Dataset Information

Understanding the (inter)disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen science: A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria.

ABSTRACT: Citizen science has become more popular in recent years, quickly taking on a variety of potentially conflicting characteristics: a way to collect massive data sets at relatively low cost, a way to break science out of the ivory tower and better engage the public, an approach to educate lay people in scientific methods. But the extent of current citizen science practice-the types of actors and scientific disciplines who take part-is still poorly understood. This article builds on recent surveys of citizen science in PLOS One by analyzing citizen science practice in Germany and Austria through the projects on two online platforms. We find evidence supporting previous findings that citizen science is a phenomenon strongest in biodiversity and environmental monitoring research, but at home in a number of scientific fields, such as history and geography. In addition, our survey method yields new insights into citizen science projects initiated by non-scientific actors. We close by discussing additional methodological considerations in attempting to present a cross-disciplinary overview of citizen science.

SUBMITTER: Pettibone L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5487260 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Understanding the (inter)disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen science: A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria.

Pettibone Lisa L Vohland Katrin K Ziegler David D

PloS one 20170627 6

Citizen science has become more popular in recent years, quickly taking on a variety of potentially conflicting characteristics: a way to collect massive data sets at relatively low cost, a way to break science out of the ivory tower and better engage the public, an approach to educate lay people in scientific methods. But the extent of current citizen science practice-the types of actors and scientific disciplines who take part-is still poorly understood. This article builds on recent surveys o ...[more]

PMID: 28654930

Similar Datasets

Project description:Partnering with people most affected by mental health problems can transform mental health outcomes. Citizen science as a research approach enables partnering with the public at a substantial scale, but there is scarce guidance on its use in mental health research. To develop best practise guidelines for conducting and reporting research, we conducted a systematic review of studies reporting mental health citizen science research. Documents were identified from electronic databases (n = 10), grey literature, conference proceedings, hand searching of specific journals and citation tracking. Document content was organised in NVIVO using the ten European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) citizen science principles. Best practise guidelines were developed by (a) identifying approaches specific to mental health research or where citizen science and mental health practises differ, (b) identifying relevant published reporting guidelines and methodologies already used in mental health research, and (c) identifying specific elements to include in reporting studies. A total of 14,063 documents were screened. Nine studies were included, from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the United States. Citizen scientists with lived experience of mental health problems were involved in data collection, analysis, project design, leadership, and dissemination of results. Most studies reported against some ECSA principles but reporting against these principles was often unclear and unstated. Best practise guidelines were developed, which identified mental health-specific issues relevant to citizen science, and reporting recommendations. These included citizen science as a mechanism for empowering people affected by mental health problems, attending to safeguarding issues such as health-related advice being shared between contributors, the use of existing health research reporting guidelines, evaluating the benefits for contributors and impact on researchers, explicit reporting of participation at each research stage, naming the citizen science platform and data repository, and clear reporting of consent processes, data ownership, and data sharing arrangements. We conclude that citizen science is feasible in mental health and can be complementary to other participatory approaches. It can contribute to active involvement, engagement, and knowledge production with the public. The proposed guidelines will support the quality of citizen science reporting.

Project description:Objective: In German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), simulated patients (SPs) have been a fixture for years and are used in teaching and examinations. As part of ongoing methodological standardization efforts and to support current and future faculty and curriculum developments, this exploratory study systematically investigates how and under what framework and conditions SPs are currently used in German-speaking countries. Methodology: The online questionnaire developed in cooperation with the Committee for Simulated Patients of the Society for Medical Education comprises 58 questions covering the organization and administration, size and design of the SP pool, general conditions and minimum standards for the assignments of the SPs. All medical faculties from Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland were invited to participate in the survey and a descriptive data analysis was performed. Results: 38 responses from 45 faculties were included in the evaluation of the survey (response rate: 84.4%). Most SP programs are affiliated with the Office of the Dean of Studies and skills labs or training centers and funded by faculty resources. Both the working hours in the SP programs and the qualifications of the employees vary extensively. The same applies to the number and average age of the employed SPs. On average each faculty uses 1,290 SP hours per year (min=45, max=6,500). The majority of SPs are used in a teaching environment, together with lecturers. At all sites, SPs provide feedback to students. This is always based on a uniform standard. All SPs receive training, which predominantly focuses on playing their role and giving feedback. Discussion: There are a variety of SP programs in German-speaking countries. While there are a few clear similarities (for example, feedback from SPs), many organizational and methodological aspects are handled differently. Although this allows innovation and flexibility, it also weakens the didactic SP method in its standardization and thus in the comparability of quality. A certain degree of standardization and high methodical quality is of great importance, especially in scientific and faculty internal discussions and with a view to the use of SPs in high-stakes examinations which must be improved in the future.

Dataset Information

Understanding the (inter)disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen science: A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria.

Publications

Understanding the (inter)disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen science: A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets