@article{HaklayFraislGreshakeTzovarasetal.2021, author = {Haklay, Muki and Fraisl, Dilek and Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian and Hecker, Susanne and Gold, Margaret and Hager, Gerid and Ceccaroni, Luigi and Kieslinger, Barbara and Wehn, Uta and Woods, Sasha and Nold, Christian and Bal{\´a}zs, B{\´a}lint and Mazzonetto, Marzia and R{\"u}fenacht, Simone and Shanley, Lea A. and Wagenknecht, Katherin and Motion, Alice and Sforzi, Andrea and Riemenschneider, Dorte and Dorler, Daniel and Heigl, Florian and Schaefer, Teresa and Lindner, Ariel and Weißpflug, Maike and Mačiulienė, Monika and Vohland, Katrin}, title = {Contours of citizen science: a vignette study}, series = {Royal Society Open Science}, volume = {8}, journal = {Royal Society Open Science}, number = {8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:526-opus4-14781}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Citizen science has expanded rapidly over the past decades. Yet, defining citizen science and its boundaries remained a challenge, and this is reflected in the literature—for example in the proliferation of typologies and definitions. There is a need for identifying areas of agreement and disagreement within the citizen science practitioners community on what should be considered as citizen science activity. This paper describes the development and results of a survey that examined this issue, through the use of vignettes—short case descriptions that describe an activity, while asking the respondents to rate the activity on a scale from 'not citizen science' (0\%) to 'citizen science' (100\%). The survey included 50 vignettes, of which five were developed as clear cases of not-citizen science activities, five as widely accepted citizen science activities and the others addressing 10 factors and 61 sub-factors that can lead to controversy about an activity. The survey has attracted 333 respondents, who provided over 5100 ratings. The analysis demonstrates the plurality of understanding of what citizen science is and calls for an open understanding of what activities are included in the field.}, language = {en} } @article{WagenknechtWoodsNoldetal.2021, author = {Wagenknecht, Katherin and Woods, Tim and Nold, Christian and R{\"u}fenacht, Simone and Voigt-Heucke, Silke and Caplan, Anne and Hecker, Susanne and Vohland, Katrin}, title = {A question of dialogue? Reflections on how citizen science can enhance communication between science and society}, series = {JCOM: Journal of Science Communication}, volume = {20}, journal = {JCOM: Journal of Science Communication}, number = {03}, issn = {1824-2049}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:526-opus4-14035}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Citizen science is a transdisciplinary approach that responds to the current science policy agenda: in terms of supporting open science, and by using a range of science communication instruments. In particular, it opens up scientific research processes by involving citizens at different phases; this also creates a range of opportunities for science communication to happen This article explores methodological and practical characteristics of citizen science as a form of science communication by examining three case studies that took different approaches to citizens' participation in science. Through these, it becomes clear that communication in citizen science is '÷always' science communication and an essential part of "doing science".}, language = {en} }