Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Citizen science beyond invited participation: nineteenth century amateur naturalists, epistemic autonomy, and big data approaches avant la lettre

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dominant forms of contemporary big-data based digital citizen science do not question the institutional divide between qualified experts and lay-persons. In our paper, we turn to the historical case of a large-scale amateur project on biogeographical birdwatching in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century to show that networked amateur research (that produces a large set of data) can operate in a more autonomous mode. This mode depends on certain cultural values, the constitution of specific knowledge objects, and the design of self-governed infrastructures. We conclude by arguing that the contemporary quest for autonomous citizen science is part of a broader discourse on the autonomy of scientific research in general. Just as the actors in our historical case positioned themselves against the elitism of gentlemen scientists, avant-garde groups of the twenty first century like biohackers and civic tech enthusiasts position themselves against the system of professional science—while “digital citizen science” remains to oscillate between claims for autonomy and realities of heteronomy, constantly reaffirming the classic lay-expert divide.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogner, A. (2012). The paradox of participation experiments. Science, Technology and Human Values, 37, 506–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., et al. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977–984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonney, R., & Gregory B. (1992). Public participation in ornithology: An introduction to environmental research. | InformalScience.org.

  • Bonney, R., Heidi B., Rebecca J., Ellen M., Tina P., Jennifer S., & Wilderman, C. C. (2009). Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE inquiry group report. Online Submission.

  • Bowler, P. J. (1992). The eclipse of Darwinism. Anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowser, A., & Lea S. (2013). New visions in citizen science. Last modified October 16, 2014. Case study series 3. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/NewVisionsInCitizenScience.pdf. Last modified 17 June 2017.

  • Brabham, D. C. (2013). Crowdsourcing., The MIT Press essential knowledge series Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2008). The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life: Lessons from the French association of neuromuscular disease patients. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33, 230–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cancer Research UK (2016). https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/get-involved/citizen-science. Last modified 3 Oct 2019.

  • Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, V. (2015). Motivation to Participate in an online citizen science game a study of Foldit. Science Communication, 37, 723–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daum, A. W. (2002a). Wissenschaftspopularisierung im 19. Jahrhundert. Bürgerliche Kultur, naturwissenschaftliche Bildung und die deutsche Öffentlichkeit, 1848–1914 (2nd ed.). Munich: Oldenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daum, A. W. (2002b). Science, politics, and religion: Humboldtian thinking and the transformations of civil society in Germany. 1830–1970. Osiris 2nd series, 17, 107–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delfanti, A. (2013). Biohackers: The politics of open science. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickel, S. (2018). Responsibilization made easy. How to assemble crowdworkers for science? In S. Maasen, S. Dickel, & C. Schneider (Eds.), TechnoScienceSociety. Technological reconfigurations of science and society (Sociology of the sciences yearbook) (Vol. 29). Dordrecht: Springer. (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickel, S., & Franzen, M. (2015). Digitale Inklusion: Zur sozialen Öffnung des Wissenschaftssystems. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 44, 330–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumazedier, J. (1974). Sociology of leisure. Michigan: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eitzel, M. V., Cappadonna, J. L., Santos-Lang, C., Duerr, R. E., Virapongse, A., West, S. E., et al. (2017). Citizen science terminology matters. Exploring key terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology and Human Values, 20(4), 408–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estellés-Arolas, E., & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science, 38, 189–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, R. (2008). The sociology of expertise: The distribution of social fluency. Sociology Compass, 2, 281–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finke, P. (2014). Citizen science: Das unterschätzte Wissen der Laien. Munich: Oekom Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzoni, C., & Sauermann, H. (2014). Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Research Policy, 43, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., et al. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, J., & Schimank, U. (2014). “Autonomie als Resistenz gegen Beeinflussung: Forschungshandeln im organisatorischen und politischen Kontext”. In Autonomie revisited: Beiträge zu einem umstrittenen Grundbegriff in Wissenschaft, Kunst und Politik: Beiträge zu einem umstrittenen Grundbegriff in Wissenschaft, Kunst und Politik, edited by Martina Franzen, Arlena Jung, David Kaldewey, and Jasper Korte. Special issue. Zeitschrift für theoretische Soziologie, 2, 41–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haklay, M. (2013). Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. In S. Daniel, E. Sarah, & G. Michael (Eds.), Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge (pp. 105–122). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, J. (2009). Crowdsourcing: Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business (1st paperback ed.). New York: Three Rivers Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelty, C., & Panofsky, A. (2014). Disentangling public participation in science and biomedicine. Genome medicine, 6, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, R. E. (2002). Landscapes and labscapes. Exploring the lab-field border in biology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, R. E. (2006). All creatures: Naturalists, collectors, and biodiversity, 1850–1950. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. (1997). Sociality with objects. Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(4), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kullenberg, C., & Kasperowski, D. (2016). What is citizen science?—A scientometric meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 11, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukyanenko, R., Parsons, J., & Wiersma, Y. (2011). Citizen Science 2.0: Data management principles to harness the power of the crowd. In H. Jain, A. P. Sinha, & P. Vitharana (Eds.), Service-oriented perspectives in design science research. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6629, pp. 465–473). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lengwiler, M. (2008). Participatory approaches in science and technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33, 186–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maasen, S., & Weingart, P. (Eds.). (2008). Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Sociology of the sciences: A yearbook. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahr, D. (as: Dominik). (2014). Citizen science. Partizipative Wissenschaft im späten 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert. Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung 12. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

