Everyone is a citizen but not all have the same kind of grounding in the methods of science. Someone with a training in science should find it easy to separate pomp from substance. The phrase "citizen science" is a fairly recent one and one that has been pompously marketed without enough clarity.
In India, the label of a "scientist" is a status symbol, indeed many actually proceed on the academic path just to earn status. In many of the key professions (example: medicine, law) authority is gained mainly by guarded membership, initiation rituals, symbolism and hierarchies. At its roots, science differs in being egalitarian but the profession (with relatively few paid positions) is at odds and its institutions are replete with tribal ritual and power hierarchies. Indian science, thanks to the people in it, probably carries more than the ordinary share of ritual.
Long before the creation of the profession of science, "Victorian scientists" (who of course never called themselves that) pursued the quest for knowledge (i.e. science) and were for the most part quite good as citizens. In the field of taxonomy, specimens came to be the reliable carriers of information and they became a key to accumulating information in zoology and botany. After all what could you write about or talk about if you did not have a name for the subject under study. Specimens became currency. Victorian scientists collaborated in various ways that involved sharing information, sharing /exchanging specimens, debating ideas, and tapping a network of friends and relatives for gathering more "facts". Learned societies and their journals helped the participants meet and share knowledge across time and geographic boundaries. Specimens, the key carriers of unquestionable information, were acquired for a price and there was a niche economy created with wealthy collectors, not-so-wealthy field collectors and various agencies bridging them. That economy also included the publishers of monographs, field guides and catalogues who grew in power along with organizations such as museums and later universities. Along with political changes, there was also a movement of power from private wealthy citizens to state-supported organizations. Power brings disparity and the Victorian brand of science had its share of issues but has there been progress in the ways of doing science?
In India, the label of a "scientist" is a status symbol, indeed many actually proceed on the academic path just to earn status. In many of the key professions (example: medicine, law) authority is gained mainly by guarded membership, initiation rituals, symbolism and hierarchies. At its roots, science differs in being egalitarian but the profession (with relatively few paid positions) is at odds and its institutions are replete with tribal ritual and power hierarchies. Indian science, thanks to the people in it, probably carries more than the ordinary share of ritual.
Long before the creation of the profession of science, "Victorian scientists" (who of course never called themselves that) pursued the quest for knowledge (i.e. science) and were for the most part quite good as citizens. In the field of taxonomy, specimens came to be the reliable carriers of information and they became a key to accumulating information in zoology and botany. After all what could you write about or talk about if you did not have a name for the subject under study. Specimens became currency. Victorian scientists collaborated in various ways that involved sharing information, sharing /exchanging specimens, debating ideas, and tapping a network of friends and relatives for gathering more "facts". Learned societies and their journals helped the participants meet and share knowledge across time and geographic boundaries. Specimens, the key carriers of unquestionable information, were acquired for a price and there was a niche economy created with wealthy collectors, not-so-wealthy field collectors and various agencies bridging them. That economy also included the publishers of monographs, field guides and catalogues who grew in power along with organizations such as museums and later universities. Along with political changes, there was also a movement of power from private wealthy citizens to state-supported organizations. Power brings disparity and the Victorian brand of science had its share of issues but has there been progress in the ways of doing science?
Looking at the natural world can be completely absorbing. The kinds of sights, sounds, textures, smells and maybe tastes can keep one completely occupied. The need to communicate observations and combine the findings of many makes one seek structures and framework and that is where organized knowledge a.k.a. science comes in. While the pursuit of science might seem to be value neutral and objective, the settings and priorities of organized and professional science are decidedly not. There are political and social aspects to science, the consideration of which in India, is supposedly taboo and not be talked about lest one "appears" un-professional. Many government scientists actually sign declarations that make them less free even than ordinary citizens.
