Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SERIES
vol 05
STAKEHOLDER
ANALYSIS
INTERNATIONAL CITIZEN SCIENCE STAKEHOLDER
ANALYSIS ON DATA INTEROPERABILITY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Commons Lab
Science and Technology Innovation Program
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-3027
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/program/science-and-technology-innovation-program
2017, The Woodrow Wilson Center: This work is licensed under Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License: http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
This report may be reproduced in whole, or in part, for educational and non-commercial
uses, pursuant to the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-No-Derivs-3.0-
Unported License found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ and
provided this copyright notice and the following attribution is given.
Users may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further
copying of the copies that they make or distribute. Nongovernmental users may not
accept compensation of any manner in exchange for copies. The Woodrow Wilson
Center is open to certain derivative uses of this product beyond the limitations of the
included Creative Commons License, particularly for educational materials targeted at
expanding knowledge on the Commons Labs mandate. For more information, please
contact STIP@wilsoncenter.org.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/research/Commons%20Lab
This report is funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and published through the
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, DC.
The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and are not pre-
sented as those of any of the sponsoring organizations or financial supporters of those
organizations. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors and editors.
iv
The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars is the national, living
U.S. memorial honoring President Woodrow Wilson. In providing an essential link
between the worlds of ideas and public policy, the Center addresses current and
emerging challenges confronting the United States and the world. The Center promotes
policy-relevant research and dialogue to increase the understanding and enhance the
capabilities and knowledge of leaders, citizens, and institutions worldwide. Created
by an act of Congress in 1968, the Center is a nonpartisan institution headquartered
in Washington, D.C.; it is supported by both public and private funds.
For more information about the Centers activities and publications, please visit us
on the Web at www.wilsoncenter.org.
Board of Trustees
The Honorable Thomas R. Nides, Vice Chair, Morgan Stanley
PUBLIC MEMBERS:
The Honorable William D. Adams, Chairman, National Endowment for the
Humanities
The Honorable Thomas E. Price, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services
The Honorable David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, National Archives and
Records Administration
The Honorable Carla D. Hayden, Librarian of Congress
The Honorable Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary, U.S. Department of State
The Honorable Elisabeth DeVos, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
The Honorable David J. Skorton, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution
vi
The Science and Technology Innovation Program (STIP)
analyzes the evolving implications of such emerging technologies as synthetic
biology, nanotechnology, and geoengineering. STIPs research goes beyond
laboratory science to explore new information and communication technolo-
gies, sensor networks, prediction markets, and serious games. The program
provides critical yet nonpartisan research for the policymaking community
and guides officials in the design of new governance frameworks. It gauges
crucial public support for science and weighs the overall risks and benefits
of technology for society at large.
Blog: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blogs/ctrl-forward
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WilsonSTIP
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WilsonSTIP
The Commons Lab of the Science and Technology Innovation Program is sup-
ported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Authors are indebted to our inter- Drs. Mimi Arandjelovic and Hjalmar
viewees for contributing their precious Kuehl (Chimp&See / MPI-EVA Pan Af-
time, experience, expertise, and ideas to rican Project: The Cultured Chimpan-
this study, to the reviewers for their criti- zee), Blint Balzs (Environmental So-
cal comments and thoughtful sugges- cial Science Research Group), Pieter
tions, and to the Wilson Center staff, van Boheemen (Waag Societys Open
Anne Bowser and Elizabeth Tyson for Wetlab, Public laboratory for biotech-
their visionary leadership in establishing nology), project manager from commu-
this study, and their careful guidance nity mapping project on urban air qual-
throughout the process. We would ity in the EU, Douglas Tait (Community
especially like to thank: Theresa Crim- Driven Science: Understanding the Im-
mins (USA National Phenology Net- pacts of Coal Seam Gas Development
work), Darlene Cavalier (Arizona State in Australia), Jemina Stuart-Smith (Red-
University and SciStarter), Ben Ger- map Australia), Ross Goldingay (Lis-
hardstein (U.S. Agency for Toxic Sub- more Koala monitoring), Rose Herben
stances and Disease Registry), Grand (EstuaryWatch), Peter Brenton (Atlas
Lake Watershed Mercury Study, Steve of Living Australia), Renae Sayers (Fire-
Kelling (eBird), Connie Walker and balls in the Sky), and Dr. Debra Stokes
Mark Newhouse (Globe at Night), Ha- (Southern Cross University, Australia).
git Keysar (Public Lab Organizer), Da- This research was made possi-
cha Atienza Ariznavarreta (BioBlitzes ble through the generosity of the
at NHM Barcelona), Andrea Sieber Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
(Landscape and You-th & BrotZeit),
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
CLAUDIA GOBEL
Claudia Gbel is project manager at the European
Citizen Science Association and guest researcher
at Museum fr Naturkunde Berlin. Her background is
in science and technology studies. She works on the
organization of citizen sciences, links to open science
and policy engagement.