  • Mahr, D. (as: Dominik). (2015). Fortschritt oder Rückfall? In Freie Bürger – Freie Forschung. Die Wissenschaft verlässt den Elfenbeinturm, edited by P. Finke, 119-123. Munich: Oekom.

  • Mahr, D., Irwin, A., Vohland, K., & Goebel, C. (2018). Watching or being watched. Enhancing productive discussion between the citizen sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities. In M. Haklay, et al. (Eds.), Citizen science—Innovation in open science, society and policy (pp. 99–109). London: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1938). Science and the social order. Philosophy of Science, 5, 321–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhart, L. K. (2009). Modern nature. The rise of the biological perspective in Germany. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, M. L. (2010). A Biopunk Manifesto. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from http://maradydd.livejournal.com/496085.html. Last modified 30 July 2010.

  • Ponciano, L., et al. (2014). Volunteers’ engagement in human computation for astronomy projects. Computing in Science Engineering, 16, 52–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raddick, M. J., Georgia, B., Pamela, L. G., Chris, J. L., Phil, M., Kevin, S., et al. (2010). Galaxy zoo: Exploring the motivations of citizen science volunteers. Astronomy Education Review, 9(1), 010103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, J., Raddick, M. J., Lardner, A., & Carney, K. (2013). An exploratory factor analysis of motivations for participating in zooniverse, a collection of virtual citizen science projects. IEEE, pp. 610–619.

  • Roy, H. E. et al. (2012). Understanding citizen science and environmental monitoring: Final report on behalf of UK environmental observation framework. NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, https://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/citizensciencereview.pdf. Last modified 16 June 2017.

  • Schimank, U. (2012). Wissenschaft als gesellschaftliches Teilsystem. In S. Maasen, M. Kaiser, M. Reinhart, & B. Sutter (Eds.), Handbuch Wissenschaftssoziologie (pp. 113–123). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. (2008). Was ist neu am Social Web? Soziologische und kommunikationswissenschaftliche Grundlagen. In Z. Ansgar, W. Martin, & S. Jan (Eds.), Kommunikation, Partizipation und Wirkungen im Social Web, Neue Schriften zur Online-Forschung (Vol. 2/3, pp. 18–40). Cologne: Halem Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrano Sanz, F., Holocher-Ertl, T., Kieslinger, B., Garcia, F. S., & Silva, C. G. (2014). White paper on citizen science for Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=6913. Last modified 31 Aug 2015.

  • Strasser, B. et al. (2019). Citizen science? Rethinking science and public participation. Science & Technology Studies, 32, 52–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stresemann, E. (1951). Die Entwicklung der Ornithologie. Von Aristoteles bis zur Gegenwart. Aachen: AULA-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsueng, G. et al. (2016). Citizen science for mining the biomedical literature. http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/038083. Last modified 27 June 2018.

  • University of Zurich. (2015). Standards for citizen science. Principles and guidelines for citizen science projects at universities and other research institutions. https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwien7jtl8LUAhUKKVAKHZmeBrQQFggvMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ethz.ch%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fethz%2Fspecial-interest%2Fbiol%2Fimsb%2Fimsb-dam%2Fevents%2Fcitizenscience_data%2Fadditional_content%2Fstandards_for_citizen_science.doc&usg=AFQjCNGbct_yh2fv3UTEv7_Yb5ckznlWYA&sig2=eZyz-7ww_rs4Oj7XlYzGpw. Last modified 20 Feb 2019.