Silent diplomacy adds to the problem. Not engaging in conversation or debate with "outsiders" (a.k.a. mere citizens) probably fuels the growing claims made by citizens about the "arrogance" of scientists (or even science itself). Once the egalitarian ideal of science is tossed out of the window, you can be sure that "citizen science" moves from useful and harmless territory to a region of conflict and potential danger. Many years ago I saw a bit of this tone in a publication boasting the virtues of Cornell's ebird and commented on it. Ebird was not particularly novel (especially as it was not the first either by idea or implementation, lots of people have tinkered with such ideas, including me with the BirdSpot database that aimed to be federated and peer-to-peer). I think it is extremely easy to set up a basic software system that captures a specific set of data but making it meet grander visions and wider geographical scales takes much more than mere software construction, especially if it is meet more than the needs of a few American scientists. I commented in 2007 that the wording used in ebird publicity sounded more like "scientists using citizens rather than looking upon citizens as scientists", the latter being in my view the nobler aim to achieve. Over time, ebird has gained global coverage, but it has remained "closed" code-wise and vision-wise. There are no open fora for public discussions on the system and the average contributor is not even regarded as a stakeholder. It has, on the other hand, upheld traditional power hierarchies and processes that heighten conflict. Indeed, the software reflects the political and cultural systems of its builders (Conway's Law in software engineering that the architecture of a software mirrors the organization) As someone who has watched and appreciated the growth of systems like Wikipedia it is hard not to see the philosophical differences - almost as stark as right- versus left-wing politics.
I write this while noting that criticisms of ebird are slowly becoming more commonplace (after the initial glowing accounts). There are comments on how it is reviewed by a self-appointed police (the problem is not just in the appointment - why indeed are a special class of people needed - the designers could have allowed anyone to question record or suggest alternative identifications - and gather measures of confidence based on community ratings). No longer are species identifications accepted unless users also provide photographic documentation - this biases a certain class of wealthy camera owning participants. And then there is supposedly a class of user who manages something called "filters" (and the problem here is not just with existence of the class of privileged users but with the idea of using manually-defined "filters", to me this kind of software construction is symptomatic of poor vision and project governance ); and then there are issues in such systems associated with taxonomic changes (I heard someone complain about a user being asked to verify identification - because of a taxonomic split - and that too a split that allows one to unambiguously relabel older records based on geography - these could have been automatically resolved but software developers who are not users themselves will fail to see such problems), and there are now dangers to birds themselves. There are also issues and conflicts associated with licensing and intellectual property. Now it is possibly to fix many of these issues but it all needs open discussion and at least some form of "democratic process" (by which I do not mean voting, but informed debate).
I guess many of us who have seen and discussed ebird privately could have just said I told you so, but sadly many of the problems were easily foreseeable. One merely needs to read the history of ornithology to see how conflicts worked out between the center and the periphery (conflicts between museum workers and collectors); the troubles of peer-review and open-ness; the conflicts between the rich and the poor (not just measured by wealth); or perhaps the haves and the have-nots. And then of course there are scientific issues - the conflicts between species concepts not to mention conservation issues - local versus global thinking. Conflicting aims may not be entirely solved but you cannot have an isolated software development team, a bunch of "scientists" and citizens who are expected merely to enter perfect data and be gone. There is perhaps a lot to learn from other open-source projects and I think the lessons in the culture, politics of Wikipedia are especially interesting for citizen science projects like ebird. I am yet to hear of an organization where the head is forced to resign by the long tail that has traditionally been powerless in decision making and allowing for that is where a brighter future lies. Even better would be where the head and tail cannot be told apart.
Postscript:
There is an interesting study of fieldguides and their users in Nature - which essentially shows that everyone is equally fallible - just another reason why ebird developers ought to just remove this whole system creating an uber class involved in rating observations/observers.
Additionally one needs to examine how much of ebird data is actually from locals (perhaps definable as living within walking distance of the area being observed). India has a legacy of tourism-based research (not to mention, governance) - in fact there are entire institutions where students travel far afield to study while their own campuses remain scientific blanks on maps.
