I could see that being very amusing, especially with the younger (teenaged) set lol
1 Like
I definitely see citizen science and community science as being different entities, though ones that can, and often do, intersect. But for this reason I don’t see “community science” as being a good swap for “citizen science”.
I’ve heard comments (in many venues, not just here) about how the term “citizen science” could be perceived as exclusionary in some contexts, and I can see the issue. However, most of this conversation that I’ve heard comes from within the US. I think it’s important to remember that at this point citizen science is a global term (and was at least partially developed and popularized in Europe). Some of the conversations about renaming citizen science come across as US-centric to me, maybe placing our problems ahead of the potentially difficulties for others if we changed the term. I think the discussion about how to refer to this process (currently called citizen science) is not just up to people in the US; we need to hear from others users of the term as well. It’s entirely possible that the problem (the term potentially being exclusionary) is worst in the US, and maybe we in the US should engage in some of the hard work of both ensuring that everyone is welcome in citizen science and actively recruiting people from all walks of life to the process (which might get more to the core of the issue).
Also, as a side note, are there any data about how different terms for citizen science are perceived or might be more effective? I’d be interested to hear about them!
11 Likes
For what it’s worth, I have always taken the “citizen” part of “citizen science” to mean simply that you don’t have to carry any special title, position, or post in order to participate and contribute. We are all citizens (of something…)
15 Likes
[…] yeah, okay.
PS, on request: I was making fun of you folks.
For what it’s worth, my own thoughts on the topic align most closely with @parisrebl’s post above. While “community science” may be what is de-facto happening here, calling it that does de-emphasize an individual’s (well, my) contribution, which makes me feel less enthusiastic about it. Speaking only for myself of course.
4 Likes
I’ve thought about it the same way. “Citizen” being used to describe regular people who aren’t actively doing research for their job or as part of a university (i.e. they don’t have any pressing reason to research other than personal interest).
I also have some feelings about what @charlie mentions about the term differentiating amateurs from professionals. For me, it’s being uncomfortable including myself into the “citizen science” category because what I am is more like something between amateur and professional - I’m an undergraduate student doing research, I’m leading the Iowa Mycoflora Project, but that by no means suggest I have any more expertise than non college-educated people that have been in love with mycology longer than I’ve been alive.
But just like taxonomic classification, we can only fit things into our made up little categories so well. So I think giving this target demographic, regular ol’ people, a category to make them feel like they are really having an impact and contributing to science is an important goal, but we could do that better with more of an eye to include all skill levels, and not just shoehorn amateurs into the category where they are, in spirit, separate from the real scientists.
Citizen science feels to me like something you grow out of. Community science, however, feels more like an inclusionary term instead of an exclusionary one, where the emphasis would be on people of all skill levels coming together for a common goal.
10 Likes
Community sounds good to me also
Here recently I’ve been approached and offered
A contact to go in and GIS a area for certain types of cactus this is not the first time this has happened but what they are offering is very amazing too me
1 Like
I prefer ‘Citizen Science’ as a term over ‘Community Science’. For me the term ‘Citizen’, in this context, just means the average person devoid of any particular titles, regardless of whether you are an expert or not. It is a reminder that all of us, no matter our skills, income, ethnicity, political allegiance, etc are all citizens together.
To me it’s an inclusive and equalizing term.
“Community Science” seems more place based and somewhat isolationist or even exclusionary to me. Communities, especially in the modern setting, can be very large, but the word ‘community’ carries with it connotations of small size and an us-vs/and-them mentality (eg, this is “our” community), sometimes with a bit of that NIMBY mentality as well.
For a global type system, such as iNaturalist, I much prefer “Citizen Science” to “Community Science”
We are all citizens, but we have to be invited to join a community.
Of course, we could change it over the “Comrade Science”.
10 Likes
Funnily enough, I was thinking the same thing, Comrade lol.
I think this is heavily influenced by one’s situation. As an example, I am a naturalized US citizen, living in the US. I applied for and was granted that citizenship in advance of a certain presidential election. I have also lived as a foreigner in other countries, including a dictatorship in which I was not a citizen (just as well, as it turned out). To me, the word citizen is a very significant and meaningful term. It probably is to the many refugee migrants around the world. Granted most of them are probably not on iNat, nor doing much science either, but my point is that any/every term will have baggage, and we need to explore the ramifications (as we are here) of any term we choose, and include definitions or explanations.
And on that note, have indulged in a great deal of pontificating tonight, I shall retire :-)
7 Likes
Reminds me of a TV series called “Community”, and the attitudes regarding that form of Tertiary Education generally!
What about “Crowd-Sourced Science”?
or for that matter… “Open Science”
I’m ok with “Citizen Science”, and I’m also ok with “Community Science”… as long as I get to play too, they can call the game what ever they like!
8 Likes
Believe it or not I actually have no formal training in botany or ecology. I went to school for urban planning and fell in love with botany and kind of fell into what I do now. So by some definitions, I’m not technically a scientist…but I still do science…at least I think I do.
6 Likes
I like “open,” I was going to say “Free Science” As in, I do it for free and it is free to be used and it’s free and open to all participants. I don’t feel a particular need to deviate from “Citizen” but as someone else said, I’d be very interested to see data on how people broadly feel about the issue of citizen and whether that’s a U.S. centered issue because of our social climate or something larger. As someone who doesn’t really want to adopt the term “community” because I don’t do the activity with a community (mostly, and by preference) I don’t feel it adequately represents the solo nature of my contributions and evokes things like bioblitzes not the enjoyable everyday grind of delicious daily nature observation on my own.
The term citizen in my mind is independent of issues of borders and nationalism but if there is a major perception issue I’m unaware of I’m open to other terms that aren’t “community.”
2 Likes
by some definitions i am not either, i am not in academia. I don’t publish papers
2 Likes
Well, to research scientists, the term “science” is really about a way of acquiring knowledge, by using evidence to test hypotheses. By that definition (which is an important concept but not what the average person thinks science is), iNaturalist isn’t science because it’s not aimed at answering a question. But strict-definition science starts with observations that generate questions, and iNaturalist is a superb source of that kind of pre-science observation. The more people get involved in close observation of the natural world and getting curious about it, the better. And the community of iNaturalists full of curious people willing to share their expertise is the best!
8 Likes
I might be showing my age here, and a fondness for the past, but I like the term Amateur Naturalist. Most of the people from the foundation of Natural History were amateurs. Carl Linnaeus, Mary Anning, Francis Walker and so on, were mostly amateurs, and they were the foundation of most of modern biology and nomenclature. Every discipline has their predecessors. I’m proud to think that I belong to that lineage, which seemed to have faded in recent decades. To me, Citizen Scientist, or Community Scientist are both the same as Amateur Naturalist.
5 Likes
i’m not sure i’d call those people amateurs, rather they were just not trained within the mainstream scientific system, for lack of a better word.
2 Likes
Agreed, and unfortunately the term “amateur” has become pejorative enough in some circles that it might send a signal to “professional” scientists and naturalists that iNaturalist is not a place for them also. Definitely a signal I would want to avoid.
8 Likes
And it’s not necessarily a bad idea to have a maverick here and there to keep the old fogeys on their toes lol (just teasing :-) )
4 Likes
As far as what term would be better, keep in mind that Citizen Science doesn’t just cover us naturalists (or iNatters!), it also includes people who share their computers idle time to crunching astronomical data to find potential goldilocks planets, so terms linked to ecology and nature are a tad specific! Ecological Science probably has the greatest to gain from the concept though…
4 Likes