VICTORIA Y. MARTIN
Victoria Martin is an environmental social scientist with
research experience in a wide range of environmental
impact and management issues in Australia and New
Zealand. Her recent PhD thesis focused on public
engagement in marine citizen science in Australia.
Victoria is now a Rose Postdoctoral Research Fellow
with the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, USA, where she
is continuing her research into citizen science.
MONICA RAMIREZ-ANDREOTTA
Dr. Mnica Ramrez-Andreotta is an assistant profes-
sor of Soil, Water and Environmental Science with a
join appointment in the College of Public Health and
Director of the Integrated Environmental Science and
Health Risk Laboratory at the University of Arizona.
Her research programs include: developing a fun-
damental understanding of the fate and transport of
contaminants in plant-soil systems, building citizen
science programs to increase public participation
in environmental health research, creating low cost
environmental monitoring tools to improve exposure
estimates, and designing data visualizations and risk
communication strategies to improve environmental
health literacy.
CONTENTS
FOREWORD / 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / 3
INTRODUCTION / 7
RESULTS / 17
Stakeholders of citizen science projects / 17
Nature of stakeholder involvement / 17
Potential for engaging new stakeholders / 18
Internal and external stakeholders / 18
Data sharing, accessibility, use & reuse / 20
Sharing and accessibility of data and knowledge / 20
Use and reuse of data and knowledge / 22
Data Standardization and Interoperability / 23
What is currently being done by projects and rationale / 23
Overall understanding and perceptions of interoperability / 24
Concerns regarding interoperability / 24
DISCUSSION / 29
Interoperability is only slowly becoming a topic of concern in the citizen science
community / 29
Heterogeneity of data sharing practices and adoption of standards for
interoperability / 30
A broader concept of interoperability is needed to work across disciplines and
project types / 30
Advancing interoperability both facilitates and rests on involvement of stakeholders
/ 31
Limitations of the Study / 33
ENDNOTES / 39
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
xii
FOREWORD
I first began thinking about citizen sci- developed by, the diverse global citizen
ence data standards during the sum- science community.
mer of 2013, as a Research Intern with
the DataONE Public Participation in To address these concerns Claudia
Scientific Research (PPSR) Working Goebel, Elizabeth Tyson, and I conceived
Group. DataONE was interested in what of this Stakeholder Analysis at the 2015
we called Project Metadata, perhaps meeting of the European Citizen Science
more accurately defined as a set of key Association (ECSA). Through this report
terms that could help databases like we find empirical evidence for the impor-
SciStarter, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, tance of data standards in citizen science,
and CitSci.org share records. It quickly for example learning that some authorities
became clear that the value of developing may not use citizen science data because
a common, shared vocabulary for talking of uncertainty about data quality assur- ANNE BOWSER
about citizen science extends far beyond ance and quality control measures, and a CoDirector,
the ability to exchange database records. lack of data standardization practices (p. Commons Lab
Standardized metadata documentation 27). Armed with this knowledge, citizen Science and
promotes the re-use of information by al- science projects can decide to adopt the Technology
lowing researchers outside of the immedi- standards endorsed by formal authorities Innovation Program
ate project team to make decisions about to make it easier for their data to be used. Wilson Center
fitness for use. And developing a com- Or they may deliberately create their own
mon data model can allow researchers standards. Some citizen science commu-
working on different scales and research nities who use bucket sampling to mea-
domains to exchange information, thus sure air quality, for example, design their
scaling the impact of any single citizen own protocols to highlight the absence of
science activity. existing standards for certain pollutants or
point out discrepancies between existing
The promise of citizen science data in- standards for monitoring.1
teroperability is significant, and recog-
nized by a number of organizations around This report uncovered a number of bar-
the globe. By 2015 key initiatives were led riers to the adoption of data standards
by the European Citizen Observatory Web in citizen science. Some projects may
(COBWEB) project, which began devel- doubt the applicability of standards to
oping a common data model through the their research goals, or fear losing relevant
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), and information if standards are too general
the Atlas of Living Australia(ALA), which or vague (p. 23). Once articulated, these
began designing an Australian citizen challenges can be addressed by future
science project database and structured initiatives. We offer this report as a road-
data collection protocol supported by map to help coordinate and inform future
the BioCollect tool. We were excited by work on data interoperability, so that any
these initiatives but also concerned that standards produced can be valued or
without comprehensive planning, data at least understood by a diverse range
standards advanced by a handful of tech- of citizen science stakeholders around
nologists and community leaders would the globe.
ultimately be imposed on, rather than co-
1
1 Ottinger, Gwen. Social Movement-Based Citizen Science. Cavalier,
Darlene and Kennedy, Eric, Eds., The Rightful Place of Science: Citizen Sci-
ence, Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, 2016.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study examines citizen science proj- diversity data from a regional network
ects, with particular emphasis on the and data collected by a public health
stakeholders involved in data and knowl- program. This would enable scientists to
edge generation and the use and reuse advance research on a range of topics,
of information, with the aim of inform- like by using plant phenology to predict
ing data and metadata standardization allergy seasons, understand how lead
and interoperability initiatives. It draws concentrations in drinking water relate to
on semi-structured interviews with 16 lead levels in childrens blood, or combine
CS projects with different governance data on avian presence, distribution, or
models, disciplines, and project aims in health air quality data.
the United States (U.S.), Europe, and
Australia, along with two citizen science Main findings: The projects reported
project catalogues and two potential data a broad spectrum of stakeholders who
users in government and academia. In engage in project decision-making, pro-
this study, interoperability is defined as vide support, and/or use project data.
the ability of different information technol- Six stakeholder groups were identified
ogy systems and software applications in the interviews: (1) Civil society organi-
to communicate, exchange data, and use zations, informal groups and community
the information that has been exchanged. members; (2) Academic and research
It rests on the development of standards organizations; (3) Government agen-
and seeks to give parties outside the cies and departments; (4) Participants;
immediate project team, i.e. external and (5) Formal learning institutions such as
potential stakeholders, access to data schools; and, (6) Businesses or industry.
and knowledge. Barriers to the involvement of a wide
range of stakeholders included: a lack of
Achieving greater interoperability would awareness by these stakeholders about
enable data generated by different citizen the project, or vice versa; difficulty in
science projects to more easily be re- accessing or knowing how to access
used by diverse parties (e.g., volunteers, potential stakeholders; and, time and
researchers, and decision-makers); by resource constraints for doing so.
combining data sets of different scales
(e.g., local, regional, national, and Perspectives on data standardization
global scales); and, by combining dif- and interoperability efforts were het-
ferent types of data (e.g., to help answer erogeneous across projects. Benefits
transdisciplinary research questions). were seen by many interviewees, al-
For example, water quality information though overall the understanding of what
collected by one local citizen science interoperability means was limited. Many
project could be combined with diverse projects either used research domain
types of environmental monitoring or bio- specific, regulatory, or community
3
COMMONS LAB | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
standards while making their data acces- interoperability both facilitates and rests on
sible via domain specific databases, or the involvement of internal, external and, if
shared online tools. Some projects also possible, potential stakeholders.
built infrastructure for data interoperability.
For projects dealing with qualitative data Recommendations: (1) Citizen science
or focusing more on non-data related ac- project managers should invest time at
tivities like knowledge sharing or devising the outset of projects to identify stake-
experimental designs, it was largely unclear holders who could use, and potentially
what data interoperability could mean to reuse data and knowledge. Existing data
them and how they would be impacted. and metadata standards should be used
Main concerns raised regarding the pro- for data management whenever possible.
motion of interoperability in citizen science (2) Interoperability initiatives should be
included limited applicability due to the transparent, open to all types of citizen sci-
natural science bias of standards; costs of ence projects, involve internal and external
adopting standards; doubts about adapt- stakeholders, and consult potential stake-
ability to local circumstances; resistance holders. Shared citizen science data and
to curtailing stakeholder participation and metadata standards should be adaptable
passing of burden; fear of losing relevant to the needs of citizen science projects,
information and decreasing data quality; leverage existing community standards,
and, difficulties in agreeing on common and be open to review and extension. Effort
metadata terms. should be dedicated to building a con-
cept of interoperability that goes beyond
Conclusions: Interoperability is only data, the natural sciences and informa-
slowly becoming a topic of concern in tion technologies. Future interoperability
the citizen science community. The het- initiatives should embrace plurality in a
erogeneity of data sharing practices and comprehensive way. (3) Citizen Science
adoption of diverse types of standards associations and other networks should
represent major challenges for interop- offer capacity building on interoperability
erability initiatives. A broad concept of and facilitate the adoption of data and
interoperability is needed to work across metadata standards.
