Abstract
This chapter explores “citizen science” as a contemporary variant of participatory citizenship. It analyzes how two biomedical online citizen science projects address potential participants. What does it mean to enact citizenship in these citizen science projects according to the self-descriptions of the projects? How do their web interfaces regulate participation?
I suggest that citizen science in the dominant mode of crowdsourcing may redefine technoscientific citizenship. After the paradigms of popularization (shaped by the deficit model) and deliberation (shaped by discourses of risk and uncertainty), the new paradigm of citizen science positions participants as productive contributors to scientific research and technological innovation. In their social position as citizen scientists, individuals do not primarily enact citizenship by taking part in political discourses but by becoming responsible members of a productive crowd of volunteers in a predefined technoscientific regime of knowledge production.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The following analysis was performed together with Andreas Wenninger and Marcel Woznica.
- 3.
User interfaces can be understood as contemporary ways in which humans and machines are related to each other. They are “a relation with technology rather than […] a technology in itself. In this relation the interface describes a boundary condition that is at the same time encountered and worked through toward some specific end” (Hookway 2014). User interfaces can be interpreted as the slash between the techno/social distinction, co-constituting and bridging both sides of the distinction and thus creating new technosocial realities. Interfaces are borders that allow interpenetration, regulate the flow of information and set the conditions for irritation (Karafillidis 2012: 53). Unlike other linkages between humans and machines (which can also happen by accident and coincidence), interfaces are designed to make a specific relation happen.
References
Andersen, Å.N., and H. Knudsen. 2016. Playful hyper-responsibility and the making of a performing audience. Soziale Systeme 19 (2): 433-455.
Anderson-Lee, J., E. Fisker, V. Kosaraju, M. Wu, J. Kong, J. Lee, and M. Lee. 2016. Principles for Predicting RNA Secondary Structure Design Difficulty. Journal of Molecular Biology 428 (5): 748–757.
Barney, D. 2007. One Nation Under Google: Citizenship in the Technological Republic. Toronto: Hart House Lecture Committee.
Beer, D. 2009. Power Through the Algorithm? Participatory Web Cultures and the Technological Unconscious. New Media & Society 11 (6): 985–1002.
Benkler, Y. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bogner, A. 2012. The Paradox of Participation Experiments. Science, Technology & Human Values 37 (5): 506–527.
Bonney, R. 1996. Citizen Science: A Lab Tradition. Living Bird 15 (4): 7–15.
Bonney, R., T.B. Phillips, H.L. Ballard, J.W. Enck. 2015. Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?. Public Understanding of Science 25 (1):2–16.
Bonney, R., J.L. Shirk, T.B. Phillips, A. Wiggins, H.L. Ballard, A.J. Miller-Rushing, and J.K. Parrish. 2014. Next Steps for Citizen Science. Science 343 (6178): 1436–1437.
Bora, Alfons, and H. Hausendorf. 2006. Communicating Citizenship – Social Positioning: Theoretical Concepts. In Analysing Citizenship Talk: Social Positioning in Political and Legal Decision-Making Processes, ed. H. Hausendorf and A. Bora, 23–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing.
Cancer Research UK. 2015a. Cell Slider. http://www.cellslider.net/. Accessed on 10 Aug 2018.
———. 2015b. About Cell Slider. http://www.cellslider.net/#/info. Accessed on 17 July 2016.
Candido Dos Reis, F.J., S. Lynn, H.R. Ali, D. Eccles, A. Hanby, E. Provenzano, and C. Caldas. 2015. Crowdsourcing the General Public for Large Scale Molecular Pathology Studies in Cancer. eBioMedicine 2 (7): 681–689.
Citizen CyberLab. 2016. About the CCL. http://www.citizencyberlab.org/about.html. Accessed on 10 Aug 2018.
Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235–296.
———. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dickel, S., and M. Franzen. 2015. Digitale Inklusion: Zur sozialen Öffnung des Wissenschaftssystems. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 44 (5): 330–347.
———. 2016. The “Problem of Extension” Revisited: New Modes of Digital Participation in Science. Journal of Science Communication 15 (1): 1–17.
Dickel, S., and J.-F. Schrape. 2017. The Logic of Digital Utopianism. NanoEthics 11 (1): 47–58.
Edwards, R. 2013. The ‘Citizens’ in Citizen Science Projects: Educational and Conceptual Issues. International Journal of Science Education 4 (4): 376–391.
Eitzel, M.V., J.L. Cappadonna, C. Santos-Lang, R.E. Duerr, A. Virapongse, S.E. West, and C.M. Kyba. 2017. Citizen Science Terminology Matters: Exploring Key Terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2 (1): 1.
Epstein, S. 1995. The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials. Science, Technology & Human Values 20 (4): 408–437.
EteRNA. 2018. Empowering Citizen Scientists to Invent Medicine. http://eternagame.org. Accessed on 10 Aug 2018.
EteRNA Wiki. 2014. EteRNA. http://eternawiki.org/wiki/index.php5/What_is_EteRNA. Accessed on 10 Aug 2018.
Feenberg, A. 2011. Agency and Citizenship in a Technological Society, Digital Citizenship. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.
Felt, U. 2003. Scientific Citizenship: Schlaglichter einer Diskussion. Gegenworte 11.
Frankenfeld, P.J. 1992. Technological Citizenship: A Normative Framework for Risk Studies. Science Technology Human Values 17 (4): 459–484.
Franzoni, C., and H. Sauermann. 2014. Crowd Science: The Organization of Scientific Research in Open Collaborative Projects. Research Policy 43 (1): 1–20.
