Abstract
Demographic data about participants in online citizen science is collated in an attempt to explore whether these projects appeal to specific groups of people. The available data suggests that projects appeal predominantly to well-educated men, with an existing interest in science. Participants are also more likely to be from the developed world. Some have stated that citizen science helps to ‘democratise’ science, yet is that actually the case in light of the available data? How online citizen science can be made more accessible and inclusive is considered.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson, D. P. (2004). Public computing: Reconnecting people to science. In Conference on Shared Knowledge and the Web. Madrid, Spain. http://boinc.berkeley.edu/boinc2.pdf.
Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948.
Barr, A. J., Haas, A. C., & Kalderon, C. W. (2017). Citizen scientist community engagement with the HiggsHunters project at the Large Hadron Collider. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05148.
Bian, L., Leslie, S.-J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389–391.
Bowden, R. (2012). Women increase their share of biological science PhDs in United States. In NatureJobs (Blog). http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2012/01/13/women-increase-their-share-of-biological-science-phds-inunited-states.
Bradford, B. M., & Israel, G. D. (2004). Evaluating volunteer motivation for sea turtle conservation in Florida: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, EDIS.
Burke, K. (2012). Behind the scenes of Foldit, pioneering science gamification. American Scientist, 100(6.) http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/behind-the-scenes-of-foldit-pioneering-science-gamification.
Camp, T. (2012). Computing, We Have a Problem…’. ACM Inroads no., 3(4), 34–40.
Cesarsky, C., & Walker, H. (2010). Head count: Statistics about women in astronomy. Astronomy & Geophysics, 51(2), 2.33–2.36.
ComRes, and RCUK. (2017). Research Councils UK – Public Insight Research. Research Councils UK.
Cossins, D. (2013, January). Games for science: playing scientist. The Scientist, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33715/title/Games-for-Science/.
Curtis, V. (2013). Contemporary issues in scientific engagement: Evaluating the motivations and expectations of those attending a public astronomy event. Communicating Astronomy to the Public, 13, 14–18.
Dawson, E. (2014). “Not designed for us”: How science museums and science centers socially exclude low-income, minority ethnic groups. Science Education, 98(6), 981–1008.
Dawson, E. (2017). Social justice and out-of-school science learning: Exploring equity in science television, science clubs and maker spaces. Science Education, 101(4), 539–547.
Dawson, E. (2018). Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science:0963662517750072.
Deloitte. (2016). Women in IT jobs: It is about education, but also about more than just education. Report. https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/tmt-pred16-techwomen-in-it-jobs.html.
Divide, Working Group on the Digital Gender. (2017). Recommendations for action: Bridging the gender gap in Internet and broadband access and use. UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development.
Dutton, W. H., & Blank, G. (2013). Cultures of the Internet: The Internet in Britain. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.
Edwards, R., Phillips, T., Bonney, R., & Mathieson, K. (2015). Citizen science and science capital: A tool for practitioners. Edited by University of Stirling. Stirling.
Entradas, M., Miller, S., & Peters, H. P. (2013). Preaching to the converted? An analysis of the UK public for space exploration. Public Understanding of Science, 22(3), 269–286.
ESA. (2016). Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Entertainment Software Association (US).
Green, T. (2012). Women over 30 are the most enthusiastic mobile gamers. Mobile Entertainment, http://www.mobile-ent.biz/industry/market-data/women-over-30-are-the-most-enthusiastic-mobile-gamers/036312.
Gugliucci, N., Gay, P., & Bracey, G. (2014). Citizen science motivations as discovered with CosmoQuest. Paper read at Ensuring Stem Literacy: A National Conference on STEM Education and Public Outreach (p. 437).
Gurian, E. H. (2005). Threshold fear. In S. Macleod (Ed.), Reshaping Museum Space. London: Routledge.
Haas, A. (2017). Higgs Hunters—A citizen science project for ATLAS. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 898, 102002.
Helsper, E. J. (2010). Gendered internet use across generations and life stages. Communication Research, 37(3), 352–374.
Holohan, A., & Garg, A. (2005, July 1). Collaboration online: The example of distributed computing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(4), JCMC1041.
Howard Eckland, E. (2013). Why scientists think there are more women in biology than physics. In Gender & Society (blog). http://gendersociety.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/why-scientists-think-there-are-more-women-inbiology-than-physics/.