disciplines and project types. Advancing
4
Photo Credit: Gardenroots Citizen Science Project
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6
INTRODUCTION 1
Mobilizing data for research and making the DataONE Public Participation in
data count as evidence for decision- Scientific Research (PPSR) working
making are among the major driving group began working on PPSR CORE,4
forces of citizen science and other forms initially designed as a metadata standard
of participatory research.2, 3 Data and for describing key facets of citizen sci-
information access, licenses, owner- ence projects to help existing project re-
ship, and quality are central topics for positories exchange records. The follow-
citizen science endeavors. Considering ing year, researchers in Europe started
the diversity of emerging projects along developing SWE4CitizenScience, a
with the specificities of how they are common data model that once imple-
implemented locally, it is no wonder that mented and deployed will support data
interoperability - or, the ability of different interoperability between almost all types
information technology systems and soft- of crowdsourcing projects. Actors from
ware applications to communicate, ex- around the globe are involved in these
change data, and use the information that projects, including working groups
has been exchanged - is key to making in the U.S.- based Citizen Science
citizen science research transformative Association (CSA), the European
and more widely accessible to science, Citizen Science Association (ECSA), the
policy, and society at large (see Figure Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC),
1 for a definition of interoperability and Biodiversity Information Standards
other important concepts). (TDWG), The Committee on Data for
Science and Technology (CODATA),
In the past years, various activities have a COST Action on citizen science,
emerged with the aim of fostering in- platforms like CitSci.org, SciStarter
teroperability, both by standardizing and the Atlas of Living Australia, the
the information used to describe citi- Joint Research Center of the European
zen science projects, and by developing Commission, the Global Biodiversity
joint data and metadata standards and Information Facility, and the Woodrow
protocols for data collection and shar- Wilson International Center for Scholars.
ing to support exchange and reuse. In
2012, U.S. researchers affiliated with
7
COMMONS LAB | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
Citizen science programs each have differ- health issues, at national and even global
ent technical requirements, project goals, scales. However, any standardization effort
interests, and stakeholders. Adopting a also poses challenges, including techni-
common and shared vocabulary for de- cal hurdles in working with diverse and
scribing citizen science projects and citi- heterogeneous communities of practice as
zen science data (hereafter: data stan- well as inclusiveness questions regarding
dards) can allow information collected by, transparency and openness for co-creation
for example, a local air quality monitoring and co-design in the process of defining
project to be understood and re-used by both common and project-specific prin-
researchers and communities working ciples and tools.
on other related topics, such as public
Key Concepts
This study seeks to explore the range of stakeholders of citizen science projects to
better engage them in using data standards to promote interoperability in citizen
science.
8
Adopting a common and shared vocabulary
for describing citizen science projects and
citizen science data (data standards) can allow
information collected by, for example, a local air
quality monitoring project to be understood and re-
used by researchers and communities working on
other related topics, such as public health issues,
at national and even global scales. However, any
standardization effort also poses challenges,
including technical hurdles in working with diverse
and heterogeneous communities of practice
as well as inclusiveness questions regarding
transparency and openness for co-creation
and co-design in the process of defining both
common and project-specific principles and tools.
9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10
AIMS AND METHODS 2
In the context of ongoing work on data who could potentially benefit from (re)
standardization in citizen science, this using the data and knowledge created.
exploratory study aims to (1) understand 3. Gather citizen science project leaders
which stakeholders or parties may be perspectives on:
impacted by these efforts, and (2) identify
potential consequences of standardiza- a. Data generation, management, own-
tion and interoperability. The focus is on ership, accessibility, and sharing.
individuals, groups, and organizations b. Data standardization and interoper-
involved in citizen science activities, as ability efforts.
well as those affected by or potentially
A stakeholder analysis is a methodology
benefiting from the data and knowledge
originating in the social sciences used to
generated in such projects. On this basis
identify parties that are or will be affected
the study seeks to inform ongoing and
by, and thus have a stake in a political
future standardization and interoperabil-
program or particular issue, such as an
ity efforts as well as to facilitate broader
oil spill or a plan to construct a factory in
participation by global citizen science
a given location. While it is a common ap-
communities.
proach in business and natural resource
management, it has become popular as
To accomplish this goal, specific
a preliminary study for designing and
objectives are to:
implementing broad stakeholder engage-
1. Survey a purposive sample of citizen ment mechanisms in recent years.6 In the
science projects representing a full context of this study, a stakeholder is
spectrum of governance models and understood as an individual or organiza-
participatory approaches, as well tion that contributes to realizing a citizen
as projects from different scientific science project, has a vested interest in
disciplines.5 a citizen science project, and/or benefits
2. Identify the various types of stakehold- from the research activities and data
ers involved in citizen science efforts, produced. While a broad spectrum of
and explore additional stakeholders contributions, e.g. money, time, equip-
11
COMMONS LAB | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
12
INTERNATIONAL CITIZEN SCIENCE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ON DATA INTEROPERABILITY | RESEARCH SERIES
Discipline
*Projects included in the study according to Shirk et al.'s11 PPSR framework, scientific disciplines and regions (Australia =AU,
Europe = EU, United States of America = U.S.).
