Understanding the (inter)disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen science: A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria

PLoS One. 2017 Jun 27;12(6):e0178778. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178778. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

Citizen science has become more popular in recent years, quickly taking on a variety of potentially conflicting characteristics: a way to collect massive data sets at relatively low cost, a way to break science out of the ivory tower and better engage the public, an approach to educate lay people in scientific methods. But the extent of current citizen science practice-the types of actors and scientific disciplines who take part-is still poorly understood. This article builds on recent surveys of citizen science in PLOS One by analyzing citizen science practice in Germany and Austria through the projects on two online platforms. We find evidence supporting previous findings that citizen science is a phenomenon strongest in biodiversity and environmental monitoring research, but at home in a number of scientific fields, such as history and geography. In addition, our survey method yields new insights into citizen science projects initiated by non-scientific actors. We close by discussing additional methodological considerations in attempting to present a cross-disciplinary overview of citizen science.

MeSH terms

  • Austria
  • Biodiversity
  • Community Participation*
  • Environmental Monitoring / methods*
  • Germany
  • Humans
  • Research*
  • Science*

Grants and funding

This publication was written as part of the consortium project ‘BürGEr schaffen WISSen – Wissen schafft Bürger’ (Citizens create knowledge), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the online platform buergerschaffenwissen.de funded by BMBF and the German Stifterverband. A fellowship from the Rachel Carson Center allowed the corresponding author to finalize and submit the manuscript. The publication of this article was funded by the Open Access Fund of the Leibniz Association. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.