‘Empowering Civil Society through Participatory Investigation’ – Workshop, Paris, 1-2 February 2019

Which types of knowledge empower civil society? Does empowerment of one person, require another to relinquish some of their power? Are participatory processes a means or an ends? These are some of the challenging and most poignant questions that emerged out of the discussions and debate that took place at the ‘Empowering Civil Society through Participatory Investigation’ workshop, in Paris, over 1 & 2 February, 2019.

Around 35 people from across Europe gathered together for a two-day workshop entitled ‘Empowering Civil Society through Participatory Investigation’, organised by the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) , Doing It Together Science (DITOs), Institut francilien rechereche, innovation, société (IFRIS), Pour une alliance science sociétés (ALLISS), Laboratoire interdisciplinaire sciences innovations sociétés (LISIS) and Living Knowledge Network (LKN).  The workshop brought together a very diverse range of professionals from NGOs, universities and freelancers, working in participatory research, citizen science, science participatives and social innovation.  The purpose of the workshop was to explore what role NGOs played in these participatory investigative processes, and how their involvement in these processes could help deliver empowerment.  The workshop was organised around keynote speeches, panel discussions and three parallel workshops that ran across the two days, addressing different aspects of the empowerment question; ‘Governance of spaces and places’, ‘Trajectories of participatory investigation’, and ‘Empowerment of civil society through research cooperation.’

Discussions over the course of the two days raised a number of important questions and debates, which I share here for you to raise as discussion points with other colleagues and peers working around these issues.

 

They say “Knowledge is power”, but are all types of knowledge powerful?

There are a growing number of examples, certainly within citizen science, which are demonstrating the empowering impact that enabling citizens to collect their own data can have on addressing issues that matter to them.  The case of lead water poisoning in Flint, Michigan, is one of those examples, where scientists supported citizens in collecting data that they could then use as evidence against government, regarding the quality and safety of their water supplies.  In the case of Flint, Michigan, this data collected from across the community, by citizens and scientists alike, provided evidence in court, that led to legal rulings that the water supply and infrastructure should be changed. But the reason that this data was empowering was because it was collected to standards that were considered scientifically legitimate, and because the involvement of professional scientists in the process created a sense of credibility around the data.

This is a curious point when we consider the interest of including and valuing different types of knowledge through participatory research processes.  They say “Knowledge is power” but traditional knowledge, local knowledge, lay knowledge, intuitive knowledge, experiential knowledge (and many others), are not considered to be legitimate forms of knowledge within the very public forums that communities need to be influencing to create change.  So whilst empowering communities through the generation and access of knowledge is something that citizen science and participatory research processes can offer, unfortunately this is largely limited to empirical knowledge.

And because empirical knowledge has the most power and recognition in westernised societies, currently, we should be careful when we work to try to increase the value and legitimacy of these other types of knowledge not to lean towards using empirical knowledge to validate these other forms of knowledge.  By doing so (I would suggest) we will simply perpetuate the hierarchy of empirical knowledge as the ultimate and superior form.  I can’t however, right now, offer examples of how to validate and increase the value of these other types of knowledge – comments and suggestions from yourselves are welcome below.

But we must also recognise that in some circumstances (some people might argue, many circumstances) scientific knowledge has limited power.  It won’t take you long to think of an example of a situation where scientific evidence collected and verified in a scientifically legitimate way has been ignored or disregarded within the policy-making process, in order to fulfil other economic or political agendas.  This means that whilst citizens can gain some power through access to empirical evidence, giving them the power to engage in dialogue with policy-makers, there is not guarantee that that knowledge and power will be transformed into action and change that the citizens may be looking for.  The action and change part of the process is something much more social rather than empirical, and requires a complex negotiation of motivations, drivers, resources, politics, time and place and many other social factors.

 

Does empowerment of people, require other people to give up their power?