13
COMMONS LAB | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
authors and Wilson Center staff to cover three authors then compared their research
several themes, including for each project: notes and early analysis to iteratively de-
a description of the project; stakeholders; fine the categories of stakeholders pre-
data generation and management prac- sented below, as well as highlight recurring
tices; degree of interoperability with other themes and major tensions. In addition to
projects; and the projects perspective on interview questions and research journals,
data standardization in citizen science (a a selection of exemplary and broad stake-
full interview protocol may be found in the holder groups from the literature review14
Online Appendix). Each interview lasted was used to prompt further reflection by
between 45 and 90 minutes. Responses the authors. The stakeholders mentioned
were recorded in a research journal, with by interviewees were then grouped and
initial results categorized by each author sample categories adapted.
individually using thematic analysis.13 The
14
Interview Participants
Interview participants in the United States, Europe, and Australia. We invite future researchers to
expand the scope of inquiry to new geographic areas.
15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
16
RESULTS 3
17
COMMONS LAB | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
as access to land and used project data number of roles they played in the proj-
or knowledge. The study also observed ects was variable, and usually fewer than
that the community members/groups who the group leading the project.
participated in project decision-making
for collaborative, co-created and collegial The final two stakeholder groups were
projects also led many aspects of project more removed from the core functions of
design and implementation. For example, the citizen science projects. Formal edu-
in one collegial project, community mem- cational institutions were not involved in
bers decided what tools to use, received the contractual project. However, these
training online or through a local organiz- institutions supported contributory and
er, and then created their own projects, co-created projects (especially for data
which is the inverse of a contributory or collection) and used citizen science data
contractual project. Academic and other or knowledge from contributory, collabor-
research institutions were also highly in- ative, co-created, and collegial projects,
volved in citizen science and formed the primarily for educational purposes. Two
largest group of lead organizations for the projects included schools in decision-
projects, and were present in projects of making, one of which was a co-created
all governance models. As a stakeholder project, and the other a collaborative proj-
group, academic and research organiza- ect. Industry and business involvement
tions were also instrumental in decision- was absent in the large majority projects.
making and support, and made use of the However, they were more deeply involved
project data or knowledge. in some of the co-created projects, where
they assisted decision-making, provided
Government agencies and departments support, and used the data and knowl-
were mentioned as important stake- edge. These were also identified in the
holders in all governance models, with contractual project (as a data user) and
the goal of influencing policy outcomes. contributory projects (for support and
Compared to other stakeholders, the data use), yet were absent from the col-
presence of this third group in the citizen laborative projects interviewed.
science projects was moderate. Gov-
ernment involvement in citizen science Potential for engaging new
was strongest in contributory projects, stakeholders
where it was found to fund, lead projects,
Potential stakeholders who were not cur-
make decisions, and/or support and use
rently involved in projects or using citi-
the data/knowledge. Government sup-
zen science data were mentioned by all
port, decision-making and/or data or
governance levels except the contractual
knowledge use was also present in col-
project. The list of stakeholders for pos-
laborative and co-created projects, yet
sible future collaborations included Local,
appeared in the contractual and collegial
state, or federal government agencies or
projects only as a potential data user.
departments; Business or industry; Civil
Participants represented the volunteers15
society organizations, informal groups
who contributed to the projects across
and community members; and, members
all governance models. While these par-
of other Academic and Research Orga-
ticipants were present in all projects, the
18
INTERNATIONAL CITIZEN SCIENCE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ON DATA INTEROPERABILITY | RESEARCH SERIES
19
COMMONS LAB | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
20
INTERNATIONAL CITIZEN SCIENCE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ON DATA INTEROPERABILITY | RESEARCH SERIES
journals (not necessarily open access), the data was only shared and used by
public reports, online graphics, reposito- the community that generated the data, in
ries, or social media. In one case, due to hard copy format.
potential conflicts and local constraints,
The reasons interviewees offered for not making project data more
accessible included:
Embargo periods ensuring privileged access to the research group for con-
ducting. analyses and publishing results before others can do so.
Language barriers.
21
COMMONS LAB | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
While some barriers to data openness was built around the use of open source
and accessibility should be addressed, tools. The tools were openly available for
others highlight the fact that (partial) non- everybody to choose which to apply to their
openness is functional, rather than dys- own projects. In turn, tool users were en-
functional, for the operation of citizen sci- couraged to share their experiences within
ence projects and thus should not simply the community to improve the methodolo-
be treated as barriers to access. The gies, adding rigor and expanding the ap-
reasons for limiting accessibility mentioned plicability of the tools. Thus, accessibility,
above are rooted in the complex interplay use and reuse of knowledge and meth-
of disciplinary traditions, methodologi- odologies are ingrained in the function-
cal questions, project aims, and the de- ing of the projects and larger community.
sign and implementation of the project,
all of which merit further investigation. Use and reuse of data and
knowledge
Across all projects, results were usually
Examining how stakeholders are involved in
shared among internal stakeholders, and
project governance is also relevant for bet-
rarely with external stakeholders. A compari-
ter understanding the use of citizen science
son of project governance models illustrates
data as well as of knowledge and proce-
three aspects of how different conceptions
dures. In most cases, data use by external
of internal and external stakeholders mani-
stakeholders was limited, non-existent or
fest in nuanced sharing practices. First, raw
unknown. While some projects said there
data sharing was generally practiced within
were no barriers to their data, several be-
the project team, and less so with external
lieved that potential users were unaware
parties. Co-created projects usually gave
of the data or the project itself. Several co-
participants access to raw data (as well as
created projects stated they had already
to procedures and results) while only some
involved all relevant stakeholders as project
contributory projects did so. Contributory
partners (e.g. by co-designing study ques-
projects, in turn, were more likely to share
tions or choosing activity locations), whom
data with external stakeholders for ana-
they considered having an interest in using
lytical or environmental management pur-
the data, such as local or national authori-
poses. Second, for contributory research-
ties. Although these co-created projects
er-driven projects, sharing raw data was
give various stakeholders access to results,
usually understood as making project data
future (re)use by potential new internal or
available to the research community, while
external stakeholders is rather neglected
sharing processed data or results, especial-
in these cases. Some projects that empha-
ly in the form of graphics, maps, or report
sized sharing knowledge and procedures
cards was understood as a form of making
reported their methodologies had often
their data accessible to the public and/or
been used and requested by external par-
contributing participants. Third, the collegial
ties seeking to use the project or replicate
project provided yet another perspective of
co-creation methodologies and experimen-
how sharing knowledge - in this case tools
tal designs they developed. This highlights
and methodologies - is linked to the social
the importance of sharing project results
structure of citizen science activities. The
beyond simply data.
community from which the project stems
22
INTERNATIONAL CITIZEN SCIENCE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ON DATA INTEROPERABILITY | RESEARCH SERIES
To understand the motivations of poten- any, they were undertaking to ensure proj-
tial external stakeholders for using citizen ect data or other information could be eas-
science data, interviews were conduct- ily shared.
ed with an employee of the federal health
agency in the U.S. and an environmen- What is currently being done
tal scientist in Australia. Neither inter- by projects and rationale
viewee was using citizen science data,
Interoperability as defined here was not
citing the main reasons as uncertainty
considered by most interviewees and if
about data quality assurance and qual-
so, only infrequently in the beginning of
ity control measures, and a lack of data
projects. At the same time, exemplary
standardization practices for environ-
work on making project data interoper-
mental sampling. The Australian scientist
able was conducted in some of the
also mentioned a lack of awareness of
surveyed projects. Interviewees from
citizen science data sets amongst sci-
eBird (U.S.), BioBlitz Barcelona (Eu-
entists generally and, more specifically,
rope), and Atlas of Living Australia said
her lack of knowledge about the location
they use established scientific, industry
of data sets, ownership and publication
and/or regulatory data standards, like
or access rights. Given these concerns
Darwin Core. For example, eBird data,
the U.S. health agency employee said
with a location and date, can go to a
they prefer to stick to conventional data
national data repository like the U.S.
collected following U.S. Environmental
Geological Survey (USGS) or National
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) standard
Atmospheric and Space Administration
methods that have been published in
(NASA), pull the data and relate their
scientific literature. The Australian sci-
data to the location and information
entist said the adoption of standards
they have. Globe at Night, eBird, and
in citizen science would help alleviate
USA National Phenology Network are
some concerns about the influence of
already merging topic-based datasets
externalities, the procedures used, and
and have developed or are developing
allow for multi-region comparisons, all
interoperability infrastructures to do
of which is important for the type of re-
this. This approach is effective because
search this scientist undertakes.
