This article brought me back to my BioBlitz experience. While I was there, I recall thinking that this activity was primarily a waste of time. Here we were snapping pictures and recording data of various plants, lichen, insects, and animals- but for what purpose? At the end of our shift, one of the guides reminded all of us to send in all our data via iNaturalist so it can be reviewed, edited, and used. My immediate thought process was who is she kidding? Is she really going to use data that some college sophomores gathered in a mandatory activity one day in the park? But, now, after reading this article, I realize that no she was not joking and yes she does plan on using the information gathered.

This idea really fascinates me. It is quite intriguing that the average individual, no matter what age has a chance to participate in the science enterprise in a real way. One does not have to just simply enjoy a nature walk or museum visits or private study in a specific field to partake in science. But, rather, one can really be a true part of science, even without the degree, experience, or lab coat.

In this manner, the six strands are fully met. First, the citizen scientists are people who are interested in participating and want to volunteer. Second, they come in with or are given a briefing on the scientific concepts. Third, they participate in the activity, observe, and record data. Fourth, they review their data and understand how it is being used and what it really means. Fifth, they use the tools of science in order to make their observations and use the language of science to record the data. Sixth, they identify with science by recognizing the fact that they are really true participants in the enterprise. They are just as critical and vital in the field of scientific study and research as the professional scientists and researchers. And, this acknowledgement makes the experience a very rewarding one.

The great thing about citizen science is that it’s inclusive. Literally anyone can be a citizen scientist, and their efforts and findings are considered “real work” and not dismissed as amateur work. The implementation of a Citizen Science approach is mutually beneficial for not only those bringing in the citizen scientists, but the citizen scientists conducting the experiment. As Cohn wrote, they get real exposure to the natural world and the scientific process, and those collecting the data gain both data and the potential for future participation from those whose interest they might spark. In long-term experiments, Citizen Scientists seem to stick around for a long time if their activities hold their interest. We see this with the bird feeder experiment, which has been going on for over 20 years.

I was interested to see that the demographic to which the bird feeder experiment appeals is not very wide. Mostly white middle-class college-educated older women, as the article put it. Why would this be? Well, perhaps it’s because of discrepancies in quality of education depending on neighborhood and upbringing. Education, including science education, in poorer communities of color tends to be lackluster compared to more upper-class communities, thus the students grow up less interested in science and less willing to participate in scientific investigations. As for the narrow age range, perhaps it goes back to how people often have quality science education in elementary school and after high school, but in between, the quality of that education tends to dip. Many young people probably have a bad taste in their mouth left from the quality of their science education, so they don’t pursue those interests later on in their lives, thus missing out on experiments that they probably would have found fun and would likely have rekindled an interest in science for them.

It’s evident that Citizen Science experiments aren’t just fun, but really do bolster scientific education. 50 percent or more of the citizen scientists who participated in the bird feeder experiment claim to have gained an expanded knowledge of the wide variety of birds, learning about species they’d never heard about before. They learned how to identify more species and more behaviors, and they learned how birds change through seasons. David Helms’ experiment shows that he has learned about animal biology by studying and documenting the mammals; he has also learned about technology by learning how to set up and maintain forest cameras. These are things that could potentially be learned in a classroom setting, but, I mean, why would you? Why learn out of a textbook when you can learn out of the world that you’re supposed to be studying in the first place? Why read chapter upon chapter of ornithological text when you could set up a bird feeder, study the birds that arrive, and contribute your findings to actual ornithological studies? It seems a lot more interesting that way. I’m interested to participate in such experiments during the course of this class. Real hands-on, direct interaction with nature and with the scientific world is seeming like a more and more attractive option.

Having citizens perform scientific research is a great idea for society. Not only will it make scientific research across a large geographic area more feasible, it will also allow for larger sample sizes, a broader range of research topics, and it will do wonders for education in America. Citizen Science is one of the methods for learning science which is informal and would allow people to learn without even realizing that they’re learning. It’s one of the “95 percent” solutions. Even Cohn’s article states that most of the grants given out by the National Science Foundation are categorized as grants for education rather than grants for science. There is a reason for that: having citizens without prior scientific experience help do research will implicitly improve their education in the field they’re researching.

This idea can even benefit the economy. Somebody who participated in a number of citizen science projects would have acquired experience that can be put on a resume, making him more hireable.

My only concern with allowing common folk do research is with the validity of the scientific results it would bring. Yes, the article states that even third graders identified crabs correctly at a rate of 80%. But what if the research needed to be conducted is more complex than simply identifying animals in our ecosystem? Use of specialized tools and research of sophisticated topics requires trained hands and minds. I believe that type of research should be left to the professionals. Allowing non-scientists to participate in science is great, as long as it doesn’t lower the standards for what is acceptable to be accurate data. That would be cause for bad science. Citizens should be allowed to help, but only in the collection of simple data. The citizens should be trained appropriately, and they should be assessed in whether they understand their task before allowing them to commit to it. The prospect of allowing anybody to volunteer and gather data for researchers has only been brought up recently, and according to the article, standards for accuracy have been enforced in the studies. I only hope that it will continue to be this way and that this cheaper alternative for gathering data won’t become a temptation to provide leeway for invalid data.