One interesting debate that emerged in the workshop was whether the empowerment of citizens requires scientists and policy-makers to relinquish some of their own power.  Some delegates argued that empowerment only came from the powerful relinquishing their power over situations, giving some of their power to the less-powerful.  This case is argued on the basis that the powerful hold access and control over decision-making processes and are therefore in the position of deciding not only what people can and can’t do, but also who can and can’t influence decision-making processes.  Those powerful individuals are the ones that get to make the decisions and choose who to let in and who to exclude from policy-processes.  The argument goes that in these scenarios the only way in which the dis-empowered can engage in these processes is if the powerful, firstly allow the dis-empowered to participate and secondly, give up their sole control over the decision-making processes, giving some of their control and influence to those who are dis-empowered.  The matter or empowerment is therefore in the hands of the powerful.

However, other delegates argued against this case, discussing power in terms of an infinite resource where more and more can be generated, and where the powerful don’t need to give up their power, but the dis-empowered can gain more power.  In this case the dis-empowered gain power through education, the development of infrastructures and resources, and the building of social networks, through which they can start to have influence.  This empowerment therefore comes from the structure of society and the individual citizens and communities capacities to galvanise and build social structures that enable them to influence processes.

Where do your thoughts lie in relation to this two sides of the argument and what influence does this have on the way in which you work in participatory processes and in civil empowerment?

 

Are participatory processes a means or an ends?

Another interesting idea that emerged, which is worth raising, is the matter of whether a participatory process should be considered as a means or an ends?  One delegate raised the point that whilst participatory processes are really valuable, we don’t want to be ‘just having nice experiences’, what we actually want is to be able to create change.  And that the value and purpose of these processes should be to create change and positive action in the world.

Of course being able to deliver action and change through these processes is a brilliant achievement, but it’s also worth considering the value of participatory processes as an ends in its own right.  Because by simply working to see more participatory processes taking place, you work to create a scenario where participatory processes are a more normalised form of social organisation and dialogue. By achieving this goal you have ultimately created action and change by creating a more citizen engaged and democratic culture, which is a significant achievement in itself.  A caveat here, however, is that this is only really of value if the processes are genuinely participatory and that all actors that are involved have an influence on the process and the dialogue.

We need to be clear when working in participatory processes whether that process is a means or an ends, and be clear to those who we are engaging what we intend the outcomes of the processes to be.

 

These represent just a couple of the tensions and challenges that were raised in the workshop on ‘Civil empowerment through participatory investigation,’ and demonstrate that even as a professional community engaged in this type of work there is not one agreed mindset or approach to this type of work.  But I don’t think that we necessarily need to ‘resolve’ these tensions and come to an ultimate and ‘correct’ conclusion on any of these matters.  This diversity of perspectives leads to a heterogeneity of practices which brings strength and resilience to the way in which we work and the impacts that we can have as a collective.  But also this diversity of perspectives leads to tensions and debate within the community which ensures that we don’t become complacent and dogmatic in our thinking, but also creates a fertile forum for creativity and innovation.

 

I’d like to a say a big thank you to all the partner organisations for organising this workshop and providing the opportunity to engage in very rich and thought-provoking discussions, with such a diverse group of people.

Our New Book Has Arrived!!! – Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy.

I’m excited to announce that the latest Citizen Science book has been published this week. Including some contributions from yours truly (see Chapter 2). 

Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy is a 580 page volume, compiled by 121 co-authors, from across the world.. The book discusses the role that citizen science plays in the wider agenda for a culture of open science and open society and pushes us to think about how we are contributing to the realisation of responsible research and innovation.

The book explores these issues across five parts, addressing:

  1. Innovation in Citizen Science
  2. Innovation in Science with and for Society
  3. Innovation at the Science-Policy Interface
  4. Innovation in Technology and Environmental Monitoring
  5. Innovation in Science Communication and Education

And also includes a section dedicated to case studies.