Hellmann, K.-U. 2010. Prosumer Revisited: Zur Aktualität einer Debatte: Eine Einführung. In Prosumer revisited: Zur Aktualität einer Debatte, ed. B. Blättel-Mink and K.-U. Hellmann, 13–48. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Henkel, A. 2015. Gesellschaftstheorie der Verantwortung. Funktion und Folgen eines Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität. Soziale Systeme 19 (2).
Hookway, B. 2014. Interface. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
Howe, J. 2010. Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business. http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com. Accessed on 10 Aug 2018.
Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development. London/New York: Routledge.
———. 2001. Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10 (1): 1–18.
Jasanoff, S. 2004. Science and Citizenship: a New Synergy. Science and Public Policy 31 (2): 90–94.
Karafillidis, A. 2012. Die Recodierung der Soziologie: Zu Harrison C. Whites Interfaces. Revue für postheroisches Management 10: 46–59.
Kasperowski, D., and T. Hillman. 2018. The Epistemic Culture in an Online Citizen Science Project: Programs, Antiprograms and Epistemic Subjects. Social Studies of Sciences 44 (1).
Kelly, K. 2005. We Are the Web. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2005/08/tech/. Accessed 10 Aug 2018.
Lee, J., W. Kladwang, M. Lee, D. Cantu, M. Azizyan, H. Kim, and A. Limpaecher. 2014. RNA Design Rules from a Massive Open Laboratory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (6): 2122–2127.
Marres, N. 2012. Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. Houndmills/Basingstoke/Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Open Science Policy Platform. 2018. Integrated Advice of the Open Science Policy Platform. https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/integrated_advice_opspp_recommendations.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none. Accessed on 10 Aug 2018.
Prainsack, B. 2014. Understanding Participation: The ‘Citizen Science’ of Genetics. In Genetics as Social Practice: Transdisciplinary Views on Science and Culture (Theory, Technology and Society), ed. B. Prainsack, S. Schicktanz, and G. Werner-Felmayer, 147–164. Farnham: Ashgate.
Reichwald, R., and F.T. Piller. 2006. Interaktive Wertschöpfung: Open Innovation, Individualisierung und neue Formen der Arbeitsteilung. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Ribble, M.S., G.D. Bailey, and T.W. Ross. 2004. Digital Citizenship: Addressing Appropriate Technology Behavior. Learning and Leading with Technology 39 (1).
Riesch, H., and C. Potter. 2014. Citizen Science as Seen by Scientists: Methodological, Epistemological and Ethical Dimensions. Public Understanding of Science 23 (1): 107–120.
Rose, N. 2000. Community, Citizenship, and the Third Way. American Behavioral Scientist 43 (9): 1395–1411.
Serrano. 2013. This website: https://sciencenode.org/feature/engaging-citizens-science-research-excellence.php.
Shadbolt, N. R., D. A. Smith, E. Simperl, M. V. Kleek, Y. Yang, and W. Hall. 2013. Towards a Classification Framework for Social Machines. WWW 2013 Companion. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2488078. Accessed on 10 Aug 2018.
Smart, P.R., and N.R. Shadbolt. 2014. Social Machines. In Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, ed. M. Khosrowpour, 6855–6862. Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Strasser, B. J., J. Baudry, D. Mahr, G. Sanchez, and Elise Tancoigne. 2018. ‘Citizen Science”? Rethinking Science and Public Participation. Science and Technology Studies.
Surowiecki, J. 2004. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations. New York: Doubleday.
Sutter, B. 2004. Governing by Civil Society: Citizenship Within a New Social Contract. In Reflexive Representations: Discourse, Power, and Hegemony in Global Capitalism, ed. J. Angermüller, D. Wiemann, R. Kollmorgen, and J. Meyer, 155–168. Münster/Piscataway: LIT.
Tapscott, D., and A.D. Williams. 2007. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Portfolio.
Toffler, A. 1989. The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books.
Wehling, P. 2012. From Invited to Uninvited Participation (and Back?): Rethinking Civil Society Engagement in Technology Assessment and Development. Poiesis & Praxis 9 (1–2): 43–60.
Weingart, Peter. 1982. The Social Assessment of Science, or the De-Institutionalization of the Scientific Profession. Science, Technology, & Human Values 7 (1):53–55.
Wellington-Oguri, R., E. Fisker, M. Wiley, and M. Zada. 2018. Evidence of an Unusual Poly(A) RNA Signature Detected by High-Throughput Chemical Mapping. bioRxiv.
Wenninger, A. 2015. Hermeneutische Analysen neuer Kommunikationsformen im Internet. In Die qualitative Analyse internetbasierter Daten: Methodische Herausforderungen und Potenziale von Online-Medien, ed. D. Schirmer, N. Sander, and A. Wenninger, 51–87. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Woolley, J.P., M.L. McGowan, H.J.A. Teare, V. Coathup, J.R. Fishman, R.A. Settersten Jr., S. Sterckx, J. Kaye, and E.T. Juengst. 2016. Citizen Science or Scientific Citizenship? Disentangling the Uses of Public Engagement Rhetoric in National Research Initiatives. BMC Medical Ethics 17 (33): 1–17.
Wynne, B. 2007. Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political–Conceptual Category Mistake. Easts 1 (1): 99–110.
Zooniverse. 2018. About. https://www.zooniverse.org/about. Accessed 10 Aug 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dickel, S. (2020). Technoscientific Citizenship in Citizen Science. Assembling Crowds for Biomedical Research. In: Maasen, S., Dickel, S., Schneider, C. (eds) TechnoScienceSociety. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43965-1_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43965-1_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43964-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43965-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)