these projects collect the same data
that can fall under a similar field, using
DATA STANDARDIZATION the same terminology. Limitations of this
AND INTEROPERABILITY approach include when data of diverse
types or from diverse sources need to
In the interviews, interoperability was de-
be combined, as highlighted when an
fined as the ability of different information
interviewee representing Globe at Night
technology systems and software appli-
discussed the National Park Service
cations to communicate, exchange data,
implementing a system to measure light
and use the information that has been
using an entirely different standard of
exchanged, which rests on the adoption
measurement, which creates difficulties
of data and metadata standards. Further
when attempting to work with the Na-
questions explored what interoperability
tional Park Service or combine data.
meant for projects, and what practices, if
23
COMMONS LAB | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
24
INTERNATIONAL CITIZEN SCIENCE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ON DATA INTEROPERABILITY | RESEARCH SERIES
It's spring and that means horseshoe crabs are nesting in high numbers along many of
Florida's beaches. A new citizen science program in the Nature Coast is helping state
managers collect important data about horseshoe crab populations. This program is
a collaboration between Florida Sea Grant, UF IFAS Nature Coast Biological Station,
FWC, and UF's Biology Department. Sea Grant Agents like @scbarry are training citizens
to count nesting horseshoe crabs and apply tags to the crabs as part of a long-term
population study and you can help! Keep your eye out for tagged horseshoe crabs the
next time you are walking the beach or near the water.
25
COMMONS LAB | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
26
INTERNATIONAL CITIZEN SCIENCE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ON DATA INTEROPERABILITY | RESEARCH SERIES
27
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
28
DISCUSSION 4
29
COMMONS LAB | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
ECSA or CSA (who are supporting those dardized, not just with citizen science, but
initiatives) were not mentioned as stake- also between federal agencies, such as
holders by interviewees. These initiatives the EPA, USGS, and NASA, which often
need to become more transparent and in- have their own standards and procedures
clusive to engage more projects and sub- for collecting, storing and sharing data.
communities in citizen science. In particu-
lar, it would be useful to specify ways in
which interested projects could engage
A BROADER CONCEPT
in interoperability initiatives and reach out OF INTEROPERABILITY
to a broader community. This issue may IS NEEDED TO WORK
be best addressed through the support of ACROSS DISCIPLINES
citizen science associations themselves, AND PROJECT TYPES
as further discussed below.
Several interviewees criticized the con-
cept of interoperability employed in this
HETEROGENEITY OF DATA study for being too narrow in its focus on
SHARING PRACTICES information technologies, natural sciences
and quantitative data, which are typical
AND ADOPTION OF
characteristics of mainstream CS projects,
STANDARDS FOR and often contributory or collaborative
INTEROPERABILITY governance models. Such a perspective
Considering the breadth of citizen sci- misses the other various concrete out-
ence project designs and research puts generated in CS projects, such as
methodologies, the clearest benefits of tools, experimental design, and program-
interoperability appear to persist among ming code, as well as the impacts of some
projects collecting similar types of data citizen science projects, especially learn-
and working with the same media or spe- ing and transformative action. The later
cies. For biodiversity monitoring, a body are more common in projects that enable
of standards (such as Darwin Core) im- greater involvement of the participants in
proves interoperability and promotes con- decision-making and project design, for
nection to environmental health efforts, example co-created or collegial projects.
yet differences in the ways in which di- Pluralityincluding through regional,
verse types of data are collected, stored disciplinary, terminological, and method-
and shared means broad-scale adoption ological considerationsis necessary and
of interoperability will not be simple. Yet, enriching for science and consequently it
this is an issue that requires urgent atten- should not be reduced. This means that
tion, particularly since there has been lim- standards for citizen science data need to
ited uptake within CS practice, because enable, not infringe upon different forms
one of the great benefits of interoperabili- of plurality. In order to account for further
ty is the potential to contribute to avoiding developments in the field and to allow for
environmental disasters. Incidents like the various practitioner communities to con-
Flint, Michigan (U.S.) lead catastrophe tribute, standards should continue to have
might be avoided in the future if water formal review and revision processes in
quality data collection efforts were stan- place and in their architecture, as well as
30
INTERNATIONAL CITIZEN SCIENCE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ON DATA INTEROPERABILITY | RESEARCH SERIES
31
COMMONS LAB | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
than an issue related to the engagement ects, and therefore needs to be consid-
of internal and external stakeholders. At ered for both directions of exchange.