The book is rightly open access.  You can download a pdf for free here.

citizen_science book cover

I’m looking forward to receiving my own copy in the post, so I can dive into it with a cup of tea and a piece of cake to celebrate.

I hope you enjoy it!

Let us know what you think on Twitter using the handle @UCLpress and the hashtag #citizenscience.

Jade (@JadeLaurenCawth)

 

Citizen Science Relationships, Scientific Standards and Change Making – key insights from the ‘Advancing Citizen Science in Alberta’ workshop.

This blog summarises some of the key thoughts and themes that emerged from a two-day workshop organised and hosted by Alberta Environment and Parks and the Miistakis Institute, called ‘Advancing Citizen Science in Alberta’.  The workshop took place in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada from Wednesday 26th September to Thursday 27th September.

With a growing network of citizen science activity taking place across Alberta, Alberta Environment and Parks and the Miistakis Institute decided to help further incubate and foster this participatory research activity, by bringing together practitioners, researchers and citizens to share knowledge and best practice in order to identify priority actions for advancing practice in the province.

I was privileged to be invited to speak on the opening panel session ‘Origins, Evolution and Where We Are Today’ alongside Jennifer Shirk (Citizen Science Association and Cornell Lab of Ornithology) and Lea Shanley (US South Big Data Innovation Hub).  The rest of the programme explored data standards and credibility, place-based practice, the link between citizen science and environmental decision-making, and showcased a wide range of active projects.  The two days culminated in three workshop sessions.  The first looked to further develop principles and a memorandum on Citizen Science that would guide and encourage the adoption of citizen science in Alberta Environment and Parks.  The second workshop looked to identify priority outcomes for developing data credibility in citizen science, within the province.  And the third workshop drew on the expertise within the room to support the development of new and emerging citizen science projects.

Over the two days I found myself having some of the most enlightening conversations about citizen science that I have ever had in my five years of working in the field and attending international citizen science conferences.  Three key themes emerged from the conference that strike me as having a critical influence on how citizen science moves forward in the future.

  • Citizen Science, Science and Environmental Decision-making are all social processes as much as they are technical processes.
  • Citizen science has approached a crux; its holds significant promise, but high standards of practice must be maintained.
  • Citizen science is just one part of the process of making change. It is not a silver bullet.

Citizen Science, Science and Environmental Decision-making are all social processes as much as they are technical processes.

A key idea I tried to instil through my presentation was that ‘Citizen science is as much a social process as it is a scientific process’.  This was echoed and then expanded upon by Gwendolyn Blue (University of Calgary) in her keynote speech, who added that not only was citizen science a social process, but so too was science and environmental decision-making.  What’s key about this argument is that often when we examine and approach citizen science, science and environmental decision-making processes we focus on the technical aspects of these processes.  We concern ourselves with the structure and shape of the scientific and decision-making process.  What we forget to pay attention to is that all of these processes involve significant social interaction and negotiation that play a huge role in shaping the outcomes.  Citizen Science is not just about the design of methods and tools that enable citizens to participate, but it is also about the dynamics of the relationship and the engagement between citizens and scientists.  Creating an open, trusting, respectful environment that acknowledges and works with the values and assumptions of everyone involved and works to build genuine and mutual understanding is as important to realising citizen science outcomes as developing a data collection method suitable for the audience.  As scientists and citizen science practitioners we need to be more reflexive about how our values and assumptions play out when we are developing and managing citizen science projects.  We also need to be honest about the extent to which we are actually willing to open up the scientific process to different ‘publics’.

Citizen science has approached a crux: it holds significant promise, but high standards of practice must be maintained.

Jennifer Shirk, during the opening panel of the workshop, drew our attention to the possibility that we have arrived at a crux in the evolution of citizen science.  Citizen science risks becoming a buzz word.  As the concept is becoming increasingly popular the risk is that it will be adopted as lip service without true fulfilment of the core principles of delivering high quality scientific research with genuine citizen participation.  However, as this community and practice grows, we need to be careful that any steps to define principles or standards in order to maintain high standards, don’t unintentionally stifle the field by discouraging experimentation.  We need to reflect carefully on the nature of the principles and standards that we are developing, and on the way they are being utilised, to ensure that they allow for the evolution and innovation of new practices.