Ilanit Zada

9-22-13

          Reading through the article entitled “Citizen Science: Can Volunteers do Real Research” by Jeffrey P. Cohn, I was a bit unsure as to what my stance was on the topic of volunteers doing research and their observations being put to use. Should this be allowed? Or are volunteers being taken advantage of simply because it would be costly otherwise? Furthermore, should the observations that the volunteers make and their data be deemed credible? After all, there are volunteers that do not have a degree in the area.

          After mulling over this idea, I reached an obvious conclusion. These volunteers are not forced to do anything against their will; they enjoy what they are doing and would be doing it regardless, so why not make use of their findings? In addition, many of these volunteers research the topic so much that they may be just as knowledgeable as someone else in the field. Their work should not be untrustworthy simply because they do not have a piece of paper that says they went to school and excelled in that area.

          This idea brought me back to the Bioblitz and reminded me of the volunteer that took part in our journey through the park. The volunteer that was assigned to my group happened to also love nature and be extremely knowledgeable in the area. He told us that he loved dedicating his spare time to walking through the park and identifying the different plant species he saw and writing down the different characteristics that classified is as that specific tree. One day, a friend of his approached him and asked him if he would make a map of the park (being that he knew so much about it). The volunteer immediately agreed and began his project. He showed us the map that he made and I was flabbergasted; it was extremely large and included all the details and topography of the park. Not only that, but he told us that the map that he made was published in the book his friend wrote, earning him some fame. I  believe that this comes to show that although the volunteers may not receive a monetary payment for the work that they do, their job is priceless and enables so many people to further their knowledge because of their investments.

I felt like the article “Citizen Science: Can Volunteers do Real Research?” by Jeffrey P. Cohn was demeaning towards citizen scientists. Although the main idea of the article was that citizen scientists are extremely useful in contributing to scientific research by observing and collecting data, it seemed as though the author believed that citizen scientists weren’t as important as “real scientists.” In fact, Cohn states, “Citizen scientists help monitor wild animals and plants or other environmental markers, but they are not paid for their assistance, nor are they necessarily even scientists. Most are amateurs who volunteer to assist ecological research because they love the outdoors or are concerned about environmental trends and problems and want to do something about them.” Cohn’s point of view is different than what was said about citizen scientists that participated in Project FeederWatch in “Surrounded by Science”. Project FeederWatch focused on the aspect that absolutely anyone is able to be a “citizen scientist” and can make valuable scientific contributions; according to “Surrounded by Science,” “the thinking behind the project [Project FeederWatch] was that giving “regular” people the chance to engage directly with phenomena and learn how to conduct investigations would help them become comfortable with the tools and practices of science.” On the other hand, I feel like Cohn isn’t genuinely praising citizen scientists because he states that they aren’t real scientists, they’re “amateurs.” Also, Cohn specifically made the distinction between “scientists” and “citizen scientists,” often using the word “volunteers” when referring to the latter.

Although Cohn didn’t consider citizen scientists “real scientists,” he still acknowledged that citizen scientists have helped advance scientific knowledge simply by going out, collecting data, and observing something they were interested in and were not paid to do. Even though citizen scientists aren’t necessarily “professionals” in the fields that they study, they are still ultimately able to contribute to science.

I liked that Chapter 2 acknowledges the social and cultural forces that influence science and scientists. Scientists are drawn to what they study by personal interests as well as the social and cultural conditions of their time and view their discoveries and observations through those lenses. As the chapter states, “science reflects the cultural values of those who engage in it” (Fenichel and Schweingruber; National Research Council, 20).

I also enjoyed the idea of inviting laypeople with strong interests in certain areas of study, such as the study of birds, to partner with trained scientists and experts in the field to further the knowledge available. The experience of Project FeederWatch was beneficial for both “citizen scientists” and trained scientists; citizen scientists had the opportunity to  be challenged and learn more about and be actual participants in furthering research on birds and bird behavior, and trained scientists learned that some of their hypotheses were inaccurate and the data gathered by citizen scientists were so significant that they were published in peer-reviewed journals.

The “strands of science” learning described the whole process of informal science learning, which I thought was very thorough and marked the steps of informal learning from the very beginning with sparking an interest to encouraging the informal scholar to think scientifically with scientific reasoning and to use tools and vocabulary that trained scientists and experts use and to develop a scientific identity. This process definitely engages scientific interest and if followed through, can make an informal scholar, a citizen scientist, feel like an important and included part of a field more traditionally represented by formally trained individuals.