Brokering Trust in Citizen Science

Mat Gilfedder, Cathy J. Robinson, James E.M. Watson, Thomas G. Campbell, Brian L. Sullivan, Hugh P. Possingham

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    Citizen science (CS) information requires systematic review that incorporates a range of interests and concerns. Yet, there has been little research on what might constitute reviewing best practice to ensure CS is trusted by contributors and users of the data. Insights from a survey of all 1134 reviewers who curate the global eBird Project highlight the knowledge-brokering work involved to ensure CS data are trusted by both citizens and science. Drawing on scholarship focused on key drivers of useable knowledge for natural resource decision-making, we consider CS reviewing best practice to ensure CS can be useful to the producers and users of this knowledge. We find that CS reviewers need to be motivated to provide appropriate feedback to improve CS data, commit to reviewing practice that is respected by citizens, and ensure the information published is credible and be reviewed by a supportive and accountable network of fellow reviewers.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)293-302
    Number of pages11
    JournalSociety and Natural Resources
    Volume32
    Issue number3
    Early online date23 Nov 2018
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 4 Mar 2019

    Fingerprint

    citizen
    science
    best practice
    information science
    natural resources
    producer
    natural resource
    driver
    decision making

    Cite this

    Gilfedder, M., Robinson, C. J., Watson, J. E. M., Campbell, T. G., Sullivan, B. L., & Possingham, H. P. (2019). Brokering Trust in Citizen Science. Society and Natural Resources, 32(3), 293-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1518507
    Gilfedder, Mat ; Robinson, Cathy J. ; Watson, James E.M. ; Campbell, Thomas G. ; Sullivan, Brian L. ; Possingham, Hugh P. / Brokering Trust in Citizen Science. In: Society and Natural Resources. 2019 ; Vol. 32, No. 3. pp. 293-302.
    @article{368d6e857e9e45a2a9708e4f7b5fe7cb,
    title = "Brokering Trust in Citizen Science",
    abstract = "Citizen science (CS) information requires systematic review that incorporates a range of interests and concerns. Yet, there has been little research on what might constitute reviewing best practice to ensure CS is trusted by contributors and users of the data. Insights from a survey of all 1134 reviewers who curate the global eBird Project highlight the knowledge-brokering work involved to ensure CS data are trusted by both citizens and science. Drawing on scholarship focused on key drivers of useable knowledge for natural resource decision-making, we consider CS reviewing best practice to ensure CS can be useful to the producers and users of this knowledge. We find that CS reviewers need to be motivated to provide appropriate feedback to improve CS data, commit to reviewing practice that is respected by citizens, and ensure the information published is credible and be reviewed by a supportive and accountable network of fellow reviewers.",
    keywords = "Citizen science, eBird, reviewer network, sustainability science, trust",
    author = "Mat Gilfedder and Robinson, {Cathy J.} and Watson, {James E.M.} and Campbell, {Thomas G.} and Sullivan, {Brian L.} and Possingham, {Hugh P.}",
    year = "2019",
    month = "3",
    day = "4",
    doi = "10.1080/08941920.2018.1518507",
    language = "English",
    volume = "32",
    pages = "293--302",
    journal = "Society and Natural Resources",
    issn = "0894-1920",
    publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
    number = "3",

    }

    Gilfedder, M, Robinson, CJ, Watson, JEM, Campbell, TG, Sullivan, BL & Possingham, HP 2019, 'Brokering Trust in Citizen Science', Society and Natural Resources, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 293-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1518507

    Brokering Trust in Citizen Science. / Gilfedder, Mat; Robinson, Cathy J.; Watson, James E.M.; Campbell, Thomas G.; Sullivan, Brian L.; Possingham, Hugh P.

    In: Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 32, No. 3, 04.03.2019, p. 293-302.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Brokering Trust in Citizen Science

    AU - Gilfedder, Mat

    AU - Robinson, Cathy J.

    AU - Watson, James E.M.

    AU - Campbell, Thomas G.

    AU - Sullivan, Brian L.

    AU - Possingham, Hugh P.

    PY - 2019/3/4

    Y1 - 2019/3/4

    N2 - Citizen science (CS) information requires systematic review that incorporates a range of interests and concerns. Yet, there has been little research on what might constitute reviewing best practice to ensure CS is trusted by contributors and users of the data. Insights from a survey of all 1134 reviewers who curate the global eBird Project highlight the knowledge-brokering work involved to ensure CS data are trusted by both citizens and science. Drawing on scholarship focused on key drivers of useable knowledge for natural resource decision-making, we consider CS reviewing best practice to ensure CS can be useful to the producers and users of this knowledge. We find that CS reviewers need to be motivated to provide appropriate feedback to improve CS data, commit to reviewing practice that is respected by citizens, and ensure the information published is credible and be reviewed by a supportive and accountable network of fellow reviewers.

    AB - Citizen science (CS) information requires systematic review that incorporates a range of interests and concerns. Yet, there has been little research on what might constitute reviewing best practice to ensure CS is trusted by contributors and users of the data. Insights from a survey of all 1134 reviewers who curate the global eBird Project highlight the knowledge-brokering work involved to ensure CS data are trusted by both citizens and science. Drawing on scholarship focused on key drivers of useable knowledge for natural resource decision-making, we consider CS reviewing best practice to ensure CS can be useful to the producers and users of this knowledge. We find that CS reviewers need to be motivated to provide appropriate feedback to improve CS data, commit to reviewing practice that is respected by citizens, and ensure the information published is credible and be reviewed by a supportive and accountable network of fellow reviewers.

    KW - Citizen science

    KW - eBird

    KW - reviewer network

    KW - sustainability science

    KW - trust

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057338367&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1080/08941920.2018.1518507

    DO - 10.1080/08941920.2018.1518507

    M3 - Article

    VL - 32

    SP - 293

    EP - 302

    JO - Society and Natural Resources

    JF - Society and Natural Resources

    SN - 0894-1920

    IS - 3

    ER -

    Gilfedder M, Robinson CJ, Watson JEM, Campbell TG, Sullivan BL, Possingham HP. Brokering Trust in Citizen Science. Society and Natural Resources. 2019 Mar 4;32(3):293-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1518507