innovation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 795-803). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3012430.3012609<br>


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item