28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      To have your citizen science cake and eat it? Delivering research and outreach through Open Air Laboratories (OPAL)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The vast array of citizen science projects which have blossomed over the last decade span a spectrum of objectives from research to outreach. While some focus primarily on the collection of rigorous scientific data and others are positioned towards the public engagement end of the gradient, the majority of initiatives attempt to balance the two. Although meeting multiple aims can be seen as a ‘win–win’ situation, it can also yield significant challenges as allocating resources to one element means that they may be diverted away from the other. Here we analyse one such programme which set out to find an effective equilibrium between these arguably polarised goals. Through the lens of the Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) programme we explore the inherent trade-offs encountered under four indicators derived from an independent citizen science evaluation framework. Assimilating experience from the OPAL network we investigate practical approaches taken to tackle arising tensions.

          Results

          Working backwards from project delivery to design, we found the following elements to be important: ensuring outputs are fit for purpose, developing strong internal and external collaborations, building a sufficiently diverse partnership and considering target audiences. We combine these ‘operational indicators’ with four pre-existing ‘outcome indicators’ to create a model which can be used to shape the planning and delivery of a citizen science project.

          Conclusions

          Our findings suggest that whether the proverb in the title rings true will largely depend on the identification of challenges along the way and the ability to address these conflicts throughout the citizen science project.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The history of public participation in ecological research

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions.

              Citizen science as a way of communicating science and doing public engagement has over the past decade become the focus of considerable hopes and expectations. It can be seen as a win-win situation, where scientists get help from the public and the participants get a public engagement experience that involves them in real and meaningful scientific research. In this paper we present the results of a series of qualitative interviews with scientists who participated in the 'OPAL' portfolio of citizen science projects that has been running in England since 2007: What were their experiences of participating in citizen science? We highlight two particular sets of issues that our participants have voiced, methodological/epistemological and ethical issues. While we share the general enthusiasm over citizen science, we hope that the research in this paper opens up more debate over the potential pitfalls of citizen science as seen by the scientists themselves.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                p.lakeman-fraser@imperial.ac.uk
                l.gosling@imperial.ac.uk
                andy.moffat@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
                sarah.west@york.ac.uk
                r.fradera@imperial.ac.uk
                linda.davies@imperial.ac.uk
                M.Ayamba@shu.ac.uk
                r.vanderwal@abdn.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Ecol
                BMC Ecol
                BMC Ecology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6785
                22 July 2016
                22 July 2016
                2016
                : 16
                Issue : Suppl 1 Issue sponsor : Publication of this supplement was supported by Defra. The articles have undergone the journal's standard peer review process for supplements. The Supplement Editor declares that they have no competing interests.
                : 16
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, South Kensington, London, SW7 1NA UK
                [2 ]Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH UK
                [3 ]Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD UK
                [4 ]Department for the Natural and Built Environment, Faculty of Development and Society, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, S1 1WB UK
                [5 ]Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability, School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU UK
                Article
                65
                10.1186/s12898-016-0065-0
                4965728
                27460040
                eb2921b6-241c-4dfd-a71d-28e9c77739d4
                © Lakeman-Fraser et al. 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Ecology
                citizen science,evaluation framework,lessons learned,opal,outputs,outreach,public participation in scientific research,research,trade-off,volunteers

                Comments

                Comment on this article