Ipsos-MORI. (2011). Public Attitudes to Science. London: Ipsos MORI; Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Ipsos-MORI. (2014). Public Attitudes to Science. London: Ipsos MORI; Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Ipsos-MORI. (2016). Wellcome Trust Monitor, Wave 3. London: Wellcome Trust.
Jensen, E., & Buckley, N. (2012). Why people attend science festivals: Interest, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512458624.
Kasperowski, D., Kullenberg, C., & Mäkitalo, Å. (2017). Embedding Citizen Science in Research: Forms of engagement, scientific output and values for science, policy and society. Retrieved from osf.io/tfsgh .
Kende, M. (2016). Global Internet Report. The Economics of Building Trust Online: Preventing Data Breaches. Internet Society.
Kennedy, B., & Funk, C. (2015). Public interest in science and health linked to gender, age and personality. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/11/public-interest-in-science-and-healthlinked-to-gender-age-and-personality/.
Kloetzer, L., Da Costa, J., & Schneider, D. K. (2016). Not so passive: Engagement and learning in Volunteer Computing projects. Human Computation, 3(1), 25–68.
Könneker, C., & Lugger, B. (2013). Public science 2.0—Back to the future. Science, 342(6154), 49–50.
Krebs, V. (2010). Motivations of cybervolunteers in an applied distributed computing environment: MalariaControl.net as an example. First Monday, 15(2).
Lieberoth, A. (2014). Getting humans to do quantum optimization - user acquisition, engagement and early results from the citizen cyberscience game Quantum Moves. Human Computation, 1(2), 219–244.
Massey, R. (2015). Who are we now? Astronomy & Geophysics, 56(June), 3.15–3.17.
Masters, K., EY, Oh, Simmons, B., Lintott, C., Graham, G., Greenhill, A., & Holmes, K. (2016). Science learning via participation in online citizen science. Journal of Science Communication, 15(3).
McWhinnie, S. (2011). The Demographics and Research Interests of the UK Astronomy and Geophysics Communities 2010. London: Royal Astronomical Society.
Nielsen, M. (2012). Reinventing discovery. The new era of networked science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Priest, S. (2009). Reinterpreting the audiences for media messages about science. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for public engagement and popular media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raddick, M. J., Bracey, G., Gay, P. L., Lintott, C. J., Cardamone, C., Murray, P., Schawinski, K., Szalay, A. S., & Vandenberg, J. (2013). Galaxy Zoo: Motivations of citizen scientists. Astronomy Education Review 12. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aas/journal/aer/12/1/10.3847/AER2011021.
Reed, J., Raddick, J., Lardner, A., & Carney, K. (2013). An exploratory factor analysis of motivations for participating in Zooniverse, a collection of virtual citizen science projects. Paper read at Proceedings of the 46th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, 7–11 January 2013, at Maui, HI.
SETI@home. (2006). SETI@home poll results. http://boinc.berkeley.edu/slides/xerox/polls.html.
Simon, N. (2012). Come on in and make yourself uncomfortable. In Museum 2.0. (blog). http://museumtwo.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/come-on-in-and-make-yourself.html.
Smethurst, R. J., Lintott, C. J., Bamford, S. P., Hart, R. E., Kruk, S. J., Masters, K. L., Nichol, R. C., & Simmons, B. D. (2017). Galaxy Zoo: The interplay of quenching mechanisms in the group environment★. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469(3), 3670–3687.
Stodden, V. (2010). Open science: Policy implications for the evolving phenomenon of user-led scientific innovation. Journal of Science Communication, 9(1), A05.
Tinati, R., & Luczak-Roesch, M. (2017). Wikipedia: A complex social machine by Ramine Tinati and Markus Luczak-Roesch with Martin Vesely as coordinator. ACM SIGWEB Newsletter, (Winter), 1–10.
Toogood, M. (2013). Engaging publics: Biodiversity data collection and the geographies of citizen science. Geography Compass, 7(9), 611–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12067.
Winn, J., & Heeter, C. (2009). Gaming, gender, and time: Who makes time to play? Sex Roles, 61(1–2), 1–13.
World Community Grid. (2013). Member study: Findings and next steps. World Community Grid. http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/about_us/viewNewsArticle.do?articleId=323.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Curtis, V. (2018). Who Takes Part in Online Citizen Science?. In: Online Citizen Science and the Widening of Academia. Palgrave Studies in Alternative Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77664-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77664-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77663-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77664-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)