Free as in puppies: compensating for ict constraints in citizen science

Citizen science is a form of collaborative research engaging the public with professional scientists. Information and communication technologies (ICT) are a leading factor in the recent spread of this phenomenon. A common assumption is that money and ICT are the ideal solutions to issues of data quality and participant engagement. The reality is instead that resource limitations often require adopting suboptimal ICT, including tools that are "free as in puppies" with hidden costs from poor usability and lack of appropriate functionality. A comparative case study of three citizen science projects, eBird, The Great Sunflower Project, and Mountain Watch, found that projects with few ICT resources employed a broader range of strategies to address these issues than expected. The most practical and effective strategies integrated available ICT with other resources to open up new solutions and options for supporting citizen science outcomes in spite of resource limitations.

[1]  Anna De Fina,et al.  The ethnographic interview , 2019, The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography.

[2]  Karen E. Firehock,et al.  A Brief History of Volunteer Biological Water Monitoring Using Macroinvertebrates , 1995, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[3]  R. Emerson,et al.  Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes , 1995 .

[4]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

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

[6]  Mathias Klang.  Free software and open source: The freedom debate and its consequences , 2005, First Monday.

[7]  Dustin K. Jundt,et al.  Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. , 2005, Annual review of psychology.

[8]  Sarita Albagli,et al.  Memory Practices in the Sciences , 2008 .

[9]  David Bawden,et al.  Memory Practices in the Sciences , 2007 .

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

[11]  J. Schnoor,et al.  Citizen Science , 2017 .

[12]  J. Cohn.  Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research? , 2008 .

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

[14]  Brian L. Sullivan,et al.  eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences , 2009 .

[15]  David Roman,et al.  Crowdsourcing and the question of expertise , 2009, Commun. ACM.

[16]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Developing a Conceptual Model of Virtual Organizations for Citizen Science , 2010 .

[17]  Eben M. Haber,et al.  Creek watch: pairing usefulness and usability for successful citizen science , 2011, CHI.

[18]  Brian L. Sullivan,et al.  eBird: Engaging Birders in Science and Conservation , 2011, PLoS biology.

[19]  Loren G. Terveen,et al.  Quality is a verb: the operationalization of data quality in a citizen science community , 2011, Int. Sym. Wikis.

[20]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Mechanisms for Data Quality and Validation in Citizen Science , 2011, 2011 IEEE Seventh International Conference on e-Science Workshops.

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

[22]  Andrea Wiggins.  eBirding: technology adoption and the transformation of leisure into science , 2011, iConference '11.

[23]  D. Choffat.  Ruth WODAK, Barbara JOHNSTONE et Paul KERSWILL (dir.) (2010), The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Thousand Oaks (CA), Sage Publications Ltd , 2012 .

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