Citizen science is often assumed to increase public science engagement; however, little is known about who is likely to volunteer and the implications for greater societal impact. This study segments 1,145 potential volunteers into six groups according to their current engagement in science (EiS). Results show groups with high levels of EiS are significantly more interested in volunteering and more likely to participate in various research roles than those with lower EiS scores. While citizen science benefits some in science and society, its use as a strategy to bring about positive shifts in public science engagement needs to be reconsidered.
AchterbergP.de KosterW.van der WaalJ. (2015). A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the United States, 2014. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662515617367
2.
AndersonA. A.DelborneJ.KleinmanD. L. (2013). Information beyond the forum: Motivations, strategies, and impacts of citizen participants seeking information during a consensus conference. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 955-970. doi:10.1177/0963662512447173
3.
ÁrnasonV. (2013). Scientific citizenship in a democratic society. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 927-940. doi:10.1177/0963662512449598
4.
BickerstaffK.LorenzoniI.JonesM.PidgeonN. (2010). Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35, 474-500. doi:10.1177/0162243909345835
5.
BonneyR.PhillipsT. B.BallardH. L.EnckJ. W. (2015). Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?Public Understanding of Science, 25, 2-16. doi:10.1177/0963662515607406
BrossardD.LewensteinB.BonneyR. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1099-1121. doi:10.1080/09500690500069483
8.
BrymanA. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
9.
BurnsM.MedveckyF. (2016). The disengaged in science communication: How not to count audiences and publics. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662516678351
10.
CallonM. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science Technology, & Society, 4, 81-94. doi:10.1177/097172189900400106
11.
CohnJ. P. (2008). Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research?BioScience, 58, 192-197. doi:10.1641/b580303
12.
CormickC. (2012). How do we gain the interest of people who are uninterested in science and technology? In van LenteH.CoenenC. C.FleischerT.KonradK.KrabbenborgL. (Eds.), Little by little: Expansion of nanoscience and emerging technologies (pp. 77-88). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
CurtisV. (2015). Motivation to participate in an online citizen science game: A study of foldit. Science Communication, 37, 723-746. doi:10.1177/1075547015609322
16.
DavidM. C.WareR. S. (2014). Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials supports the use of incentives for inducing response to electronic health surveys. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 1210-1221. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.001
17.
DaviesS. R. (2013). Constituting public engagement: Meanings and genealogies of PEST in two U.K. studies. Science Communication, 35, 687-707. doi:10.1177/1075547013478203
18.
Department of Business and Innovation. (2012). Community interest and engagement with science and technology in Victoria 2011. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Author.
19.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. (2010). Inspiring Australia: A national strategy for engagement with the sciences. Canberra, Australia: Author.
DickinsonJ. L.ShirkJ.BonterD.BonneyR.CrainR. L.MartinJ.. . . PurcellK. (2012). The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 291-297. doi:10.1890/110236
23.
DresnerM.HandelmanC.BraunS.Rollwagen-BollensG. (2015). Environmental identity, pro-environmental behaviors, and civic engagement of volunteer stewards in Portland area parks. Environmental Education Research, 21, 991-1010. doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.964188
24.
EdwardsP. J.RobertsI.ClarkeM. J.DiguiseppiC.WentzR.KwanI.. . . PratapS. (2009). Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8(3), MR000008. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4
25.
EngdahlE.LidskogR. (2014). Risk, communication and trust: Towards an emotional understanding of trust. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 703-717. doi:10.1177/0963662512460953
26.
EvansC.AbramsE.ReitsmaR.RouxK.SalmonsenL.MarraP. P. (2005). The Neighborhood Nestwatch Program: Participant outcomes of a Citizen-Science Ecological Research Project. Conservation Biology, 19, 589-594. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00s01.x
27.
EvansR.PlowsA. (2007). Listening without prejudice? Re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen. Social Studies of Science, 37, 827-853. doi:10.1177/0306312707076602
28.
FieldA. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics and sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
ForeL. S.PaulsenK.O’LaughlinK. (2001). Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology, 46, 109-123. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2001.00640.x
30.
