Driven by the proliferation of digital media, citizen science – the involvement of non-scientists in scientific research – represents one of the most important recent developments in science communication as it brings science and the public closer together. So far, however, citizen science projects have mostly attracted people that are highly educated, mostly male and already have very positive attitudes towards science. Based on nationally representative survey data (N = 1051), our study explores the potential of citizen science in Switzerland. Using regression analysis, we show that attitudes towards science are significant antecedents of respondents’ interest in participating in citizen science – but that gender and education are not. In addition, latent class analysis identifies five segments, representing over one-third of the Swiss population, who are interested in citizen science and could potentially be engaged: ‘Free-Timers’, ‘Senior Sciencephiles’, ‘Young Sciencephiles’, ‘Intrigued Adolescents’ and ‘Fully Employed Parents’. Additional description suggests that previously overlooked segments are best addressed online via YouTube or offline in zoos or botanical gardens. Overall, our analysis suggests that citizen science’s potential is far higher than previous projects were able to realize.
AjzenI (2011) The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health26(9): 1113–1127.
2.
AlenderB (2016) Understanding volunteer motivations to participate in citizen science projects: A deeper look at water quality monitoring. Journal of Science Communication15(3). DOI: 10.22323/2.15030204
3.
BauerMW (2016) The Culture of Science Indicators. London: The London School of Economics and Political Science.
4.
BesleyJC (2013) The state of public opinion research on attitudes and understanding of science and technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society33(1–2): 12–20.
5.
BesleyJC (2018) Audiences for science communication in the United States. Environmental Communication12: 1005–1022.
6.
BonneyRBallardHJordanRMcCallieEPhillipsTShirkJ, et al. (2009) Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education. Available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519688.pdf
7.
BonneyRPhillipsTBBallardHLEnckJW. (2016) Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?Public Understanding of Science25(1): 2–16.
8.
ChapmanCFeitEM (2015) R for Marketing Research and Analytics. Cham: Springer.
9.
CurtisV (2018) Online Citizen Science and the Widening of Academia: Distributed Engagement with Research and Knowledge Production. Cham: Springer.
10.
DeanAJChurchEKLoderJFieldingKSWilsonKA (2018) How do marine and coastal citizen science experiences foster environmental engagement?Journal of Environmental Management213: 409–416.
11.
DickelSFranzenM (2016) The ‘problem of extension’ revisited: New modes of digital participation in science. Journal of Science Communication15(1). DOI: 10.22323/2.15010206.
FähnrichBJanssen DanyiCNothhaftH (2015) The German plagiarism crisis: Defending and explaining the workings of scholarship on the front stage. Journal of Communication Management19(1): 20–38.
GibbonsMLimogesCNowotnyHSchwartzmanSScottPTrowM (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE.
16.
GollwitzerM (2012) Latent-class-analysis. In: MoosbruggerHKelavaA (eds) Testtheorie Und Fragebogenkonstruktion [test-theory and questionnaire construction]. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 295–323.
17.
HaklayM (2018) Participatory citizen science. In: HeckerSHaklayMBowserAMakuchZVogelJBonnA (eds) Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy. London: UCL Press, pp. 52–62.
18.
HeckerSHaklayMBowserAMakuchZVogelJBonnA (eds) (2018) Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy. London: UCL Press.
19.
IrwinA (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
20.
JennettCKloetzerLSchneiderDIacovidesICoxAGoldM, et al. (2016) Motivations, learning and creativity in online citizen science. Journal of Science Communication15(3). DOI: 10.22323/2.15030205.
21.
KawamotoSNakayamaMSaijoM (2013) A survey of scientific literacy to provide a foundation for designing science communication in Japan. Public Understanding of Science22(6): 674–690.
22.
KullenbergCKasperowskiD (2016) What is citizen science? A scientometric meta-analysis. PLoS ONE11(1): e0147152.
23.
Land-ZandstraAMDevileeJLASnikFBuurmeijerFvan den BroekJM (2016) Citizen science on a smartphone: Participants’ motivations and learning. Public Understanding of Science25(1): 45–60.
24.
LeeC-JScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Science Communication27(2): 240–267.
25.
LewensteinB (2016) Can we understand citizen science?Journal of Science Communication15(1). DOI: 10.22323/2.15010501.
LynchLIDauerJMBabchukWAHeng-MossTGolickD (2018) In their own words: The significance of participant perceptions in assessing entomology citizen science learning outcomes using a mixed methods approach. Insects9(1): 16. DOI: 10.3390/insects9010016.
28.
MartinVY (2017) Citizen science as a means for increasing public engagement in science: Presumption or possibility?Science Communication39(2): 142–168.
29.
MillerJD (1983) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112(2): 29–48. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024852
30.
Miller-RushingAPrimackRBonneyR (2012) The history of public participation in ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment10(6): 285–290.
31.
MüllerDHameisterNLuxK (2017) Anstoß und Motive für das freiwillige Engagement [initiation and motives for voluntary engagement]. In: SimonsonJVogelCTesch-RömerC (eds) Freiwilliges Engagement in Deutschland [Voluntary Engagement in Germany]. Wiesbaden: Springer; Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 413–435.
32.
Nature (2015) Rise of the citizen scientist. Nature524(7565): 265.
33.
NowotnyHScottPGibbonsM (2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, Ma: Polity Press.
34.
PandyaRDibnerKA (2018) Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
35.
PardoRCalvoF (2002) Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science11(2): 155–195.
36.
PardoRCalvoF (2004) The cognitive dimension of public perceptions of science: Methodological issues. Public Understanding of Science13(3): 203–227.
37.
PennerLA (2002) Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues58(3): 447–467.
38.
ReinardJC (2006) Communication Research Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
39.
RungeKKBrossardDXenosMA (2018) Protective progressives to distrustful traditionalists: A post hoc segmentation method for science communication. Environmental Communication12(8): 1023–1045.
40.
SchäferMSFüchslinTMetagJKristiansenSRauchfleischA (2018) The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns. Public Understanding of Science27(7): 836–856.
41.
SchäferMSMetagJFeustleJHerzogL (2016) Selling science 2.0: What scientific projects receive crowd funding online?Public Understanding of Science27(5): 496–514.
ShirkJLBallardHLWildermanCCPhillipsTWigginsAJordanR, et al. (2012) Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society17(2): 29. DOI: 10.5751/ES-04705-170229.
45.
SimonsonJZiegelmannJPVogelCTesch-RömerC. (2017) Zentrale ergebnisse des Deutschen Freiwilligensurveys 2014 [key findings of the German voluntary engagement survey 2014]. In: SimonsonJVogelCTesch-RömerC (eds) Freiwilliges Engagement in Deutschland [Voluntary Engagement in Germany]. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 21–27.
46.
SniehottaFFPresseauJAraújo-SoaresV (2014) Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychology Review8(1): 1–7.
47.
TaddickenMReifAHoppeI (2018) What do people know about climate change – And how confident are they? On measurements and analyses of science related knowledge. Journal of Science Communication17(3). DOI: 10.22323/2.17030201.
WeingartP (2001) Die Stunde Der Wahrheit? [The Moment Oftruth?]: Zum Verhältnis Der Wissenschaft Zu Politik, Wirtschaft Und Medien in Der Wissensgesellschaft [On Science’s Relationship with Politics, Economics, and the Media in the Knowledge Society ] (1. Aufl.). Weilerswist: Velbrück Wiss. Available at: http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/type=rezbuecher&id=768
50.
WeitkampE (2016) From planning to motivations: Citizen science comes to life. Journal of Science Communication15(3). DOI: 10.22323/2.15030501.
51.
WestSPatemanR (2016) Recruiting and retaining participants in citizen science: What can be learned from the volunteering literature?Citizen Science: Theory and Practice1(2): 197.
ZavestoskiSShulmanSSchlosbergD (2016) Democracy and the environment on the internet. Science, Technology, & Human Values31(4): 383–408.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
