Kirk Jalbert

Institutions for Civic Technoscience: How Critical Making is Transforming Environmental Research

This article explores the changing relationship between the academy and new public formations of scientific research, which we term “civic technoscience.” Civic technoscience leverages tactics seen in critical making communities to question and transform how and who can make credible and actionable knowledge. A comparison of two case studies is used. The first is a grassroots mapping process that allows communities to generate high-quality aerial imagery. The second is an academic-led project using environmental sensors to engage disparate audiences in scientific practice. These two projects were found to differ in their ability to form strategic spaces for community-based science, and suggest pathways to foster more robust relationships across the public–academic divide. By altering power dynamics in material, literary, and social technologies used for scientific research, we argue that civic technoscience enables citizens to question expert knowledge production through critical making tactics, and creates opportunities to generate credible public science.

What is Volunteer Water Monitoring Good for? Fracking and the Plural Logics of Participatory Science

This paper responds to recent calls for deeper scrutiny of the institutional contexts of citizen science. In the last few years, at least two dozen civil society organizations in New York and Pennsylvania have begun monitoring the watershed impacts of unconventional natural gas drilling, also known as “fracking.” This study examines the institutional logics that inform these citizen monitoring efforts and probes how relationships with academic science and the regulatory state affect the practices of citizen scientists. We find that the diverse practices of the organizations in the participatory water monitoring field are guided by logics of consciousness-raising, environmental policing, and science. Organizations that initiate monitoring projects typically attempt to combine two or more of these logics as they develop new practices in response to macro-level social and environmental changes. The dominant logic of the field remains unsettled, and many groups appear uncertain about whether and how their practices might have an influence. We conclude that the impacts of macro-level changes, such as the scientization of politics, the rise of neoliberal policy ideas, or even large-scale industrial transformations, are likely to be experienced in field-specific ways.

Introduction to the Special Forum on Critical Making as Research Program

This special issue spotlights the growing diversity of critical making practices in a range of disciplinary contexts both inside and outside of the academy, and begins to develop perspectives that will foster the emergence of critical making as a coherent field. On one hand, we see great value in incorporating material practices into existing information systems (IS) and science and technology studies (STS) research programs. In particular, forms of material engagement can help overcome the ineffectual linguistic bias of traditional critiques of technoscience. On the other hand, we believe that current material practices can benefit from the conceptualization of knowledge and social organization that are foundational to IS and STS research. In this introduction to the special issue we call attention to the mechanisms by which such practices may combine representational and material work to foster and support the development of new knowledge-making communities and institutions. We believe such work can serve as a framework for others engaged in critical making practices to better contextualize and expand the relevance of their work. We intend this special issue to serve as a “stake in the ground” for research on new forms of material-conceptual critique and their incorporation in the repertoire of critical technoscience scholarship.

Sense and Influence: Environmental Monitoring Tools and the Power of Citizen Science

Abstract Automated monitoring devices are useful technologies for communities seeking to document and solve environmental problems. However, without deeper scrutiny of their design and deployment, there is a risk that they will fail to have the impact that many of their promoters intend. We develop a rubric for analysing how different kinds of monitoring devices help environmental advocates influence public debates. We apply this rubric in a study of environmental organizations in Pennsylvania that are choosing between recruiting volunteer citizen scientists and using automated sensor-based devices to gather water quality data in streams threatened by hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. Many organizations rely on volunteers using simple monitoring tools because they are affordable and produce easily managed data sets. An argument for this method of monitoring is that volunteering in the field also fosters citizen engagement in environmental debates. By comparison, we find the increased use of automated devices tends to reinforce hierarchies of expertise and constrains the agendas of nonprofessionals who participate in monitoring projects. We argue that these findings suggest that automated technologies, however effective they may be in gathering data on environmental quality, are not well designed to support broad public participation in environmental science and politics.

Fractured knowledge: Mapping the gaps in public and private water monitoring efforts in areas affected by shale gas development:

Spatial gaps in environmental monitoring have important consequences for public policy and regulation of new industrial developments. In the case of Marcellus Shale gas extraction, a water-intensive new form of energy production that is taking place in the state of Pennsylvania (USA), the perception of large gaps in government water monitoring efforts have motivated numerous civil society organizations (CSOs) to initiate their own monitoring programs. Using geospatial mapping, this study reveals that nearly half of the watersheds in the region lack government water monitoring, and CSOs are the sole source of continuous or frequent monitoring data in 22% of the watersheds. While many watersheds remain unmonitored, the gaps do not map on to demographic characteristics typically associated with environmental injustice. This study probes both the reasons for and the implications of the gaps in watershed monitoring, drawing conclusions about the promise and limitations of citizen science.

Data inconsistencies from states with unconventional oil and gas activity

The quality and availability of unconventional oil and gas (O&G) data in the United States have never been compared methodically state-to-state. By conducting such an assessment, this study seeks to better understand private and publicly sourced data variability and to identify data availability gaps. We developed an exploratory data-grading tool - Data Accessibility and Usability Index (DAUI) - to guide the review of O&G data quality. Between July and October 2013, we requested, collected, and assessed 5 categories of unconventional O&G data (wells drilled, violations, production, waste, and Class II disposal wells) from 10 states with active drilling activity. We based our assessment on eight data quality parameters (accessibility, usability, point location, completeness, metadata, agency responsiveness, accuracy, and cost). Using the DAUI, two authors graded the 10 states and then averaged their scores. The average score received across all states, data categories, and parameters was 67.1 out of 100, largely insufficient for proper data transparency. By state, Pennsylvania received the highest average ( = 93.5) and ranked first in all but one data category. The lowest scoring state was Texas ( = 44) largely due to its policy of charging for certain data. This article discusses the various reasons for scores received, as well as methodological limitations of the assessment metrics. We argue that the significant variability of unconventional O&G data—and its availability to the public—is a barrier to regulatory and industry transparency. The lack of transparency also impacts public education and broader participation in industry governance. This study supports the need to develop a set of data best management practices (BMPs) for state regulatory agencies and the O&G industry, and suggests potential BMPs for this purpose.

Barriers to sharing water quality data: experiences from the Shale Network

The Shale Network is a group of stakeholders collating, publishing, and conducting research on water quality data collected in the northeastern United States experiencing natural gas extraction from shale using hydraulic fracturing. In developing the Shale Network, we have experienced reluctance to share data from all participating sectors. This paper explores this reluctance, identifying barriers to greater collaboration among multiple stakeholders in natural resource management projects. Findings are derived from participant observation of the Shale Network team, surveys conducted during Shale Network workshops, interviews with water quality stakeholders, and participant observation of water quality monitoring training sessions. The barriers identified include perceptions about data problems and quality, technical capacity, regulatory and legal limitations, competition for resources, and resource allocation decisions. This paper identifies strategies the Shale Network has used to overcome data-sharing barriers to expand a culture of data sharing that supports enhanced nature resource management and citizen engagement.