Brokering Trust in Citizen Science

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 revi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Society & natural resources 2019-03, Vol.32 (3), p.292-302
Main Authors: Gilfedder, Mat, Robinson, Cathy J., Watson, James E. M., Campbell, Thomas G., Sullivan, Brian L., Possingham, Hugh P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accountability
Best practice
Citizen participation
Citizen science
Citizens
Decision making
eBird
Information systems
Natural resources
Networks
reviewer network
Reviewing
Scholarship
sustainability science
Systematic review
trust
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:0894-1920
1521-0723
DOI:10.1080/08941920.2018.1518507