Digital citizen science is expected to achieve equal dialogue between scientists and the public, and further the democratization of science. However, through critical technocultural discourse analysis of three Chinese citizen science digital platforms and interviews with their users, it was found that the interfaces of these platforms are embedded with scientific ideological styles and “boundary work” features. Those platforms tend to frame the public as ignorant data collection tools waiting to be guided by scientists, while scientists are framed as educators worthy of admiration. Therefore, the role of digital citizen science in democratization of science should not be overestimated.
AndrachukM.MarschkeM.HingsC.ArmitageD. (2019). Smartphone technologies supporting community-based environmental monitoring and implementation: A systematic scoping review. Biological Conservation, 237, 430–442.
2.
AvalleM.Di MarcoN.EttaG.SangiorgioE.AlipourS.BonettiA.AlvisiL.ScalaA.BaronchelliA.CinelliM.QuattrociocchiW. (2024). Persistent interaction patterns across social media platforms and over time. Nature, 628(8008), 582–589.
3.
AytacU. (2024). Digital domination: Social media and contestatory democracy. Political Studies, 72(1), 6–25.
4.
BesleyJ. C. (2015). What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement?Science and Public Policy, 42(2), 201–214.
BonneyR.PhillipsT. B.BallardH. L.EnckJ. W. (2016). Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 2–16.
7.
BonneyR.ShirkJ. L.PhillipsT. B.WigginsA.BallardH. L.Miller-RushingA. J.ParrishJ. K. (2014). Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343(6178), 1436–1437.
8.
BrammerJ. R.BrunetN. D.BurtonA. C.CuerrierA.DanielsenF.DewanK.HerrmannT. M.JacksonM. V.KennettR.LarocqueG.MulrennanM. (2016). The role of digital data entry in participatory environmental monitoring. Conservation Biology, 30(6), 1277–1287.
9.
BrockA. (2009). Life on the wire: Deconstructing race on the Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 12(3), 344–363.
10.
BrockA. (2018). Critical technocultural discourse analysis. New Media & Society, 20(3), 1012–1030.
11.
CollinsS.SullivanM.BrayH. (2022). Exploring scientists’ perceptions of citizen science for public engagement with science. Journal of Science Communication, 21(7), A01.
12.
CuringaM. (2014). Critical analysis of interactive media with software affordances. First Monday, 19(9), 1–10.
13.
da Silva NetoV. J.ChiariniT. (2023). The platformization of science: Towards a scientific digital platform taxonomy. Minerva, 61(1), 1–29.
14.
DaviesS. R.HorstM. (2016). Scientific citizenship: The role of science communication in democracy. In Science communication: Culture, identity and Citizenship, pp. 187–211. Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
DayR. E. (2007). Kling and the “critical”: Social informatics and critical informatics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(4), 575–582.
16.
DickinsonJ. L.ZuckerbergB.BonterD. N. (2010). Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41(1), 149–172.
17.
DoshiM. J. (2024). Critical discourse analysis. In RamasubramanianS.BanjoO. O. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Media and Social Justice (pp. 107–114). Oxford University Press.
GallowayA. R. (2008). The unworkable interface. New Literary History, 39(4), 931–955.
21.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 18(6), 781–795.
22.
GierynT. F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In TauberA.I. (Ed.), Science and the quest for reality (pp. 293–332). Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
HagenN. (2020). Scaling up and rolling out through the web: The “platformization” of citizen science and scientific citizenship. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 8(1), 4–15.
24.
HeckerS.TaddickenM. (2022). Deconstructing citizen science: A framework on communication and interaction using the concept of roles. Journal of Science Communication, 21(1), A07.
25.
HidalgoE. S.PerellóJ.BeckerF.BonhoureI.LegrisM.CigariniA. (2021). Participation and co-creation in citizen science. In VohlandK.Land-ZandstraA.CeccaroniL.LemmensR.PerellóJ.PontiM.SchadeS.WagenknechtK. (Eds.), The science of citizen science, pp.199–218. Springer.
26.
HorstM.MichaelM. (2011). On the shoulders of idiots: Re-thinking science communication as “event.”Science as Culture, 20(3), 283–306.
27.
KaoC. P.LinK. Y.ChienH. M.ChenY. T. (2020). Enhancing volunteers’ intention to engage in citizen science: The roles of self-efficacy, satisfaction and science trust. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(2), 234–246.
28.
KullenbergC.KasperowskiD. (2016). What is citizen science?–A scientometric meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 11(1), Article e0147152.
29.
LemmensR.AntoniouV.HummerP.PotsiouC. (2021). Citizen science in the digital world of apps. In VohlandK.Land-ZandstraA.CeccaroniL.LemmensR.PerellóJ.PontiM.SchadeS.WagenknechtK. (Eds.), The science of citizen science, pp.461–474. Springer.
30.
LewensteinB. V. (2004, June8). What does citizen science accomplish [Conference session]. Prepared for meeting on citizen science, Paris.
31.
LewensteinB. V. (2022). Is citizen science a remedy for inequality?The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 183–194.
32.
LightB.BurgessJ.DuguayS. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881–900.
33.
LiuH. Y.DörlerD.HeiglF.GrossberndtS. (2021). Citizen science platforms. The Science of Citizen Science, 22, 439–459.
34.
LorkeJ.BallardH. L.RobinsonL. D. (2024). More complex than expected—mapping activities and youths’ experiences at BioBlitz events to the rosette model of science communication. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, Article 1270579.
35.
LundyL.RuthA.TelgR.IraniT. (2006). It takes two: Public understanding of agricultural science and agricultural scientists’ understanding of the public. Journal of Applied Communications, 90(1), 6.
36.
LuptonD. (2023). The internet of animals: Human-animal relationships in the digital age. John Wiley & Sons.
