Academic discussions of citizen science are all the rage right now (see here, and here, and here). While most describe the successes of individual projects, none (to my knowledge) have taken the long view and examined where this genre of research fits in to the history of science … until now.
The August issue of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (FEAE) is dedicated to the topic of citizen science, and one of its papers examines the birth of this pursuit (particularly with respect to the field of ecology) and its sometimes touchy relationship with professional research.
According to the authors of one article in the special issue – a trio of researchers from the US National Park Service, Boston University and Cornell University – citizen science is not a modern invention, but rather something that has been occurring “for most of recorded history”.
Indeed, since science-minded individuals could not really pursue their passion as a full-time career until the late 19th century, the authors argue nearly all “scientists” before this time were actually citizen scientists – people who made a living in other ways but, “because [they had] an innate interest in particular topics or questions,” spent their free time performing research.
Pooling resources
Even as early as the 17th century, citizen scientists were developing the sort of sophisticated collaborations and networks that professional researchers use today – and all without the aid of social media.
The authors mentioned above describe a Norwegian bishop who assembled an army of clergymen who could increase his sample sizes by sending him observations and collected specimens.
Those sorts of relationships allowed researchers to obtain organisms in far-flung locations they could never hope to visit themselves. Carl Linnaeus was another early ecologist who benefited from such collaborations.
The development of his classification system in the 18th century was greatly advanced by his ability to examine countless specimens provided by other amateur researchers.
Data gatherers
While it’s easy to focus on “armchair scientists” who pursued science just for fun, there were also a number of individuals whose interest in data was much more practical.
According to the FEAE paper, these include French winemakers, who have been recording grape harvest days for more than six and a half centuries, and Japanese court diarists, who have been noting the dates of cherry blossom festivals for more than a millennium.
Data have been provided not just by the botanically-minded, but also those who work with animals: hunters and fishermen have also kept remarkable records detailing which species were captured, where it happened, and how large the individuals are.
Cumulatively, all of these numbers are incredibly useful to modern researchers who are interested in investigating changes in species' morphology, population distributions, and phenology (the timing of events) over time.
New roles
The FEAE authors note with some sadness that amateurs have, in many cases, become marginalised over the past 150 years, during which time scientific research has emerged as a full-time profession. While many people still conduct scientific research in their own time, it is much harder for them to report their findings in respected journals, and therefore to advance their fields.
But the authors report there are two major roles of citizen science in modern research:
1) To facilitate large-scale and/or geographically diverse projects, such as the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), which provides ornithologists with a huge dataset on nesting activities in both Canada and the US.
Without the help of volunteers across the continent, professionals would be hard-pressed to come up with the finances and manpower to collect the amount of data generated by the BBS.
2) To undertake projects that professionals would not (or could not) ordinarily do on their own, such as Maryland’s Save Our Streams program, a locally founded effort to “monitor, protect, and restore” the state’s streams.
Such projects, sometimes also referred to as “community science” or “participatory action research,” may be too locally focused to be interesting to professional researchers. That said, the success of the Save Our Streams project has led it to be used nationally as a model for similar community science programs.
For what it’s worth
For anyone wondering whether they’ve collected some useful observations over the years, the article’s authors point out that datasets come in all shapes and sizes, including specimens, photographs, point counts, and size measurements. Even if the topic seems pretty specialised, it might still be useful in a greater ecological context.
The 19th century writer Henry David Thoreau, for instance, collected a list of first flowering dates, first leaf-out dates, and first arrival dates of migratory birds in Concord, Massachusetts.
His observations have been continued over the years by an unbroken line of other citizen scientists. Analysis of the data has revealed that the timing of these events has changed over time, and also that plants are changing more quickly than birds.
One particularly appealing characteristic of Thoreau’s dataset is the fact it was collected in a well-documented, systematic way – something professional researchers would like to see for other citizen science data, as well. (If you do have a dataset, it’s a good idea to jot down some notes on how it was collected, when, and where.)
Overall, the FEAE authors see a promising future for citizen science. When coupled with modern advances in communications and transportation, our renewed interest in this pursuit could help engage the public in research projects, improve scientific literacy and interest in science, and educate participants on the species, processes, and habitats that they are studying.
Academics should also benefit, since an increased awareness of the scientific process will likely increase support and improve public opinion towards scientists, as well as providing data that could lead to valuable new insights.
Iain Stuart
logged in via Facebook
Citizen science or other forms of avocational research outside the University or similar Institutions is increasingly being hampered by the increasing difficulty in accessing relevant journal and literature. These are increasingly tied to publishing houses and available (including back issues) only to those who can afford the high cost of purchasing articles or have access via libraries who can afford to subscribe.
You used to be able to find journals on the shelves of Libraries but cost pressures on library space means that they are switching to on-line subscriptions which are only available to library members (typically students and staff).
Thus the ideal of an informed citizen science or research is becoming difficult to realise.
Roy Niles
logged in via Facebook
Does "citizen scientists" include citizens who are concerned with the various philosophies of science, including evolutionary philosophy? If so, and because I wrote a largely unread book on the subject, I'd like to think I'm one of them.
Why did I write this comment? To make a further ass of myself perhaps.
Fred Pribac
logged in via email @internode.on.net
"Why did I write this comment? To make a further ass of myself perhaps."
I think that is the question and answer that many of us have considered!
