Motivation and learning impact of Dutch flu-trackers

Many citizen science projects deal with high attrition rates. The Dutch Great Influenza Survey is an exception to this rule. In the current study, we conducted an online questionnaire (N=1610) to investigate the motivation and learning impact of this loyal, active participant base. Results show that the desire to contribute to a larger (scientific) goal is the most important motivator for all types of participants and that availability of scientific information and data are important for learning. We suggest similar projects seek (social) media attention regularly, linking project findings to current events and including the importance of participants’ contribution. Abstract

[1]  Kevin Crowston.  The motivational arc of massive virtual collaboration 1 , 2008 .

[2]  Rick Bonney,et al.  4. Growing the Base for Citizen Science: Recruiting and Engaging Participants , 2017 .

[3]  Rebecca Jordan,et al.  The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[4]  Candie C. Wilderman,et al.  Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. , 2009 .

[5]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms , 2012, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

[6]  A Vespignani,et al.  Web‐based participatory surveillance of infectious diseases: the Influenzanet participatory surveillance experience , 2013, Clinical Microbiology and Infection.

[7]  Anna L. Cox,et al.  Sociability in virtual citizen science , 2013, CHI 2013.

[8]  Elena Paslaru Bontas Simperl,et al.  Designing for Citizen Data Analysis: A Cross-Sectional Case Study of a Multi-Domain Citizen Science Platform , 2015, CHI.

[9]  Hauke Riesch,et al.  Combining citizen science and public engagement: the Open AirLaboratories Programme , 2013 .

[10]  D. Paolotti,et al.  Ten-year performance of Influenzanet: ILI time series, risks, vaccine effects, and care-seeking behaviour. , 2015, Epidemics.

[11]  Caroline Gottschalk Druschke,et al.  Failures of Engagement: Lessons Learned from a Citizen Science Pilot Study , 2012 .

[12]  Vickie Curtis,et al.  Motivation to Participate in an Online Citizen Science Game , 2015 .

[13]  H. Sauermann,et al.  Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  R. Cronje,et al.  Does Participation in Citizen Science Improve Scientific Literacy? A Study to Compare Assessment Methods , 2011 .

[15]  Christel Faes,et al.  Eight Years of the Great Influenza Survey to Monitor Influenza-Like Illness in Flanders , 2013, PloS one.

[16]  Anne M. Land-Zandstra,et al.  Citizen science on a smartphone: Participants’ motivations and learning , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[17]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography , 2010 .

[18]  R. Bonney,et al.  Citizen Science: A Developing Tool for Expanding Science Knowledge and Scientific Literacy , 2009 .

[19]  Russel L. Thompson,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Response Rates in Web- or Internet-Based Surveys , 2000 .

[20]  R. Bonney,et al.  Citizen Science as a Tool for Conservation in Residential Ecosystems , 2007 .

[21]  R. Jordan,et al.  Knowledge Gain and Behavioral Change in Citizen‐Science Programs , 2011, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[22]  Rick Bonney,et al.  The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement , 2012 .

[23]  Anna L. Cox,et al.  Exploring Citizen Psych-Science and the Motivations of Errordiary Volunteers , 2014, Hum. Comput..

[24]  Patricia Y. Leonard,et al.  Growing the Base for Citizen Science , 2012 .

[25]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence , 2004 .

[26]  David P. Anderson,et al.  Scientists@Home: What Drives the Quantity and Quality of Online Citizen Science Participation? , 2014, PloS one.

[27]  Jason T. Reed,et al.  An Exploratory Factor Analysis of Motivations for Participating in Zooniverse, a Collection of Virtual Citizen Science Projects , 2013, 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[28]  Oded Nov,et al.  Dusting for science: motivation and participation of digital citizen science volunteers , 2011, iConference.

[29]  C. Lintott,et al.  Galaxy Zoo: Exploring the Motivations of Citizen Science Volunteers. , 2009, 0909.2925.

[30]  R. Bonney,et al.  Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen‐science project , 2000 .

[31]  C. Batson,et al.  Four Motives for Community Involvement , 2002 .

[32]  Celia A. Evans,et al.  The Neighborhood Nestwatch Program: Participant Outcomes of a Citizen‐Science Ecological Research Project , 2005 .

[33]  F. Schellevis,et al.  Internet-based monitoring of influenza-like illness (ILI) in the general population of the Netherlands during the 2003–2004 influenza season , 2006, BMC public health.

[34]  Jennifer Preece,et al.  Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects , 2012, CSCW.

[35]  E. Jensen.  The problems with science communication evaluation , 2014 .

[36]  C. Potter,et al.  Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[37]  J. Silvertown.  A new dawn for citizen science. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[38]  R. Bonney,et al.  Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project , 2005 .

[39]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Designing for dabblers and deterring drop-outs in citizen science , 2014, CHI.

[40]  Ailene K. Ettinger,et al.  Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research , 2015 .