37.
NadkarniN. M.WeberC. Q.GoldmanS. V.SchatzD. L.AllenS.MenloveR. (2019). Beyond the deficit model: The ambassador approach to public engagement. Bioscience, 69(4), 305–313.
38.
NicholsM. D.PetzoldA. M. (2021). A crisis of authority in scientific discourse. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16(2), 643–650.
39.
PalmerC. L. (2001). Work at the boundaries of science: Information and the interdisciplinary research process. Springer Science & Business Media.
40.
PereiraM. D. M. (2019). Boundary-work that does not work: Social inequalities and the non-performativity of scientific boundary-work. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(2), 338–365.
41.
PetroniS. (2023). Can interfaces and social profiles ‘speak without words’? Social platforms as ideological tools to shape identities and discourses. Lingue e Linguaggi, 58, 43–63.
42.
PierceS. J. (1999). Boundary crossing in research literatures as a means of interdisciplinary information transfer. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 271–279.
43.
QiF.ZhouH.SunB.HuangY.ZhangL. (2024). Facilitating interdisciplinarity: The contributions of boundary-crossing activities among disciplines. Scientometrics, 129, 6435–6453.
44.
RileyJ.Mason-WilkesW. (2024). Dark citizen science. Public Understanding of Science, 33(2), 142–157.
45.
RocheA. J.RickardL. N.HuguenardK.SpicerP. (2022). Who’s tapped out and what’s on tap? Tapping into engagement within a place-based citizen science effort. Society & Natural Resources, 35(6), 667–683.
46.
RosenJ.PainterG. (2019). From citizen control to co-production: Moving beyond a linear conception of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(3), 335–347.
47.
SamrgandiN. (2021). User interface design & evaluation of mobile applications. International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security, 21(1), 55–63.
48.
SilvertownJ. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(9), 467–471.
49.
SkarlatidouA.HamiltonA.VitosM.HaklayM. (2019). What do volunteers want from citizen science technologies? A systematic literature review and best practice guidelines. Journal of Science Communication, 18(1), A02.
50.
SmithH. E.CooperC. B.BuschK. C.HarperS.MuslimA.McKennaK.CavalierD. (2024). Facilitator organizations enhance learning and action through citizen science: A case study of Girl Scouts’ Think Like a Citizen Scientist journey on SciStarter. Environmental Education Research, 30(2), 190–213.
51.
StanfillM. (2015). The interface as discourse: The production of norms through web design. New Media & Society, 17(7), 1059–1074.
52.
StrasserB.BaudryJ.MahrD.SanchezG.TancoigneE. (2019). “ Citizen science”? Rethinking science and public participation. Science & Technology Studies, 32(2), 52–76.
53.
SweeneyM. E.BrockA. (2014). Critical informatics: New methods and practices. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1–8.
54.
TrenchB. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In ChengD.ClaessensM.GascoigneT.MetcalfeJ.SchieleB.ShiS. (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 119–135). Springer.
55.
TroegerJ.BockA. (2022). The sociotechnical walkthrough–a methodological approach for platform studies. Studies in Communication Sciences, 22(1), 43–52.
56.
Van DijckJ.NieborgD.PoellT. (2019). Reframing platform power. Internet Policy Review, 8(2), 1–18.
57.
Van NoordwijkT.BishopI.Staunton-LambS.OldfieldA.LoiselleS.GeogheganH.CeccaroniL. (2021). Creating positive environmental impact through citizen science. In VohlandK.Land-ZandstraA.CeccaroniL.LemmensR.PerellóJ.PontiM.SamsonR.WagenknechtK. (Eds.), The science of citizen science (pp. 373–395). Springer.
58.
VicariS.KirbyD. (2023). Digital platforms as socio-cultural artifacts: Developing digital methods for cultural research. Information, Communication & Society, 26(9), 1733–1755.
59.
VohlandK.GöbelC.BalázsB.ButkevičienėE.DaskoliaM.DužíB.HeckerS.ManzoniM.SchadeS. (2021). Citizen science in Europe. In VohlandK.Land-ZandstraA.CeccaroniL.LemmensR.PerellóJ.PontiM.SamsonR.WagenknechtK. (Eds.), The science of citizen science (pp, 35–53). Springer.
60.
WagenknechtK.WoodsT.NoldC.RüfenachtS.Voigt-HeuckeS.CaplanA.HeckerS.VohlandK. (2021). A question of dialogue? Reflections on how citizen science can enhance communication between science and society. Journal of Science Communication, 20(3), A13.
61.
WalkerD. W.SmigajM.TaniM. (2021). The benefits and negative impacts of citizen science applications to water as experienced by participants and communities. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 8(1), Article e1488.
62.
WilsdonJ.WillisR. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos.
63.
WynnJ. (2017). Citizen science in the digital age: Rhetoric, science, and public engagement. University of Alabama Press.
64.
YangZ. (2022). The new stage of public engagement with science in the digital media environment: Citizen science communicators in the discussion of GMOs on Zhihu. New Genetics and Society, 41(2), 116–135.
65.
YangZ. (2023a). How do Chinese scientists maintain their discourse authority? Critical discourse analysis of discourse “boundary work” in genetically modified organisms discussion on a Chinese knowledge-sharing network. Chinese Journal of Communication, 16(1), 90–107.
66.
YangZ. (2023b). Inadequate interactions and unbalanced power between scientists and the public in Chinese knowledge sharing network: Social network analysis of the topic of genetically modified food on Zhihu. Social Science Computer Review, 41(5), 1836–1856.
67.
YangZ.ChenJ. J.JiaH. P. (2025). Perfect scientists and immoral non-scientists: A boundary work analysis of Chinese science popularization books. Science as Culture. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2025.2457718
