Hauke Riesch

Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions

Citizen science as a way of communicating science and doing public engagement has over the past decade become the focus of considerable hopes and expectations. It can be seen as a win–win situation, where scientists get help from the public and the participants get a public engagement experience that involves them in real and meaningful scientific research. In this paper we present the results of a series of qualitative interviews with scientists who participated in the ‘OPAL’ portfolio of citizen science projects that has been running in England since 2007: What were their experiences of participating in citizen science? We highlight two particular sets of issues that our participants have voiced, methodological/epistemological and ethical issues. While we share the general enthusiasm over citizen science, we hope that the research in this paper opens up more debate over the potential pitfalls of citizen science as seen by the scientists themselves.

Don't know, can't know: embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks

Numerous types of uncertainty arise when using formal models in the analysis of risks. Uncertainty is best seen as a relation, allowing a clear separation of the object, source and ‘owner’ of the uncertainty, and we argue that all expressions of uncertainty are constructed from judgements based on possibly inadequate assumptions, and are therefore contingent. We consider a five-level structure for assessing and communicating uncertainties, distinguishing three within-model levels—event, parameter and model uncertainty—and two extra-model levels concerning acknowledged and unknown inadequacies in the modelling process, including possible disagreements about the framing of the problem. We consider the forms of expression of uncertainty within the five levels, providing numerous examples of the way in which inadequacies in understanding are handled, and examining criticisms of the attempts taken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to separate the likelihood of events from the confidence in the science. Expressing our confidence in the adequacy of the modelling process requires an assessment of the quality of the underlying evidence, and we draw on a scale that is widely used within evidence-based medicine. We conclude that the contingent nature of risk-modelling needs to be explicitly acknowledged in advice given to policy-makers, and that unconditional expressions of uncertainty remain an aspiration.

Public Responses to Co2 Storage Sites: Lessons from Five European Cases

Studies of the factors involved in public perceptions of CO2 storage projects reveal a level of complexity and diversity that arguably confounds a comprehensive theoretical account. To some extent, a conceptual approach that simply organises the relevant social scientific knowledge thematically, rather than seeking an integrated explanation, is as useful as any single account that fails to do justice to the contingencies involved. This paper reviews and assembles such knowledge in terms of six themes and applies these themes to five European cases of carbon capture and storage (CCS) implementation. We identify the main factors involved in community responses to CCS as relating to: The characteristics of the project; the engagement process; risk perceptions; the actions of the stakeholders; the characteristics of the community, and the socio-political context.

‘Careless pork costs lives’: Risk stories from science to press release to media

In 2007, British newspapers reported on a league table of local authorities in England according to their level of ‘hazardous drinking’, showing that typically middle-class areas such as Harrogate topped the hazardous drinking league. The table however was a synthetic estimate: what the study showed was the pattern of hazardous drinking within the British middle classes as a whole, regardless of location. At the same time, a report was published on the influences of nutrition on cancer. Although the press release particularly highlighted the connection between obesity and cancer, much of the press coverage eventually focused on the possible dangers of red and processed meat in general, and bacon sandwiches in particular. These stories received substantial media coverage, and in both cases the press releases strongly influenced the way the story was reported. Through these case studies, we examine how risk stories evolve from the actual scientific studies or reports through to the press releases, the new reports and eventually the public discussion of the issues. We will look at how decisions made in the presentation of the press release influences the reception of a story and guide the discussion of it into directions possibly not intended by the scientists involved.

Science Blogging: Networks, Boundaries and Limitations

ABSTRACT There is limited research into the realities of science blogging, how science bloggers themselves view their activity and what bloggers can achieve. The ‘badscience’ blogs analysed here show a number of interesting developments, with significant implications for understandings of science blogging and scientific cultures more broadly. A functioning and diverse online community (with offline elements) has been constructed, with a number of non-professional and anonymous members and with boundary work being used to establish a recognisable outgroup. The community has developed distinct norms alongside a type of distributed authority and has negotiated the authority, anonymity and varying status of many community members in some interesting and novel ways. Activist norms and initiatives have been actioned, with some prominent community campaigns and action. There are questions about what science blogging—both in the UK and internationally—may be able to achieve in future and about the fragility of the ‘badscience’ community. Some of the highly optimistic hopes which have been associated with science blogging have not been realised. Nonetheless, the small group of bloggers focused on here have produced significant achievements with limited resources, especially when one considers this in the context of community values as opposed to some of the expectations attached to science blogging within scientific cultures more broadly. While the impacts of this science blogging community remain uncertain, the novel and potentially significant practices analysed here do merit serious consideration.

Levels of Uncertainty

There exist a variety of different understandings, definitions, and classifications of risk, which can make the resulting landscape of academic literature on the topic seem somewhat disjointed and often confusing. In this chapter, I will introduce a map on how to think about risks, and in particular uncertainty, which is arranged along the different questions of what the different academic disciplines find interesting about risk. This aims to give a more integrated idea of where the different literatures intersect and thus provide some order in our understanding of what risk is and what is interesting about it. One particular dimension will be presented in more detail, answering the question of what exactly we are uncertain about and distinguishing between five different levels of uncertainty. I will argue, through some concrete examples, that concentrating on the objects of uncertainty can give us an appreciation on how different perspectives on a given risk scenario are formed and will use the more general map to show how this perspective intersects with other classifications and analyses of risk.

Why did the proton cross the road? Humour and science communication.

The use of humour in public discourse about science has grown remarkably over the past few years, and when used in science communication activities is being seen as a great way to bring science to the public through laughter. However, barely any research has been published either on the often-assumed beneficial learning effects of humour in informal science education, or on the wider social functions and effects of humour about science and how humorous public discourse about science can influence the public understanding of science and the science–society relationship. This research note reviews some of the literature on the psychology and sociology of humour and comedy and tries to apply some of its insights to the effects humour might have when used in science communication. Although not intended to be anti-humour, this note attempts at least to start a more critical conversation on the value of humour in the communication of science.

Changing news: re-adjusting science studies to online newspapers

With the newspapers’ recent move to online reporting, traditional norms and practices of news reporting have changed to accommodate the new realities of online news writing. In particular, online news is much more fluid and prone to change in content than the traditional hard-copy newspapers – online newspaper articles often change over the course of the following days or even weeks as they respond to criticisms and new information becoming available. This poses a problem for social scientists who analyse newspaper coverage of science, health and risk topics, because it is no longer clear who has read and written what version, and what impact they potentially had on the national debates on these topics. In this note I want to briefly flag up this problem through two recent examples of UK national science stories and discuss the potential implications for PUS media research.

Surveying the citizen science landscape: an exploration of the design, delivery and impact of citizen science through the lens of the Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) programme

BackgroundThis paper provides a short introduction to the topic of citizen science (CS) identifying the shift from the knowledge deficit model to more inclusive, participatory science. It acknowledges the benefits of new technology and the opportunities it brings for mass participation and data manipulation. It focuses on the increase in interest in CS in recent years and draws on experience gained from the Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) programme launched in England in 2007.MethodsThe drivers and objectives for OPAL are presented together with background information on the partnership, methods and scales. The approaches used by researchers ranged from direct public participation in mass data collection through field surveys to research with minimal public engagement. The supporting services focused on education, particularly to support participants new to science, a media strategy and data services.ResultsExamples from OPAL are used to illustrate the different approaches to the design and delivery of CS that have emerged over recent years and the breadth of opportunities for public participation the current landscape provides. Qualitative and quantitative data from OPAL are used as evidence of the impact of CS.ConclusionWhile OPAL was conceived ahead of the more recent formalisation of approaches to the design, delivery and analysis of CS projects and their impact, it nevertheless provides a range of examples against which to assess the various benefits and challenges emerging in this fast developing field.

Science Blogging Below-the-Line: A Progressive Sense of Place?

Drawing on our research on the ‘badscience’ blog network (Riesch and Mendel 2014), this paper will discuss the construction of this community and how this case study can contribute to our understanding of the geographies of new media and of social research methodologies more broadly. We will look at the spaces that this blogging community interacts with – the physical national location of the network, its interactions with the existing mainstream media spaces in the UK and the virtual above- and below-the-line spaces that allow bloggers and commentators to construct their community (as well as delineating outsiders).