Workshop at the Citizen Science Association Conference

Datum: 12. Mai 2021

Bereich: Technik & Wissen, Forschungspolitik & Entwicklung

The workshop “Participatory Evaluation in Citizen Science” was organised in the context of the CitSciVirtual conference of the (mainly US-based) Citizen Science Association. It started from the observation that while Citizen Science is highly participatory, evaluation does not live up to this claim. Consequently, the ambition was to collaboratively tackle this theoretical and methodological gap and further develop existing approaches in the context of a practical Citizen Science case simulation. 

The workshop was preceded by sharing materials outlining the host’s approach to participatory evaluation or “co-evaluation”, including a video and readings on the matter, as well as a pre-survey to collect the experiences and expectations of participants. The interactive virtual session on the 12th of May 2021 offered a limited number of participants a space for in-depth discussion and exchange. Structurally, the live session included a brief refresher on participatory evaluation (see presentation slides: https://zenodo.org/record/4820791), followed by collaborative case work in breakout groups. The results of these breakout groups were then reported in the plenary, where open questions were collected for future investigations. 

In the brief introduction, the workshop hosts discussed how different dimensions of evaluation in Citizen Science might be made tangible, specifically focussing on the open framework developed by Kieslinger et al. (2018). Here, evaluation is conceptually divided into formative (process and feasibility) and summative (outcome and impact) evaluation and further distinguished by three levels: Scientific, participant, and socio-ecological & economic. Listing typical (quantitative) key performance indicators applied in such contexts, the hosts then reframed evaluation in a participatory, bottom-up way that gives voice to the stakeholders of an intervention and involve them more closely in decision-making processes. Such a co-evaluative approach initiates the conversation on expectations, objectives and impact already at the start of the project, involving participants in the decision on project goals as well as evaluation instruments.

Six Principles of Co-Evaluation 

Adapting the “Utilization-Focused Evaluation” framework from Patton (2008) to the context of participatory evaluation, the hosts introduced six principles that should guide the implementation of a co-evaluation, before presenting concrete examples of methodologies that can be employed in such a context. 

Case Simulation: Hog Farm Community Science

As a framing for the collaborative work, we elaborated a fictional Citizen Science case. In clearly defining the setting, involved actors, concerns and methodologies, the focus was then put on discussing entry-points and potential instruments for implementing a participatory evaluation. 

Work in Breakout Groups

Within the context of this elaborate fictional case, the participants were divided into two groups and asked to discuss with the workshop hosts a set of questions aimed at scrutinising potential settings and instruments for a co-evaluation: 

• What approaches do you think are most promising for designing a robust and participatory evaluation here?

• Which tools/settings could be used?

• Which of the 6 co-evaluation principles are particularly important to consider in this case?

• Who would have been the most important stakeholders to involve?

• How could the different expectations and needs be better included throughout the process?

• Which channels for reflection and feedback could have been implemented from the beginning?

To facilitate the discussion, the hosts prepared a Miro board structured along four categories: 1) potential stakeholder groups affected by the case; 2) expectations and aims these stakeholders might bring to the table; 3) possible co-evaluation settings and instruments arising from these; and 4) questions to bring to the plenary.

Learnings

While collectively discussing the intricacies of the case, a number of themes emerged. Looking at co-evaluation from the perspective of the academic system, the role of institutional review boards (IRBs) as gatekeepers was brought up. As participatory evaluation processes demand a lot of flexibility, they might not fit within the legal and organisational structures demanded within scientific organisations. Similarly, research funders have expectations of clear and quantifiable KPIs that might not allow for an approach of co-defining measures of success with participants. Co-evaluation might furthermore be hard to represent in informed consent procedures, which impacts not just IRB procedures, but might complicate the collaboration with citizen participants. 

Altogether, the complexity of the scientific process was seen as a potential burden on participants that demands for careful calibration. Questions of how to build the skills to enable co-evaluation, to validate inputs before putting them out into the community, but also of how to support the reduction of information and crystallizing the most important things were brought up. One proposed solution to this set of problems was to keep the evaluation close to the research and thus reduce the burden on participants, although the question of how to accomplish this goal was left open. In a similar vein, the validity of pre-determining a set of methodologies to pick from was brought up, which also touches on the question of how much agency groups of participants have in a given process. It was also agreed that a lengthy and complicated evaluation report was not an appropriate result of a participatory evaluation and different formats should be considered.

The final thematic cluster touched on the question of how to bridge the diverse and often diverging goals and needs between different stakeholders such as investors, hog farmers, workers, residents, academic scientists, and so on, noting that the solutions and needs of some stakeholders might be detrimental to those of others. Although they may have different standpoints, the inclusion of the diverse stakeholders of an intervention turned out to be essential, as contrarian voices might resort to sabotaging a process from the outside if excluded. For instance, workshop participants shared how the exclusion of corporate actors in similar existing projects led to their disruptive self-involvement in the form of agents provocateurs, attempts at intimidation, and more generally the use of financial funds to undermine the projects. In any case, managing the expectations of different actors is essential for the success of a project.

The participants also proposed some methodologies that allow for the collecting and constructive discussion of different needs, such as forum town hall meetings and “world café”-style workshops with experts or professional facilitators guiding discussions at each table. 

While the workshop participants agreed that more time for discussion would have been helpful, the most important feedback for the hosts was that thinking through the benefits and challenges of participatory evaluation via concrete experiences helps in understanding and tackling such an endeavour. Furthermore, it became clear that an extended workshop format needs to be considered in the future, offering the opportunity to reflect on concrete methods and streams of experience.

References

Kieslinger, B., Schäfer, T., Heigl, F., Dörler, D., Richter, A., & Bonn, A. (2018). Evaluating citizen science: Towards an open framework. In S. Hecker, M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, & A. Bonn (Eds.), Citizen science – Innovation in open science, society and policy (pp. 81-98). London: UCL Press.

Patton, Michael Quinn.(2008) Utilization-Focused Evaluation: 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.

Typ: Kooperative Veranstaltung (ZSI als Co-Organisator)

Organisator: CSA

Veranstaltungsort: Online

Webseite: https://connect.citizenscience ... en-science

Involvierte ZSI-Mitarbeiter/innen:

• Mag. Dr. Katja Mayer (Vortragende/r, OrganisatorIn)
• Dr. Barbara Kieslinger (Vortragende/r, OrganisatorIn)
• Magª. Teresa Schäfer / Schaefer, (formerly known as Holocher-Ertl) (Vortragende/r, OrganisatorIn)
• Stefanie Schuerz, MA (Vortragende/r, OrganisatorIn)

Verwandte Artikel:

• News: ZSI / COACT workshop on Participatory Evaluation in Citzen Science in May 2021

Tags: citizen science, citizen social science, evaluation, participation, participatory evaluation