the same time, potential stakeholders
such as the US health agency representa- It is clear that the implementation of in-
tive and the Australian scientist described teroperability measures has the potential
earlierreport difficulty in accessing the to extend sharing and reuse of data and
data, knowing that it exists in the first knowledge beyond internal project stake-
place, and whether data meets quality as- holders, where it is currently concentrated,
surance/quality control standards. Better towards more external and potential stake-
interoperability can help mitigate these holders (Figure 2). In turn, identification of,
concerns. While for some projects, data and consultation with, stakeholders at the
sharing and access beyond the core proj- planning stages of CS projects will help
ect team will not be important or practical, support interoperability. The same is true
data interoperability nevertheless remains for additional work on citizen science data
a major challenge for the progression and standards, which would benefit from the
impact of citizen science as a diverse in- involvement of both more diverse proj-
put into knowledge production and deci- ects and external stakeholders. Greater
sion-making. Interoperability also has the and more diverse stakeholder involvement
potential to make external stakeholders would enable broader and more effective
data and information needs more easily use of citizen science data, methodologies
understood and accessible to CS proj- and knowledge in the future.
32
INTERNATIONAL CITIZEN SCIENCE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ON DATA INTEROPERABILITY | RESEARCH SERIES
Actual Actual
Internal External
Stakeholders Stakeholders
Potential
Internal
Stakeholders Potential
External
Stakeholders
33
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
34
OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE FIELD AND,FUTURE 5
RESEARCH
Based upon the work described here, stakeholders of CS projects. Trust and
recommendations are proposed to dialogue must be built with internal and
guide future citizen science interop- external stakeholders and their experi-
erability efforts. These recommenda- ences and necessities need to be taken
tions have been crafted and tailored for into account. Potential stakeholders at
citizen science projects, overarching various levels (local, national, interna-
interoperability initiatives, and citizen tional), especially regulatory agencies
science associations and networks. and government, should be included
into interoperability initiatives to express
Citizen Science Projects: Regard- their needs and contribute expertise.
less of governance model, it is impor- When developing common vocabu-
tant to identify actual and potential lary and interoperability protocols, it is
stakeholders (including partners to imperative to build in mechanisms for
support the project and/or benefit from review and extension for new issues
using the outputs), and have data and and communities in the future to make
knowledge management and sharing standards facilitate, not curtail, the in-
protocols in place to facilitate informa- novative potential of CS as a develop-
tion use and reuse. It is also critical for ing approach. Standards should also be
projects to maintain high standards for flexible and adaptable to various fields
data management and data quality, and of CS research, e.g. implemented as
to control for and accurately describe a modular framework like the Creative
biases in datasets. Projects should Commons (CC) licenses, which allow
consider seeking out information on ex- users to select the best choice from a
isting data standards, along with similar range of options. Existing community
projects for their experiences, and get standards should be leveraged where
support where needed. possible. Work needs to progress to-
wards a concept of interoperability that
Interoperability Initiatives: Current goes beyond data, natural sciences and
standardization and interoperability ini- information technologies and embraces
tiatives should become more transpar- plurality by being open and useful for
ent and open to internal and external various forms of knowledge, qualitative
35
COMMONS LAB | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
36
INTERNATIONAL CITIZEN SCIENCE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ON DATA INTEROPERABILITY | RESEARCH SERIES
Many of the citizen science projects provided through another channel, such
contributing to this research shared sig- as hackathon-style events to remediate
nificant practical limitations in terms of exiting data or database records, is also
access to resources such as funding needed. It is crucial that these resources
and technological expertise that would support the full range of citizen science
be required to advance the use of data projects, including small, growing, and
standards.19 Resources provided by the grassroots initiatives, in addition to the
associations, as suggested above, can larger and more established projects that
help mitigate knowledge gaps. How- enjoy privileged access to national and in-
ever, funding or technological expertise ternational level funding schemes.
37
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
38
ENDNOTES
6 Reed, Mark S., Anil Graves, Nor- 11 Shirk, Jennifer, Heidi Ballard, Candie
man Dandy, Helena Posthumus, Wilderman, Tina Phillips, Andrea Wig-
Klaus Hubacek, Joe Morris, Christina gins, Rebecca Jordan, Ellen McCallie
Prell, Claire H. Quinn, and Lindsay et al. Public participation in scientific
C. Stringer. Whos in and why? research: a framework for deliberate
A typology of stakeholder analysis
39
COMMONS LAB | STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
40
41
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC, USA 20004-3027
202-691-4000
www.wilsoncenter.org