Citizen science is just one part of the process of making change.  It is not a silver bullet.

Increasing interest has grown around the role that citizen science can play in influencing policy and creating change and action in the world.  Indeed, it is the potential of co-created participatory research approaches to empower communities and support them in realising change that inspired me to take on my PhD research.  A prominent line of discussion and exploration in the workshop was around how we can use citizen science to influence environmental decision-making.  And whilst there are a number of fabulous examples of how citizen science can create positive change (eg. Flint Michigan), we have to recognise that citizen science is simply one tool among many for achieving change, and is in many cases not enough on its own.  Like policy, citizen science is not always capable of creating the necessary transformation on its own, often a significant cultural shift is required.  Reasons why citizen science can be limited in its ability to create change include the issue raised by Liz Hendriks (WWF- Canada) that decisions are often not evidence based but are made on a social, cultural and political basis.  In addition, citizen science still faces significant challenges to being respected as a valid and credible method of knowledge generation.  Where we accept that citizen science can only be one part of the process of change making Tracy Lee (Miistakis Institute) then made the valuable point that we need to understand what role citizen science does play in that process so that we can enhance the impact and influence we have through our projects.

 

These three themes, raised at the ‘Advancing Citizen Science in Alberta’ workshop, hit on some really fundamental challenges and considerations that the citizen science community need to address in order to support progression of the field.  And all three themes call on us as a community, and as individuals, to be more reflective and reflexive about our practice, our assumptions, our attitudes and our values.  The more that we take the opportunity to invest in our community of practice and to engage opening in dialogue around these issues, that more that the practice of citizen science will thrive and have a positive influence in the world.  Why not invest some time in your institution to start a citizen science discussion group, to start teasing out some of these issues, to ensure that your organisation is heading in a positive direction with citizen science.  

 

The views expressed above include my own but cannot be solely attributed to me.  The content above is my reflection of two days of dialogue with the whole delegation of the ‘Advancing Citizen Science in Alberta’ workshop programme.  I thank them all for their challenging and stimulating discussions.  

Engaging Scientists in Citizen Science

Much of the conversation and focus of research in the field of citizen science is about:

  • How do we engage more citizens in science research?
  • How do we motivate them to participate?
  • How do we retain their engagement throughout the whole lifecycle of a project and beyond?

These are really critical questions of central importance to the development of the field and for which much attention must to be continuously paid, particularly as the concept increases in popularity and the types of participants diversify in their character.  But after attending the Australian Citizen Science Conference in Adelaide, in February of this year (2018), I found myself asking whether, in focusing on the how to engage citizens we had neglected to pay attention to how we engage scientists?

Understanding what motivates, engages and retains citizens in citizen science projects is utterly essential to the practice of citizen science.  You can’t have citizen science, without citizens.  And the conference revealed and shared some effective and sometimes overlooked ideas such as:

  • Rather than asking potential participants to come to you, go to where they are already engaged and active.  K Mills & Simon Branigan (The Nature Conservancy, Australia) working with shell fish reefs, found that approaching dive clubs was the highly effective for them, as divers are already engaged and enthusiastic about the marine environment.
  • Operate at the time scale of your participants. Emilie Ens (Macquarie University) who works with indigenous communities in the Northern Territories of Australia, found that operating on indigenous time scales led to successful engagement with this group.
  • Make it a social opportunity. Erin Roger, Geetha Ortac (New South Wales Office of Environment & Heritage) & Ingrid Garland (EnviroComm Connections)  , both highlighted the power and importance of offering social opportunities, either by having BBQs and parties to reward, celebrate and bond as a group, or simply by holding meetings and engaging in social media communications.