23 December 2016 - For a refreshingly honest and deep reflection on analyzing a citizen science project see - Caroline Gottschalk Druschke & Carrie E. Seltzer (2012) Failures of Engagement: Lessons Learned from a Citizen Science Pilot Study, Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 11:178-188.
20 January 2017 - An excellent and very balanced review (unlike my opinions) can be found here - Kimura, Aya H.; Abby Kinchy (2016) Citizen Science: Probing the Virtues and Contexts of Participatory Research Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2:331-361.
Silent diplomacy adds to the problem. Not engaging in conversation or debate with "outsiders" (a.k.a. mere citizens) probably fuels the growing claims made by citizens about the "arrogance" of scientists (or even science itself). Once the egalitarian ideal of science is tossed out of the window, you can be sure that "citizen science" moves from useful and harmless territory to a region of conflict and potential danger. Many years ago I saw a bit of this tone in a publication boasting the virtues of Cornell's ebird and commented on it. Ebird was not particularly novel (especially as it was not the first either by idea or implementation, lots of people have tinkered with such ideas, including me with the BirdSpot database that aimed to be federated and peer-to-peer). I think it is extremely easy to set up a basic software system that captures a specific set of data but making it meet grander visions and wider geographical scales takes much more than mere software construction, especially if it is meet more than the needs of a few American scientists. I commented in 2007 that the wording used in ebird publicity sounded more like "scientists using citizens rather than looking upon citizens as scientists", the latter being in my view the nobler aim to achieve. Over time, ebird has gained global coverage, but it has remained "closed" code-wise and vision-wise. There are no open fora for public discussions on the system and the average contributor is not even regarded as a stakeholder. It has, on the other hand, upheld traditional power hierarchies and processes that heighten conflict. Indeed, the software reflects the political and cultural systems of its builders (Conway's Law in software engineering that the architecture of a software mirrors the organization) As someone who has watched and appreciated the growth of systems like Wikipedia it is hard not to see the philosophical differences - almost as stark as right- versus left-wing politics.
 |
| Do projects like ebird see the politics in "citizen-science"? Arnstein's ladder is a nice guide to judge the philosophy behind a project. |
I guess many of us who have seen and discussed ebird privately could have just said I told you so, but sadly many of the problems were easily foreseeable. One merely needs to read the history of ornithology to see how conflicts worked out between the center and the periphery (conflicts between museum workers and collectors); the troubles of peer-review and open-ness; the conflicts between the rich and the poor (not just measured by wealth); or perhaps the haves and the have-nots. And then of course there are scientific issues - the conflicts between species concepts not to mention conservation issues - local versus global thinking. Conflicting aims may not be entirely solved but you cannot have an isolated software development team, a bunch of "scientists" and citizens who are expected merely to enter perfect data and be gone. There is perhaps a lot to learn from other open-source projects and I think the lessons in the culture, politics of Wikipedia are especially interesting for citizen science projects like ebird. I am yet to hear of an organization where the head is forced to resign by the long tail that has traditionally been powerless in decision making and allowing for that is where a brighter future lies. Even better would be where the head and tail cannot be told apart.
Postscript:
There is an interesting study of fieldguides and their users in Nature - which essentially shows that everyone is equally fallible - just another reason why ebird developers ought to just remove this whole system creating an uber class involved in rating observations/observers.
Additionally one needs to examine how much of ebird data is actually from locals (perhaps definable as living within walking distance of the area being observed). India has a legacy of tourism-based research (not to mention, governance) - in fact there are entire institutions where students travel far afield to study while their own campuses remain scientific blanks on maps.
23 December 2016 - For a refreshingly honest and deep reflection on analyzing a citizen science project see - Caroline Gottschalk Druschke & Carrie E. Seltzer (2012) Failures of Engagement: Lessons Learned from a Citizen Science Pilot Study, Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 11:178-188.
20 January 2017 - An excellent and very balanced review (unlike my opinions) can be found here - Kimura, Aya H.; Abby Kinchy (2016) Citizen Science: Probing the Virtues and Contexts of Participatory Research Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2:331-361.
Brilliant post!
ReplyDelete