Foster-SmithJ.EvansS. M. (2003). The value of marine ecological data collected by volunteers. Biological Conservation, 113, 199-213. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00373-7
31.
GauchatG. (2011). The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 751-770. doi:10.1177/0963662510365246
HaklayM. (2013). Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. In SuiD.ElwoodS.GoodchildM. (Eds.), Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in theory and practice (pp. 105-122). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
34.
HaywoodB. K. (2015). Beyond data points and research contributions: The personal meaning and value associated with public participation in scientific research. International Journal of Science Education, 6, 239-262. doi:10.1080/21548455.2015.1043659
35.
HaywoodB. K.BesleyJ. C. (2014). Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: Towards integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory science. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 92-106. doi:10.1177/0963662513494560
36.
HealeyJ. (2016). Ocean conservation and management. Thirroul, New South Wales, Australia: Spinney Press.
37.
HobbsS. J.WhiteP. C. L. (2012). Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation in biodiversity recording. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20, 364-373. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2012.08.002
IrwinA. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London, England: Routledge.
40.
IrwinA. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36, 299-320. doi:10.1177/0306312706053350
41.
IrwinA. (2014). From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Understanding of Science, 23, 71-76. doi:10.1177/0963662513510646
42.
JaspalR.NerlichB.van VuurenK. (2016). Embracing and resisting climate identities in the Australian press: Sceptics, scientists and politics. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 807-24. doi:10.1177/0963662515584287
43.
JohnsonM. F.HannahC.ActonL.PopoviciR.KaranthK. K.WeinthalE. (2014). Network environmentalism: Citizen scientists as agents for environmental advocacy. Global Environmental Change, 29, 235-245.
44.
JordanR. C.GrayS. A.HoweD. V.BrooksW. R.EhrenfeldJ. G. (2011). Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen-science programs. Conservation Biology, 25, 1148-1154. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01745.x
45.
KahanD. M.PetersE.WittlinM.SlovicP.OuelletteL. L.. . . MandelG. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732-735.
46.
KataA. (2012). Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm: An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine, 30, 3778-3789. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112
47.
KhadjesariZ.MurrayE.KalaitzakiE.WhiteI. R.McCambridgeJ.ThompsonS. G.. . . GodfreyC. (2011). Impact and costs of incentives to reduce attrition in online trials: Two randomized controlled trials. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(1), e26. doi:10.2196/jmir.1523
48.
KoslowJ. A.CoutureJ. (2015). Pacific Ocean observation programs: Gaps in ecological time series. Marine Policy, 51, 408-414.
49.
KullenbergC.KasperowskiD. (2016). What is citizen science? A scientometric meta-analysis. PLoS One, 11(1), e0147152. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147152
50.
Land-ZandstraA. M.DevileeJ. L. A.SnikF.BuurmeijerF.van den BroekJ. M. (2016). Citizen science on a smartphone: Participants’ motivations and learning. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 45-60. doi:10.1177/0963662515602406
51.
LewandowskyS.OberauerK. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217-222. doi:10.1177/0963721416654436
52.
LewensteinB. V. (2004, June8). What does citizen science accomplish?Paper presented at meeting on Citizen Science, Paris, France.
MartinV. Y.ChristidisL.LloydD.PeclG. T. (2016). Understanding drivers, barriers and information sources for public participation in marine citizen science. Journal of Science Communication, 15(2).
55.
MartinV. Y.ChristidisL.PeclG. T. (2016). Public interest in marine citizen science: Is there potential for growth?BioScience, 66, 683-692. doi:10.1093/biosci/biw070
56.
MartinV. Y.SmithL.BowlingA.ChristidisL.LloydD.PeclG. (2016). Citizens as scientists: What influences public contributions to marine research?Science Communication, 38, 495-522. doi:10.1177/1075547016656191
57.
MarzloffM. P.Melbourne-ThomasJ.HamonK. G.HoshinoE.JenningsS.. . . PeclG. T. (2016). Modelling marine community responses to climate-driven species redistribution to guide monitoring and adaptive ecosystem-based management. Global Change Biology, 22, 2462-2474. doi:10.1111/gcb.13285
58.
MayerA. (2010). Phenology and citizen science: Volunteers have documented seasonal events for more than a century, and scientific studies are benefiting from the data. BioScience, 60, 172-175.
59.
McCauleyD. J.PinskyM. L.PalumbiS. R.EstesJ. A.JoyceF. H.WarnerR. R. (2015). Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science, 347(6219), 247-254.
NewmanC.BueschingC. D.MacdonaldD. W. (2003). Validating mammal monitoring methods and assessing the performance of volunteers in wildlife conservation—“Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?”Biological Conservation, 113, 189-197. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00374-9
62.
NielsenA. P.LassenJ.SandøeP. (2011). Public participation. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 163-178. doi:10.1177/0963662509336713
63.
OsborneJ. W.CostelloA. B. (2009). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pan-Pacific Management Review, 12, 131-146.
64.
PandyaR. E. (2012). A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 314-317. doi:10.1890/120007
65.
PeclG. T.GilliesC.SbrocchiC. D.RoetmanP. (2015). Building Australia through citizen science. Canberra, Australia: Office of the Chief Scientist, Australian Government.
PhillipsL.CarvalhoA.DoyleJ. (2012). Citizen voices: Performing public participation in science and environment communication. Bristol, England: Intellect.
68.
PowellM.ColinM.Lee KleinmanD.DelborneJ.AndersonA. (2010). Imagining ordinary citizens? Conceptualized and actual participants for deliberations on emerging technologies. Science as Culture, 20(1), 37-70. doi:10.1080/09505430903567741
69.
PowellM.Lee KleinmanD. (2008). Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: the democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 329-348. doi:10.1177/0963662506068000
Ramirez-AndreottaM. D.BrusseauM. L.ArtiolaJ.MaierR. M.GandolfiA. J. (2015). Building a co-created citizen science program with gardeners neighboring a superfund site: The Gardenroots case study. International Public Health Journal, 7(1), 13.
72.
ResnikD. (2011). Scientific research and the public trust. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 399-409. doi:10.1007/s11948-010-9210-x
73.
ReyesJ. A. L. (2013). Cross-section analyses of attitudes towards science and nature from the International Social Survey Programme 1993, 2000, and 2010 surveys. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 338-357. doi:10.1177/0963662513503261
74.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30, 251-290. doi:10.1177/0162243904271724
ScheufeleD. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14040-14047. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110
SelinC.RawlingsK. C.de Ridder-VignoneK.SadowskiJ.Altamirano AllendeC.GanoG.. . . GustonD. H. (2016). Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662515620970
79.
ShirkJ. L.BallardH. L.WildermanC. C.PhillipsT.WigginsA.JordanR.. . . BonneyR. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society, 17(2). doi:10.5751/ES-04705-170229
80.
SoleriD.LongJ. W.Ramirez-AndreottaM. D.EitemillerR.PandyaR. E. (2016). Finding pathways to more equitable and meaningful public-scientist partnerships. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 9. doi:10.5334/cstp.46
81.
StevensonC.SikichS. A.GoldM. (2012). Engaging Los Angeles County subsistence anglers in the California marine protected area planning process. Marine Policy, 36, 559-563. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.08.001
82.
StevensonK. T.PetersonM. N.BondellH. D.MooreS. E.CarrierS. J. (2014). Overcoming skepticism with education: Interacting influences of worldview and climate change knowledge on perceived climate change risk among adolescents. Climatic Change, 126, 293-304. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1228-7
83.
StilgoeJ.LockS. J.WilsdonJ. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science, 23, 4-15. doi:10.1177/0963662513518154
84.
WigginsA.CrowstonK. (2011, January). From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. Paper presented at the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI.
85.
WigginsA.CrowstonK. (2015). Surveying the citizen science landscape. First Monday, 20(1).
86.
WynneB. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science-hitting the notes, but missing the music?Community Genetics, 9, 211-220.
87.
WynveenC. J.SuttonS. G. (2015). Engaging the public in climate change-related pro-environmental behaviors to protect coral reefs: The role of public trust in the management agency. Marine Policy, 53, 131-140. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.10.030
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.
