Digital Science: Cyberinfrastructure, e-Science and Citizen Science

  • Roberto C. S. Pacheco
  • Everton R. Nascimento
  • Rosina O. Weber
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)


Digital change and scientific development have mutual implications. On one hand, science and technology development has been a major factor to digital change. On the other hand, the digital era has brought major changes to scientific knowledge production. First, there is a cyberinfrastructure—not only infrastructure for computing, but a major virtual lab where all professionals in science and technology (e.g., researchers, engineers, technicians) can collaborate and exchange data, information, and knowledge. In Europe, this new infrastructure is referred to as e-science. Second, the digital era has increased coproduction beyond frontiers of traditional players, bringing other participants to scientific development. Such kind of co-work is central to both citizen science and transdisciplinary knowledge coproduction, where non-academic players engage in activities such as planning, data gathering, and impact assessment of science. In this chapter, we define digital science as a convergent phenomenon of cyberinfrastructure, e-science, citizen science and transdisciplinarity. We examine how digital science has been a disruptive factor to traditional scientific development, changing productivity, expanding frontiers and challenging traditional processes in science, such as planning and assessment.


  1. Almes, G., Cummings, J., Birnholtz, J. P., Foster, I., Hey, T., & Spencer, B. (2004). CSCW and cyberinfrastructure: opportunities and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, H. L., Chatfield, D., Cox, D. A., Crumpler, E., D’cunha, C., Gutierrez, R., Ibarra, J., Johnson, E., Kumar, K., & Milledge, T. (2007). CyberBridges a model collaboration infrastructure for e-Science. In Seventh IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid, 2007. CCGRID 2007. Rio De Janeiro: IEEE.Google Scholar
  3. Alves, G. R., Gericota, M. G., Silva, J. B., & Alves, J. B. (2007). Large and small scale networks of remote labs: A survey. Advances on remote laboratories and e-learning experiences 15.Google Scholar
  4. Atkins, D. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation blue-ribbon advisory panel on cyberinfrastructure.Google Scholar
  5. Bal, A. S., Weidner, K., Hanna, R., & Mills, A. J. (2017). Crowdsourcing and brand control. Business Horizons, 60(2), 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bietz, M. J., Baumer, E. P., & Lee, C. P. (2010). Synergizing in cyberinfrastructure development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 19(3–4), 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonney, R. (1996). Citizen science: A lab tradition. Living Bird, 15(4), 7–15.Google Scholar
  8. Bonney, R., Shirk, J. L., Phillips, T. B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H. L., Miller-Rushing, A. J., et al. (2014). Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343(6178), 1436–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buchanan, M. (2016). Digital science. Nature Physics, 12, 630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cho, K. (2007). A test of the interoperability of grid middleware for the Korean High Energy Physics Data Grid system. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 7, 49–54.Google Scholar
  11. Council, C. (2007). Cyberinfrastructure vision for 21st century discovery. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Curtis, V. (2015). Online citizen science projects: an exploration of motivation, contribution and participation. The Open University.Google Scholar
  13. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service: Serving, not steering. New York: ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
  14. Dickinson, J. L., Shirk, J., Bonter, D., Bonney, R., Crain, R. L., Martin, J., et al. (2012). The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 291–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dictionary, O. E. (2007). Oxford English dictionary online. JSTOR.Google Scholar
  16. Donnelly, A., Crowe, O., Regan, E., Begley, S., & Caffarra, A. (2014). The role of citizen science in monitoring biodiversity in Ireland. International Journal of Biometeorology, 58(6), 1237–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foster, I. (2003). The grid: Computing without bounds. Scientific American, 288(4), 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frodeman, R. (2013). Sustainable knowledge: A theory of interdisciplinarity. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Georgiadou, Y., Lungo, J. H., & Richter, C. (2014). Citizen sensors or extreme publics? Transparency and accountability interventions on the mobile geoweb. International Journal of Digital Earth, 7(7), 516–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gharesifard, M., Wehn, U., & Van Der Zaag, P. (2017). Towards benchmarking citizen observatories: Features and functioning of online amateur weather networks. Journal of Environmental Management, 193, 381–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gil, Y., Deelman, E., Ellisman, M., Fahringer, T., Fox, G., Gannon, D., et al. (2007). Examining the challenges of scientific workflows. Computer, 40(12).Google Scholar
