Public Perception of Citizen Science in Spain: Sociodemographic Analysis

Flor Sánchez; Fernando  Casani; Ricardo  Olmos

doi:10.3989/redc.2024.3.1551

Authors

Flor Sánchez Departamento de Psicología Social y Metodología. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8058-5584
Fernando Casani Departamento de Organización de Empresas. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5045-5677
Ricardo Olmos Departamento de Psicología Social y Metodología. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1298-6861

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2024.3.1551

Keywords:

citizen science, open science, attitudes, motivation, citizen participation, knowledge

Abstract

This study analyzes the public’s view of citizen science based on survey respondents’ expressed knowledge, attitudes, and motivations. The questionnaire was answered by 1,002 residents of 48 Spanish cities. The study population was 50% female and spanned various age groups, occupations, and levels of education. The results indicate that although the population has a quite favorable opinion of citizen science, people feel underinformed about it. Very few respondents consider it to be negative and many expect it to have a positive impact over the coming decade. While both men and women exhibit intrinsic motivations to participate in citizen science, women specifically exhibit social motives for contributing. The data reveal differences in respondents’ attitude to citizen science depending on gender, age, level of education, and occupation. The data suggest that incorporating a balanced and representative sample of the public into scientific endeavor will require greater institutional intervention in coming years.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abadal, E. (2021). Ciencia abierta: un modelo con piezas por encajar. Arbor, 197 (799), a588. https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2021.799003

Abad-García, M.F., González-Teruel, A., Abadal, E., & Ollé-Castellá, C. (2022). Las universidades españolas y la ciencia abierta: un estudio sobre barreras y elementos favorecedores. BiD: textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentació, 49. https://doi.org/10.1344/BiD2022.49.18

Aliende, A., Castelló-Cogollos, R., & Llopis, R. (2022). La sociedad colaborativa. Los impactos de la acción colectiva en la sociedad contemporánea. CIS (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas). ISBN: 9788474768794.

Asingizwe, D., Poortvliet, P. M., Koenraadt, C. J., van Vliet, A. J., Ingabire, C. M., Mutesa, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2020). Why (not) participate in citizen science? Motivational factors and barriers to participate in a citizen science program for malaria control in Rwanda. PLoS One, 15 (8), e0237396. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237396 PMid:32833984 PMCid:PMC7446901

Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C. (2009). Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Washington, D.C.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE).

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications.

Casani, F. (2022). Ciencia ciudadana un enfoque "stakeholder" de la investigación. AECA. Revista de la Asociación Española de Contabilidad y Administración de Empresas, 137, 17-19. Available at: https://aeca.es/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/REVISTA-AECA-137.pdf.

Chia-Hsuan, H., & Te-En, L. (2021). Exploring the participation motivations of ongoing and former citizen scientists in Taiwan Roadkill Observation Network. Journal for Nature Conservation, 64, 126055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2021.126055

CoARA- Coalition for the Advancement of Research Evaluation (2023). The agreement full text. Disponibe en: https://coara.eu/agreement/the-agreement-full-text/.

De Filippo, D., Lascurain, M.L., & Sánchez, F. (2023). Mapping open science at Spanish universities. Analysis of higher education systems. Profesional de la información, 32(4), 16992407. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.jul.06

European Commission (2016). Open Science, open to the world. A vision for Europe. Directorate- General for Research and Innovation. Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3213b335-1cbc-11e6-ba9a01aa75ed71a1.

Everett, G., & Geoghegan, H. (2016). Initiating and continuing participation in citizen science for natural history. BMC Ecol, 16(13). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-016-0062-3 PMid:27459851 PMCid:PMC4965711

FECYT (2022). Encuesta de percepción social de la ciencia y la tecnología. Informe de resultados. Encuesta de percepción social de la ciencia y la tecnología en España (EPSCT). Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT).

Finkelstien, M.A. (2009). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivational orientations and the volunteer process. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(5-6), 653-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.010

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological methods, 3(4), 424-453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

INE (2022). https://www.ine.es/index.htm.

Jefactira del Estado, España. (2023). Ley Orgánica 2/2023, de 22 de marzo, del Sistema Universitario (LOSU). Available at: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2023/03/22/2/con.

Land-Zandstra A., Agnello G., & Gültekin, Y. S. (2021). Participants in Citizen Science. In: VohlandK. et al. (eds) The Science of Citizen Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_13

Lehman, E., Jepson, R., McAteer, J., & Archibald, D. (2020). What motivates volunteers to engage in health-related citizen science initiatives? A case study of our outdoors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 6950. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17196950 PMid:32977509 PMCid:PMC7578925

Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998-2017). Mplus User's Guide.Eighth Edition. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

Pateman, R., Dyke, A., & West, S. (2021). The Diversity of Participants in Environmental Citizen Science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 6(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.369

Revelle, W. (2022). psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. R package version 2.2.9. Evanston: Northwestern University. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.

Sánchez, F., & De-Filippo, D. (2022). Informe sobre los conocimientos, actitudes y valoraciones de la ciencia abierta. Análisis de los procedimientos, barreras, limitaciones, elementos facilitadores para fomentar la ciencia abierta en las universidades.

Strasser, B., & Haklay, M.E. (2018): Citizen Science: Expertise, Democracy, and Public Participation. SSC Policy Analysis, 1, 1-92. Bern: Swiss Science Council. Available at: https://www.wissenschaftsrat.ch/images/stories/pdf/en/SWR_PolicyAnalysis_CitizenScience_INHALT_EN_excerpt.pdf.

Tamayo, C. (2022). La búsqueda de personas desaparecidas en el postconflicto colombiano. Acciones colaborativas en el centro de acercamiento, reconciliación y reparación. In Aliende et al. (ed.). La sociedad colaborativa. Los impactos de la acción colectiva en la sociedad contemporánea, 59-83. CIS (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas). ISBN: 9788474768794, 9788474768800.

UNESCO (2021) Recommendation on Open Science. Paris: UNESCO. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.

Weingart, P., Joubert, M., & Connoway, K. (2021). Public engagement with scienceorigins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PLoS One, 16(7): e0254201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254201 PMid:34234382 PMCid:PMC8263305

West, S., & Pateman, R. (2016). Recruiting and retaining participants in citizen science: What can be learned from the volunteering literature? Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(2), 15. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.8