It is important for rank and file folks to have a go here. There are many people posting here who are no longer professionally engaged as scientists, they often have valuable and broad insight to offer. Indeed they may now be free to say what they could not before due to prior contractual agreements (particularly if they were not in accord with their organisations orthodoxies)!
Also ... I think that sometimes the best way forward is simply to abandon spurious notions of dignity and simply explore one's inner assdom.
Chris Harries
logged in via Facebook
Quite apart from any assistance that lay people may contribute to the science community it is becoming increasingly necessary for ordinary citizens to develop basic scientific understanding just n order to make sensible decisions in relation to their own lives.
In particular, members of the public are confronted by media stories every day about food science and health, along with multifarious warnings and tips, and most are unable to process that assortment of information for their own or their…
Read morePeter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Good article... public participation builds both enthusiasm and understanding and that's not a bad thing by any means.
One howl of outrage. So Linneaus was an "ecologist" then? Body snatching ! Perfidious poaching of our polymaths! A botanist. A physician. A zoologist. But an ecologist? Are we all destined to become ecologists in absentia?
In some ways this would be nice - even comforting - but is it true?
To round up a polymath like Linneaus, herd him into a pen and slap a brand on him, to subsume his diverse talents and interests into a generality is an affront to his specificity and his own specific classification system. He was many things and left immense footprints. And you can't just pinch him.
An intellectual demarcation dispute!
Caitlin Kight
Associate Lecturer
Peter--no offense meant! =)
The paper discussed here is titled "The history of public participation in ecological research" and so I, like the authors, have focused on an example relevant to Linnaeus' ecological work and have, therefore, referred to him as an "ecologist." He was, of course, much more than that, and I'm sure that the specimen/observation-collecting mentioned here also aided him in his work in other fields, including zoology, botany, taxonomy, etc.
Helen Murphy
PhD student
Surely the role of Indigenous people as "citizen scientists" should be acknowledged also? Traditional ecological knowledge as evidenced through seasonal calendars has a wealth of data about the timing of events etc. And as with data collected by 'citizen scientists' Indigenous TEK is all too often marginalized by mainstream science.
Caitlin Kight
Associate Lecturer
Helen, I think that is a very good point. The authors (of the original paper) define citizen science as "...the engagement of non-professionals in scientific investigations..." and go on to say that "...this research can be explicitly hypothesis-driven or BASED SIMPLY ON NATURAL HISTORY OBSERVATIONS OR MONITORING that can be used to generate or test hypotheses" (all-caps added by me). Given that quotation, I would say that they agree with your inclination to group TEK with other forms of citizen science. That is a topic I've actually written about a couple times before (e.g., http://anthrophysis.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/using-ancient-wisdom-to-improve-future.html), and I only wish I'd thought to make the connection here myself! =)
Alex Gaut
logged in via Facebook
I manage two quite different marine citizen science programs, so for me the discussions around citizen science, particularly in Australia are very welcome. What I find continually frustrating are the same mistakes being made by new programs in their set up and the academics who set up programs, then leave them to flounder without academic or scientific support.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of citizen science, I think it's an immensely powerful way of engaging people with their world but…
Read moreTim Scanlon
Debunker
Alex, I agree. I have had similar experiences in agricultural science. I commented below how there really needs to be strong links to biometricians, statisticians and scientists so that the information generated is valuable.
Rajan Venkataraman
Citizen
Thanks for the article Caitlin.
I would suggest that the inheritors of the pre-20th century tradition of citizen scientists are the legion of 'app' designers, most of whom are private citizens although their dream may be to sell their idea to a major corporation capable of marketing it. While your article focuses on the work of non-academics at the data gathering stage of the scientific process, the app designer seeks ways to process and combine raw or semi-processed data to allow it to be analysed so that connections can be made and trends can be drawn out.
Don Aitkin
writer, speaker and teacher
A good essay, which reminded me of how much we forget! The scientific method is so ingrained now (Got a problem? > Think of a possible solution. > Test it.> Adapt your hypothesis > and so on) that more and more people are happy to engage in 'research' — even when they're told that they have no business there!
Dennis Alexander
logged in via LinkedIn
Don, I'd like to make sure we include the caveat that "description precedes prescription". Not all speculation is of equal value and I'm not convinced that the "scientific method" is as ingrained in as useful a form as you might think. It isn't about no business, it is about doing the business properly (note the Thoreau caveat in the article). And no, that doesn't preclude making an ass of yourself, that is as good for science as it is for the soul when done well.
Tim Scanlon
Debunker
I'm a big fan of citizen science. A lot of agricultural innovation has come from individuals or farmer groups who have wanted to know something.
The only problem is that sometimes there isn't enough science involved. A trial or experiment may not have any replication or controls to make sure the measurements mean what you think they do. So some of the great efforts have been worthless due to the misinformation or lack of information they generate.
As a result, I think it would be great if funds that are available and citizens who want to do science, had linkages with biometricians, statisticians and scientists who can help with experimental design and analysis. I already do something along this line with several farmer groups and it really helps my knowledge and their outcomes (win-win).
Marc Hendrickx
Geologist
Odd the author does not mention one very bright spark: Steve McIntyre. See his latest in which he skewers the work of a certain mad professor:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/08/lewandowsky-scam/#more-16651
"Lewandowsky, like Gleick, probably fancies himself a hero of the Cause. But ironically. Lewandowsky’s paper will stand only as a landmark of junk science – fake results from faked responses.
As Tom Curtis observed, Lewandowsky has no moral alternative but to withdraw his paper."