But at the beginning of Day 1 of the Conference in a workshop entitled ‘New Visions for Citizen Science and Public Policy in Australia’ a couple of little snapshots of conversations suddenly highlighted to me how little of my attention had considered the need to engage, motivate and retain scientists as much as the need to do so with citizens.

Whilst of course scientists are already engaged in citizen science (the majority of citizen science projects are run and/or developed by scientists), the extensive literature directly addressing the validity of citizen science as an approach shows there is still much work to be done to convince the wider scientific community of the legitimacy of such an approach.  Through my few years as a citizen science practitioner and researcher I have certainly met many scientists (and some citizens for that matter) who are sceptical about the idea that citizens should and can be involved in the scientific process, without undermining scientific rigour.

It was a statement from Lea Shanley (Co-Executive Director, US South Big Data Innovation Hub) that really brought to my mind the idea that we need to pay more attention to engaging scientists, when she explained that when her and her colleagues are trying to advocate the concept of citizen science to the scientists in their institution they often start by saying:

               “’If you could have a 100,000 people to help you with your science what would you do?”

What it made me realise was that in the same way that we look to generate ideas about new and powerful ways of advocating the concept to citizens and convincing them that citizen science might be something they’d like to participate in, we also need to think of new and powerful ways of advocating citizen science to scientists.

We often talk about the need to make citizen science relevant to citizens so that they are motivated to participate.  And what the statement that Lea offered us in Adelaide, cleverly does, is pose that relevance back to the scientists.  Instead of saying to them, citizen science will help you to collect more data distributed across a bigger area, which can often raise a number of questions around validity and quality from the scientists.  The statement presents the resource potential to the scientist and asks them to consider the relevance of that potential to them, on their terms – “What would you do?”  What is also very clever about the statement is that by being hypothetical it frames the concept of citizen science as an opportunity without limits.  It invites the scientist to dream and explore the potential for their research of having access to a huge human resource that their funding streams could never support.

It seems to me that by piquing the interest of scientists by framing citizen science as a human resource opportunity that they can approach within their own boundaries, you can then open up a conversation about a variety of different success stories already evidenced in the literature and practice, presenting scientists with a suite of tools and methods to use to suit their needs.  And from here open up a conversation about best practice, and what we so far know works and not.  Having framed the conversation around “what would you do?” dialogue may even draw out some new suggestions and innovations for practice, having brought a new perspective to the approach.  But what Lea also mentioned which seems highly important, is that these conversations were most effective when taking place between two scientists, particularly if the citizen science advocate in the conversation is a high-profile scientist.

So far, this is the first step for me in considering and exploring how we approach and discuss citizen science with other scientists, and in considering them as much an audience, as we consider citizens.  My work as a researcher and practitioner, so far, has been very much focused on citizens as an audience, and how we meet their needs.  And in my PhD research I am focused on collecting and expressing the voice of the citizens involved in projects, to address to what extent we are serving their needs as communities, when we practice citizen science.  On the flip side, we also need to consider these questions with regards to the scientists involved, to understand their motivations and barriers to adopting and participating in citizen science.  At the end of the day, which ever approach to citizen science that you take it is a partnership and collaboration between both citizens and scientists, and so we need to understand the experiences of both.

For anyone interested in reading a bit more on this topic, I’d recommend: RIESCH, H. & POTTER, C. 2014. Citizen science as seen by scientists: methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 107-120. (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963662513497324) Having interviewed scientists who participated in the OPAL citizen science programme, in the UK, the authors present the scientist’s perspectives on the methodological and ethical issues of such an approach.

My attendance at the conference was generously sponsored by three different organisations, the Australian Citizen Science Association who granted me a travel scholarship, Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art & Design with whom I am studying for my PhD, and finally the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) who fund my PhD.  I am sincerely grateful to all three parties for supporting me in this opportunity.