  22. Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hey, T., & Trefethen, A. E. (2002). The UK e-science core programme and the grid. Future Generation Computer Systems, 18(8), 1017–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoover, E., & Harder, M. K. (2015). What lies beneath the surface? The hidden complexities of organizational change for sustainability in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huutoniemi, K., & Rafols, I. (2017). Interdisciplinary in research evaluation. In J. T. Klein, R. C. S. Pacheco, & R. Frodeman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jirotka, M., Lee, C. P., & Olson, G. M. (2013). Supporting scientific collaboration: Methods, tools and concepts. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 22(4–6), 667–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klein, J. T. (2017). A Taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In J. T. Klein, R. C. S. Pacheco, & R. Frodeman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Koenig, T., & Gorman, M. E. (2016). The challenge of funding interdisciplinary research: A look inside public research funding agencies.Google Scholar
  30. Law, E., Gajos, K. Z., Wiggins, A., Gray, M. L., & Williams, A. C. (2017). Crowdsourcing as a Tool for Research: Implications of Uncertainty. In CSCW.Google Scholar
  31. Lenart-Gansiniec, R. (2016). Crowd Capital-Conceptualisation Attempt. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 2016(Numer 15 (2)), 29–57.Google Scholar
  32. Marshall, J. J., Downs, R. R., & Mattmann, C. A. (2011). Software reuse methods to improve technological infrastructure for e-Science. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI). IEEE.Google Scholar
  33. Newman, G., Wiggins, A., Crall, A., Graham, E., Newman, S., & Crowston, K. (2012). The future of citizen science: Emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raddick, M. J., Bracey, G., Gay, P. L., Lintott, C. J., Murray, P., Schawinski, K., et al. (2009). Galaxy zoo: Exploring the motivations of citizen science volunteers. arXiv preprint arXiv:0909.2925.Google Scholar
  35. Ribes, D., & Lee, C. P. (2010). Sociotechnical studies of cyberinfrastructure and e-research: Current themes and future trajectories. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 19(3–4), 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salm, J. F., Jr., & Pacheco, R. C. New Public Service through Coproduction. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity.Google Scholar
  37. Seltzer, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2012). Planning in public: Citizen involvement, open innovation, and crowdsourcing.Google Scholar
  38. Shahand, S., Van Kampen, A. H., & Olabarriaga, S. D. (2015). Science gateway canvas: A business reference model for science gateways. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on The Science of Cyberinfrastructure: Research, Experience, Applications and Models. ACM.Google Scholar
  39. Stewart, C. (2007). Indiana university cyberinfrastructure newsletter. Retrieved November, 1(2008), 2007–2003.Google Scholar
  40. Taylor, J. (2001, July). Talk given at UK e-Science Town Meeting. JM Taylor.Google Scholar
  41. Toerpe, K. (2013). The rise of citizen science. The Futurist, 47(4), 25.Google Scholar
  42. Waller, M. A., & Fawcett, S. E. (2013). Data science, predictive analytics, and big data: A revolution that will transform supply chain design and management. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(2), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wei, J. W., Lee, B. P. Y., & Wen, L. B. (2016). Citizen science and the urban ecology of birds and butterflies—A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0156425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Young, A. L., & Lutters, W. G. (2015). (Re)defining land change science through synthetic research practices. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto C. S. Pacheco
    • 1
  • Everton R. Nascimento
    • 1
  • Rosina O. Weber
    • 2
  1. 1.Federal University of Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil
  2. 2.Drexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations