Citizen Science and Community-based Monitoring: Identical twins, siblings or …?

In this blog post, I propose a new perspective to distinguish between Citizen Science and Community-based Monitoring interventions. Instead of stressing the differences in objectives and characteristics, my approach focuses on the research and governance paradigms to which these interventions are attached.

Community-based Monitoring (CBM) and Citizen Science (CS) are often considered interchangeable terms. However, most authors regard CBM as one of the CS approaches[1],[2]. Both initiatives aim to empower citizens and address common challenges. They are also low-cost interventions that collect vast data and incorporate local knowledge and perspectives into research and policymaking. One could, nevertheless, distinguish between these two initiatives. For instance, participants in CBM initiatives should be part of a community and, in most cases, this is about communities from particular living areas. CS participants are lay citizens who may or may not know each other and be even located in different countries. The similarities, differences, and relation between CS and CBM are not as straightforward as one may think. There are several attempts to distinguish between them. For instance, Khair and colleagues (2021)[3] identify scale, type of participants, degree of participation, civic engagement, start, and long-term impacts as the main characteristics differentiating CBM from CS. The perspective that I propose to distinguish between these two approaches cuts across the operational aspects and focuses on the paradigms they are attached to. CS and CBM are part two large paradigms in research and governance. Namely, CS and CBM are part of the Participatory Research paradigm, at the same time, CBM is attached to the New Public Governance paradigm. In line with this perspective, I analyze these two terms separately in the following two sections. This short analysis allows me, in the third section, to identify the similarities, differences, and relation between CS and CBM and respond to the question mentioned in this blog post’s title.

Citizen Science and Participatory Research

In-depth participation of lay citizens in the research process is not the only condition for defining the Participatory Research paradigm[4]. Participatory Research projects have locally defined priorities and bring together lay citizens and researchers. The research methodology aims to support empowerment and mutual learning. Finally, the researchers’ attitude to research should be focused on the action; therefore, the research process, not the outcome, is at the center of attention in participatory research[4].

Alan Irwin (a policy analyst) and Richard Bonney (a participatory research organizer) are credited with coining the term citizen science[5]. Alan Irwin's CS concept had two meanings. The first one was that science should respond to citizens' needs and concerns. The second meaning referred to a form of science executed by lay citizens and producing local and contextual knowledge. In other words, Irwin’s CS meant science for and by citizens[5]. Richard Bonney’s CS concept covers the latter meaning, public participation in scientific research. However, Bonney viewed, also, CS as a tool to promote science, scientific knowledge, and literacy[6]. Nowadays, the CS concept is closer to Bonney’s view and refers to scientific projects in which citizens participate in different ways and acquire new scientific skills in return. The degrees of citizens’ participation is wide. Citizens could be also involved in defining the research problems and priorities, research design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, and dissemination of results[7]. At the same time, on top of science promotion, the inclusion of local or indigenous knowledge remains an important added value of CS.

Community-based Monitoring: between Participatory research and New Public Governance

On one hand, CBM is a very well elaborated CS initiative where the notion of community has a crucial meaning. Thus, CBM is part of the Participatory Research approaches. On the other hand, CBM is also part of participation, inclusion, transparency, and accountability initiatives (PITA)[8],[9]. PITA approach should be attached to the new regime in public administration and governance, namely New Public Governance[10]. In dependence on the level of citizens’ participation in the policymaking and implementation, TAI can also be viewed as an extension of New Public Management.

New Public Governance views citizens not just as consumers of public services, but, also as co-producers. Besides, New Public Governance emphasizes the role of partnerships and networks in public services production[10]. From this perspective, CBM refers to the initiatives where the community collaborates to monitor, track and respond to common issues, and overcome the government's inaction or lack of funding. In the field of public services, the communities observe, monitor, and even assess the ongoing activities of public services (including the management of natural resources) and provide feedback to service providers and politicians[8],[11].Thus, CBM involves the citizens as data collectors, expands their knowledge and skills, and aims to raise awareness and improve public services or the management of natural services.

Identical twins, siblings, or…?

CS and CBM are not just very similar initiatives, many of their characteristics and objectives overlap. The table below presents the common and specific CBM and CS objectives and characteristics, at three levels (i) community/citizens; (ii) project/policy; and (iii) interaction between community and government or citizens and academia. At the community level, both initiatives aim at skill development, addressing communities or citizens' challenges, and empowering them. At the policy or project level, they are low-cost initiatives that collect vast data and incorporate local knowledge. At the interaction level, the two initiatives' purpose is to build trust between communities and government or between citizens and researchers (academia). The differences between CBM and CS are also interesting. Compared to CS, civic engagement is mandatory for CBM. CS projects may also cover the entire country or even be worldwide; while CBM take place in communities from particular living areas. Finally, CBM has the specific purposes of raising awareness, enhancing communities' voice, promoting transparency of information, and strengthening the state accountability towards communities; whilst CS focuses on democratizing science and expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy.

Tab 1: Citizen Science and Community-based Monitoring characteristics and objectives

It is time to respond to the question of whether CS and CBM are identical twins or siblings or, maybe, something else. The answer I give is not as definitive as one might expect. It could happen that two interventions, one named CS and the other CBM, are identical in terms of characteristics and objectives. In this case, CBM and CS constitute sheer labels. It may also happen that the different names indicate significant differences between CS and CBM interventions. However, if I am in a situation where I have to catalog an initiative as CS or CBM, its objectives would constitute my decision compass. If the intervention’s main objective is more about strengthening government and state agencies' accountability towards its communities and citizens, then this would be a CBM project. If the main objective leans toward learning and feedback, then I would label the intervention as CS. Let me know in the comments what you think about this approach.

References

[1] Little, K.E., Hayashi, M., & Liang, S. (2016). Community-based groundwater monitoring network using a citizen-science approach. Groundwater 54 (3), 317–324. Doi: 10.1111/gwat.12336

[2] Starkey, E., Parkin, G., Birkinshaw, S., Large, A., Quinn, P., & Gibson, C. (2017). Demonstrating the value of community-based (‘citizen science’) observations for catchment modelling and characterization. Journal of Hydrology, 548, 801–817. Doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.019

[3] Khair, N. K. M., Lee, K. E., & Mokhtar, M. (2021). Community-based monitoring for environmental sustainability: A review of characteristics and the synthesis of criteria. Journal of Environmental Management, 289 (112491), 1-13. Doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112491

[4] Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R., 1995. What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine, 41 (12), 1667–1676. Doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-S

[5] Strasser, B. J., Baudry, J., Mahr, D., Sanchez, G., & Tancoigne, E. (2018). “Citizen Science”? Rethinking Science and Public Participation. Science & Technology Studies 32(2), 52-76. Doi: 10.23987/sts.60425

[6] Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen Science: A Developing Tool for Expanding Science Knowledge and Scientific Literacy. BioScience 59(11), 977–984. Doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9

[7] Haklay, M. (2013). Citizen Science and Volunteered Geographic Information: Overview and Typology of Participation. In D. Sui, S. Elwood, & M. Goodchild (Eds.), Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice. (pp. 105–22) Springer. Doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2_7

[8] Joshi, A. (2013). Do They Work? Assessing the Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives in Service Delivery. Development Policy Review, 31(S1): s29-s48

[9] Waddington, H., Sonnenfeld, A., Finetti, J., Gaarder, M., John, D., Stevenson, J. (2021). Citizen engagement in public services in low‐ and middle-income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review of participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) initiatives. Campbell Systematic Reviews. Doi: 10.1002/cl2.1025

[10] Pestoff, V. (2018). Co-Production at the Crossroads of Public Administration Regimes. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.). Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. Routledge.

[11] Molina, E., Carella, L., Pacheco, A., Cruces, G., & Gasparini, L. (2017). Community monitoring interventions to curb corruption and increase access and quality in service delivery: a systematic review. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 9(4), 462-499. Doi: 10.1080/19439342.2017.1378243