  • van den Daele, W. (2013). Moralisierung in Technikkonflikten. In A. Bogner (Ed.), Ethisierung der Technik—Technisierung der Ethik (pp. 27–51). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vohland, K., & Göbel, C. (2017). Open science und citizen science als symbiotische Beziehung? TATuP Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis, 26(1–2), 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Konrat, M., Campbell, T., Carter, B., Greif, M., Bryson, M., Larraín, J., et al. (2018). Using citizen science to bridge taxonomic discovery with education and outreach. Applications in Plant Sciences, 6, e1023. https://doi.org/10.1002/aps3.1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wehling, P. (2012). From invited to uninvited participation (and back?): Rethinking civil society engagement in technology assessment and development. Poiesis & Praxis, 9, 43–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weise, E. (2011). DIY “Biopunks” want science in hands of people. USA Today, June 1. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2011-06-01-science-biopunk-hacker_n.htm. Last modified 3 Oct 2019.

  • Wirth, U. (2010). Dilettantische Konjunkturen. In Azzouni, S., Wirth, U. (Eds.), Dilettantismus als Beruf. Kaleidogramme (Vol. 43, pp. 11–30). Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos.

  • Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2003). Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science, 33, 401–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2007). Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, 1(1), 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue, K. (2014). Popular science: In the internet era, research moves from professionals’ labs to amateurs’ homes. Harvard Magazine, January/February. http://harvardmagazine.com/2014/01/popular-science. Last modified 17 June 2018.

Historical sources

  • Homeyer, E. F. V., et al. (1875). Protokoll der constituierenden Frühjahrs-Versammlung. Verhandelt zu Braunschweig, am 20–23 Mai 1875. Journal für Ornithologie, 23, 342–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenow, A., et al. (1876). Aufruf an alle Vogelkenner Deutschlands! Journal für Ornithologie, 24, 107–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenow, A., et al. (1878). II. Jahresbericht (1977) des Ausschusses für Beobachtungsstationen der Vögel Deutschlands. Journal für Ornithologie, 26, 370–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenow A. (1874–1882). Unpublished Letters. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, NL Hermann Schalow, Mp. 2, 1874–1882.

  • Sclater, P. L. (1858). On the general geographical distribution of the members of the class Aves. Journal of the Linnean Society of London., 2, 130–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sclater, P. L. (1876). Ueber den gegenwärtigen Stand unserer Kenntnis der geographischen Zoologie. Journal für Ornithologie, 24, 225–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, A. R. (1859). Letter on the geographical distribution of birds. The Ibis, 1, 130–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, A. R. (1860). Ein Brief über die geographische Verbreitung der Vögel. Journal für Ornithologie, 8, 47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, A. R., & Adolf B. (1876). Die geographische Verbreitung der Thiere. Nebst einer Studie über die Verwandtschaften der lebenden und ausgestorbenen Faunen in ihrer Beziehung zu den früheren Veränderungen der Erdoberfläche. In A. B. Meyer (ed.), With 7 maps and 20 illustrations. Authorized German Edition, (Vol. 2). Dresden: A. B. Meyer.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This publication was realized with the kind support from the SNSF (Grant BSCGIO_157787 to Bruno J. Strasser) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant DI 1725/2-1 to Sabine Maasen and Sascha Dickel). Likewise, we thank Patricia A. Solomon (Geneva), Martina von Arx (Geneva), Jérôme Baudry (Geneva) and Martina Franzen (Berlin) for helpful discussions and constructive critique. Furthermore, we owe special thanks to Monica Buckland and Jacky Leach Scully (both Newcastle) for their precise English proofread.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biology section, University of Geneva, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland

    Dana Mahr

  2. Institute for Sociology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 55099, Mainz, Germany

    Sascha Dickel

Authors
  1. Dana Mahr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sascha Dickel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dana Mahr.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahr, D., Dickel, S. Citizen science beyond invited participation: nineteenth century amateur naturalists, epistemic autonomy, and big data approaches avant la lettre. HPLS 41, 41 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-019-0280-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-019-0280-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation