Menu Expand

Reframing Citizen Science: Social Science Perspectives on Knowledge Collaboration and Diversity – Introduction

  1. Journals
  2. Sociologus
  3. Vol. 73, Issue 2
  4. pp. 103–128

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Meiser, A., Dietz, G. Reframing Citizen Science: Social Science Perspectives on Knowledge Collaboration and Diversity – Introduction. Sociologus, 73(2), 103-128. https://doi.org/10.3790/soc.2025.1461402
Meiser, Anna and Dietz, Gunther "Reframing Citizen Science: Social Science Perspectives on Knowledge Collaboration and Diversity – Introduction" Sociologus 73.2, 2023, 103-128. https://doi.org/10.3790/soc.2025.1461402
Meiser, Anna/Dietz, Gunther (2023): Reframing Citizen Science: Social Science Perspectives on Knowledge Collaboration and Diversity – Introduction, in: Sociologus, vol. 73, iss. 2, 103-128, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/soc.2025.1461402
Format
Download

Reframing Citizen Science: Social Science Perspectives on Knowledge Collaboration and Diversity – Introduction

Meiser, Anna | Dietz, Gunther

Sociologus, Vol. 73(2023), Iss. 2 : pp. 103–128 | First published online: December 04, 2025

Preview Login to order (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/soc.2025.1461402
Language
English
Pages
26
Keywords

Pricing

Individual
€ 34.00 (incl. local VAT if applicable)

Author Details

Anna Meiser, Institut für Interkulturelle Kommunikation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Oettingenstraße 67, 80538 München.

Gunther Dietz, Instituto de Investigaciones en Educación, Universidad Veracruzana, Campus Sur, Paseo 112, Col. Nuevo Xalapa, 91097 Xalapa, Ver., México.

References

  1. Armstrong, Andrea, Emma Flynn, and Karen Salt et al. 2023. “Trust and Temporality in Participatory Research.” Qualitative Research 23 (4): 1000–1021. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211065163.  Google Scholar
  2. Badami, Sumant, and Sophie Goodman. 2021. “Empowering Communities: Future-Making through Citizen Ethnography.” EPIC Proceedings 1: 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/epic.12075.  Google Scholar
  3. Bonn, Aletta, Anett Richter, and Katrin Vohland et al. [Bürger schaffen Wissen – Die Citizen Science Plattform]. 2016. Grünbuch: Citizen Science Strategie 2020 für Deutschland. Berlin: Bürger schaffen Wissen – Wissen schafft Bürger [GEWISS]. https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/index/index/docId/6815.  Google Scholar
  4. Bonn, Aletta, Wiebke Becker, and Susanne Hecker et al. 2022. Weißbuch: Citizen-Science-Strategie 2030 für Deutschland. Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, Universitäten und außeruniversitäre Einrichtungen. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ew4uk.  Google Scholar
  5. Bonney, Rick. 1996. “Citizen Science: A Lab Tradition.” Living Bird 15 (4): 7–15.  Google Scholar
  6. Bonney, Rick, Heidi Ballard, and Rebecca Jordan et al. 2009. Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Washington, D. C.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.  Google Scholar
  7. Bergerot, Benjamin. 2022. “The Citizen Science Paradox.” Land 11 (1151): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081151.  Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, Heather, and Dave Vanderhoven. 2016. Knowledge That Matters: Realising the Potential of Co-Production. Manchester: N8 Research Partnership.  Google Scholar
  9. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  10. Clemens, Gabriele B. 2004. “Katholische Traditionsbildung und Geschichtskultur: Der Historische Verein für den Niederrhein im preußischen König- und deutschen Kaiserreich.” Annalen des Historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein 207 (1): 81–124. https://doi.org/10.7788/annalen.2004.207.1.81.  Google Scholar
  11. Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus, eds. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.  Google Scholar
  12. Conklin, Harold C. 1954. The Relation of Hanunóo Culture to the Plant World. New Haven: Yale University.  Google Scholar
  13. Davis, Lloyd S., Lei Zhu, and Wiebke Finkler. 2023. “Citizen Science: Is It Good Science?” Sustainability 15 (5), 4577. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054577.  Google Scholar
  14. Dietz, Gunther, and Laura Selene Mateos Cortés. 2022. “Doubly Reflexive Ethnography and Collaborative Research.” In: Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Education, edited by George Noblit. New York: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  15. Ellen, Roy. 2000. Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and Its Transformations: Critical Anthropological Perspectives. London: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  16. Ellen, Roy. 2004. “From Ethno-Science to Science, or ‘What the Indigenous Knowledge Debate Tells Us about How Scientists Define Their Project.’” Journal of Cognition and Culture 4 (3): 409–450. http://doi.org/10.1163/1568537042484869.  Google Scholar
  17. European Commission, and SOCIENTIZE Consortium. 2013. “Green Paper on Citizen Science: Citizen Science for Europe. Towards a Better Society of Empowered Citizens and Enhanced Research.” https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/green-paper-citizen-science-europe-towards-society-empowered-citizens-and-enhanced-research.  Google Scholar
  18. European Commission, and SOCIENTIZE Consortium [Serrano Sanz, Fermín, Teresa Holocher-Ertl, Barbara Kieslinger et al.]. 2014. “White Paper on Citizen Science for Europe.” https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/socientize_white_paper_on_citizen_science.pdf.  Google Scholar
  19. European Union – EUR Lex. n.d. “Green paper.” Accessed March 10, 2025. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/green-paper.html.  Google Scholar
  20. Fals Borda, Orlando. 1991. Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action-Research. New York: Apex Press.  Google Scholar
  21. Finke, Peter. 2014. Citizen Science: Das unterschätzte Wissen der Laien. München: Oekom-Verlag.  Google Scholar
  22. Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. (Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New Yorker: Herder and Herder).  Google Scholar
  23. Frigerio, Didone, Anett Richter, Esra Per, Baiba Pruse, and Katrin Vohland. 2021. “Citizen Science in the Natural Sciences.” In: The Science of Citizen Science, edited by Katrin Vohland, Anne Land-Zandstra, and Luigi Ceccaroni et al. Cham: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_5.  Google Scholar
  24. Grace-McCaskey, Cynthia A., Briana Iatarola, Alex K. Manda, and J. Randall Etheridge. 2019. “Eco-Ethnography and Citizen Science: Lessons from Within.” Society & Natural Resources 32 (10): 1123–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1584343.  Google Scholar
  25. Haklay, Muki. 2018. “Participatory Citizen Science.” In: Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy, edited by Susanne Hecker, Muki Haklay, and Anne Bowser et al. London: UCL Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv550cf2.  Google Scholar
  26. Harper, Douglas. 2002. “Talking about Pictures: A Case for Photo Elicitation.” Visual Studies 17 (1): 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860220137345.  Google Scholar
  27. Hecker, Susanne, Muki Haklay, and Anne Bowser et al., eds. 2018. Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy. London: UCL Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv550cf2.  Google Scholar
  28. Historischer Verein für Oberfranken e.V. n.d. “Der Verein. Über uns.” Accessed March 10, 2025. https://www.hvo.franken.org/der-verein/ueber-uns.  Google Scholar
  29. Ingold, Tim. 20222. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  30. Irwin, Alan. 1995. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  31. Jaeger-Erben, Melanie and Noa Rigamonti. 20242. “Citizen Science.” In: Handbuch Umweltsoziologie, edited by Marco Sonnberger, Alena Bleicher, and Matthias Groß. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37222-4_50-1.  Google Scholar
  32. Kant, Immanuel. 1784. “Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?” Berlinische Monatsschrift 12: 481–494.  Google Scholar
  33. Kerson, Roger. 1989. “Lab for the Environment.” Technology Review 92 (1), 11–12.  Google Scholar
  34. Kostadinova, Iva. 2011. “Citizen Science: The New Helping Hand for Scientists.” Current Science Association 100 (7): 973–976.  Google Scholar
  35. Kvale, Steinar. 1996. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.  Google Scholar
  36. Lane, H. Chad. 2012. “Intercultural Learning.” In: Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, edited by Norbert M. Seel. New York/Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London: Springer.  Google Scholar
  37. Lewin, Kurt. 1946. “Action Research and Minority Problems.” Journal of Social Issues 2 (4): 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x.  Google Scholar
  38. Lorke, Julia, Till Bruckermann, Isabell Helbig, Eva Tchekov, and Martin Scheuch. 2024. “Citizen Science: (Mit-)Forschen in Lehrkräftebildung und Schulpraxis.” In: Lehrkräftebildung von morgen: Beiträge der Naturwissenschaftsdidaktiken zur Förderung überfachlicher Kompetenzen, edited by Nicole Graulich, Julia Arnold, Stefan Sorge, and Marcus Kubsch. Münster/New York: Waxmann.  Google Scholar
  39. Mahr, Dana, Claudia Göbel, Alan Irwin, and Katrin Vohland. 2018. “Watching or Being Watched: Enhancing Productive Discussion between the Citizen Sciences, the Social Sciences and the Humanities.” In: Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy, edited by Susanne Hecker, Muki Haklay, and Anne Bowser et al. London: UCL Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv550cf2.  Google Scholar
  40. Marcus, George E., and Michael M. J. Fischer. 1986. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  41. Martin, Judith N., Thomas K. Nakayama, and Donal Carbaugh. 2020. “A Global Look at the History and Development of Language and Intercultural Communication Studies.” In: The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, edited by Jane Jackson, 19–38. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  42. Martínez Novo, Carmen. 2018. “Ventriloquism, Racism and the Politics of Decoloniality in Ecuador.” Cultural Studies 32 (3): 389–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2017.1420091.  Google Scholar
  43. Mateos Cortés, Laura Selene, and Gunther Dietz. 2023. “Indigenous Youth in Intercultural Universities: New Sites of Knowledge Production and Leadership Training in Mexico and Latin America.” In: The Routledge Handbook of Indigenous Development, edited by Katharina Ruckstuhl, Irma A. Velásquez Nimatuj, John-Andrew McNeish, and Nancy Postero, 468–478. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  44. Meiser, Anna. 2017. “Alternative Models of Knowledge as a Critique of Epistemic Power Structures – Introduction.” Sociologus 67 (1): 1–22.  Google Scholar
  45. Meiser, Anna. 2024. Interkulturelle Universitäten und alternative Wissenskonstruktion: Lateinamerikanische Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.  Google Scholar
  46. Mignolo, Walter D. 2009. “Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom.” Theory, Culture and Society 26 (7–8): 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275.  Google Scholar
  47. Mirowski, Philip. 2017. “Against Citizen Science.” Aeon, November 20. https://aeon.co/essays/is-grassroots-citizen-science-a-front-for-big-business.  Google Scholar
  48. Mirowski, Philipp. 2018. “The Future(s) of Open Science.” Social Studies of Science 48 (2): 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718772086.  Google Scholar
  49. Montoya-Peláez, Leonardo, Laura Selene Mateos Cortés, and Gunther Dietz. 2021. “Freire’s Longevity in Intercultural Education: Entangled Histories from Colombian and Mexican Higher Education.” Language and Intercultural Communication 21 (4): 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2021.1957909.  Google Scholar
  50. Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein Wuppertal e.V. n.d. “Verein. Geschichte.” Accessed March 10, 2025. https://www.naturwissenschaftlicher-verein-wuppertal.de/verein/geschichte.  Google Scholar
  51. Oberg, James. 1979. “The Failure of the ‘Science’ of Ufology.” New Scientist 84 (1176): 102–105.  Google Scholar
  52. Oda, Welton, and Alejandra I. Roldán. 2022. “Aportes a la ciencia ciudadana para la Amazonía desde Paulo Freire y el ciclo de indagación.” Neotropical Hydrobiology and Aquatic Conservation 3 (1): 23–38. https://doi.org/10.55565/nhac.mozi4137.  Google Scholar
  53. O’Grady, Michael, and Eleni Mangina. 2024. “Citizen Scientists: Practices, Observations, and Experience.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11, 469. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02966-x.  Google Scholar
  54. Quijano, Aníbal. 1992. “Colonialidad y modernidad/racionalidad.” Perú Indigena 13 (29): 11–20.  Google Scholar
  55. Rappaport, Joanne. 2008. “Beyond Participant Observation: Collaborative Ethnography as Theoretical Innovation.” Collaborative Anthropologies 1: 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1353/cla.0.0014.  Google Scholar
  56. Riaño, Yvonne. 2012. “Die Produktion von Wissen als Minga: Ungleiche Arbeitsbeziehungen zwischen Forschenden und ‘Beforschten’ überwinden?” In: Methoden dekolonialisieren: Eine Werkzeugkiste zur Demokratisierung der Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften, edited by Olaf Kaltmeier, and Sarah Corona Berkin, 120–144. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.  Google Scholar
  57. Ribeiro, Gustavo Lins, and Arturo Escobar, eds. 2006. World Anthropologies: Disciplinary Transformations within Systems of Power. Oxford: Berg Publishers.  Google Scholar
  58. Saini, Pierrine, and Thomas Schärer. 2014. “Erinnerung, Film- und Fotoelicitation.” In: Methoden der Kulturanthropologie, edited by Christine Bischoff, Karoline Oehme-Jüngling, and Walter Leimgruber, 313–330. Bern: Haupt Verlag.  Google Scholar
  59. Santhakumar, V., Gunther Dietz, Elizabeth Castillo Guzman, and Kerry Shephard. 2020. “Indigenization of Higher Education: Trends in India, Latin America and New Zealand.” https://practiceconnect.azimpremjiuniversity.edu.in/indigenization-of-higher-education-trends-in-india-latin-america-and-new-zealand/.  Google Scholar
  60. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. Abingdon: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  61. Schade, Sven, Maite Pelacho, Toos (C. G. E.) van Noordwijk, Katrin Vohland, Susanne Hecker, Marina Manzoni. 2021. “Citizen Science and Policy.” In: Vohland et al. 2021, 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_18.  Google Scholar
  62. Sillitoe, Paul. 1998. “The Development of Indigenous Knowledge. A New Applied Anthropology.” Current Anthropology 39 (2): 223–252. https://doi.org/10.1086/204722.  Google Scholar
  63. Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD), BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, Freie Demokratische Partei (FDP). 2021. Koalitionsvertrag 2021–2025 zwischen der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands (SPD), Bündnis 90/Die Grünen und den Freien Demokraten (FDP). https://www.spd.de/koalitionsvertrag2021.  Google Scholar
  64. Sturtevant, William C. 1964. “Studies in Ethnoscience.” American Anthropologist 66 (3): 99–131. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.3.02a00850.  Google Scholar
  65. Tauginienė, Loreta, Eglé Butkevičienė, and Katrin Vohland et al. 2020. “Citizen Science in the Social Sciences and Humanities: The Power of Interdisciplinarity.” Palgrave Communications 6 (1): 89. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0471-y.  Google Scholar
  66. Tengö, Maria, Beau J. Austin, Finn Danielsen, and Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares. 2021. “Creating Synergies Between Citizen Science and Indigenous and Local Knowledge.” BioScience 71: 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab023.  Google Scholar
  67. Vohland, Katrin, Maike Weißpflug, and Lisa Pettibone. 2019. “Citizen Science and Neoliberal Transformation of Science: An Ambivalent Relationship.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4 (1): 25. http://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.186.  Google Scholar
  68. Vohland, Katrin, Anne Land-Zandstra, Luigi Ceccaroni, Rob Lemmens, Josep Perelló, Marisa Ponti, Roeland Samson, and Katherin Wagenknecht, eds. 2021. The Science of Citizen Science. Cham: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4.  Google Scholar
  69. Wehrle, Fabienne. 2024. “On the Science and the Citizen. An Interview with Alan Irwin”. mit:forschen! Gemeinsam Wissen schaffen, January 22. https://www.mitforschen.org/blog/interview-alan-irwin.  Google Scholar
  70. Zenker, Olaf, and Asta Vonderau. 2023. “Collaborations and Contestations in Publicly Engaged Anthropologies: An Exposition.” Public Anthropologist 5: 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1163/25891715-05020001.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Reframing Citizen Science: Social Science Perspectives on Knowledge Collaboration and Diversity – Introduction

Citizen science has gained prominence in political and academic discourse, emphasising its potential to democratise knowledge construction. While often associated with the natural sciences, this special issue explores its relevance within the social sciences, particularly social and cultural anthropology and intercultural communication. These disciplines have long employed collaborative methodologies; however, their contributions to citizen science remain underexamined. The special issue is based on four case studies encompassing Austria, Greenland, Chile, Kazakhstan, and Germany. The introduction to this special issue first provides insight into the history of the citizen science concept and discusses how citizen participation influences research, with a focus on knowledge construction and power dynamics. It extends beyond Western perspectives, incorporating participatory research traditions from the Global South, such as Latin American popular education and participatory action research. These approaches highlight the political and activist dimensions of citizen science, contrasting with the data-driven focus prevalent in the Global North. The article draws on the four contributions to discuss the diversity of forms of knowledge, the role of citizen scientists as knowledge holders, and methodological innovations that facilitate inclusive participation. These contributions emphasise that knowledge is shaped not only by formal academic methods, but also through embodied, local, and Indigenous perspectives. While citizen science fosters epistemological pluralism and challenges traditional hierarchies, issues of power relations, recognition of citizen scientists, and project sustainability remain critical.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Anna Meiser / Gunther Dietz: Reframing Citizen Science: Social Science Perspectives on Knowledge Collaboration and Diversity – Introduction 103
Abstract 103
1. Introduction: Citizen Science Beyond the Social Sciences? 104
2. The Citizen Science before Citizen Science: A New Term for an Old Phenomenon 107
3. Participation in Citizen Science and Social Sciences 113
3.1 Forms of Participation: Contributory, Collaborative, Co-created? 113
3.2 Participation in Research and Collaboration with Society: Perspectives from the Global South 116
4. On the Diversity of Knowledge, Knowledge Holders, and Methods 118
4.1 Diversity of Knowledge (Forms): Everyday, Local, and Intercultural Perspectives 118
4.2 Citizens and Knowledge Holders: Rethinking Expertise, Recognition, and Inclusion in Citizen Science 119
4.3 Expanding Methods in Citizen Science: Research en passant, Translating, and Embodying Knowledge 121
5. Conclusion 122
References 124

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2025 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Publishing Platform by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.