The Citizen Scientist in the ePolicy Cycle

  • Johann Höchtl
  • Judith Schossböck
  • Thomas J. Lampoltshammer
  • Peter Parycek
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 32)

Abstract

This chapter discusses a participation and technology enabled model of the citizen scientist in relation to the policy cycle. With interconnected personal devices collecting a plethora of various data, citizens are capable to serendipitously contribute to crowded knowledge generation. In the governance domain, the trend towards more data-driven models of governance and decision-making has been considerable. Big data contains the methodologies to cope with the wealth of data generated by the citizen scientist and in turn provides the tools and technologies to draw actionable insights from this data, f.i. with predictive technologies that could optimise resources across government sectors. After discussing the changing role of science and the technological and participative enablers and methods of engagement relevant for citizen participation, this contribution discusses the role of the citizen scientist and his or her involvement in the big data enabled governance loop by defining three use cases within the policy cycle. Furthermore, it addresses the challenges that can arise in this context.

References

  1. Bakardjieva M (2009) Subactivism: lifeworld and politics in the age of the internet. Inf Soc 25(2):91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett WL, Segerberg A (2012) The logic of connective action. Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Commun Inf Soc 15(5):739–768.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowser A, Hansen D, Preece J, He Y, Boston C, Hammock J (2013) Gamifying citizen science: a study of two user groups. Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing, ACM, pp 137–140Google Scholar
  4. Boyd D, Crawford K (2012) Critical questions for big data. Inf Commun Soc 15(5):662–667. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter DP (2001) The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Carr AJL (2004) Why do we all need community science. Soc Nat Resour 17:841–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Catlin-Groves C (2012) The citizen science landscape: from volunteers to citizen sensors and beyond. Int J Zool 2012(2012):349630.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/349630. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijz/2012/349630/. Accessed 15 July 2016
  8. Conrad CC, Hilchey KG (2010) A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ Monit Assess 176(1–4):273–291Google Scholar
  9. Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Phillips T, Bonney R (2007) Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecol Soc 12(2). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art11/. Accessed 15 July 2016
  10. de Montalvo UW (2003) In search of rigorous models for policy-oriented research: a behavioural approach to spatial data sharing. URISA J 15(1):19–28Google Scholar
  11. Dickel S, Franzen M (2016) The ‘Problem of Extension’ revisited: new modes of digital participation in science. J Sci Commun 15:1–15Google Scholar
  12. European Commission (2012) From crisis of trust to open governing. Http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-149_en.htm. Accessed 15 July 2016
  13. Everett S (2003) The policy cycle: democratic process or rational paradigm revisited? Aust J Public Adm 62:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feenberg A (2010) Between reason and experience. Essays in technology and modernity. MIT Press, Cambridge/LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Feyerabend P (1978) Science in a free society. Verso Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Feyerabend P, Hacking I (2010) Against method. Verso, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Finke P (2014) Citizen science. Das unterschätzte Wissen der Laien. oekom, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  18. Franzoni C, Sauermann H (2014) Crowd science: the organisation of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Res Policy 43(1):1–20. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Friesike S, Widenmayer B, Gassmann O, Schildhauer T (2015) Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry. J Technol Transf 40(4):581–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Haklay M (2010) ‘Extreme’ citizen science, London Citizen Cyberscience Summit, London, 2–3 SeptGoogle Scholar
  22. Harzing AW, van der Wal R (2008) Google scholar as a new source for citation analysis? Ethics Sci Environ Politics 8(1):61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haythornthwaite C (2009) Crowds and communities: light and heavyweight models of peer production, in proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii international conference of system sciences. IEEE Computer Society, Los AlamitosGoogle Scholar
  24. Heule S, Nunkesser M, Hall A (2013) HyperLogLog in practice: algorithmic engineering of a state of the art cardinality estimation algorithm. Proceedings of the EDBT 2013 conference, Genoa, 2013Google Scholar
  25. Hilbert M, López P (2011) The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science 332:60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Höchtl J, Parycek P, Schöllhammer R (2015) Big data in the policy cycle: policy decision making in the digital era. J Organ Comput Electron CommerGoogle Scholar
  27. Irwin A (1995) Citizen science. In: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. Routledge, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Irwin A (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen. Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Underst Sci 10(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ITU: ICT facts and figures – the wold in 2015 (2015) GenevaGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim G-H, Trimi S, Chung J-H (2014) Big-data applications in the government sector. Commun ACM 57:78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lazer D, Pentland A, Adamic L, Aral S, Barabási A-L, Brewer D, Christakis N, Contractor N, Fowler J, Gutmann M, Jebara T, King G, Macy M, Roy D, Van Alstyne M (2009) Computational social science. Science 323(5915):721–723. doi: 10.1126/science.1167742 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mather LW, Robinson P (2016) Civic crafting in urban planning public consultation: exploring Minecraft’s potential. Int J E-Plan Res 5:42–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K (2013) Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, BostonGoogle Scholar
  34. McNair B (2009) The internet and the changing global media environment. In: Chadwick A, Howard PN (eds) The Routledge handbook of internet politics. Routeledge, New York, pp 217–229Google Scholar
  35. Nachmias D, Felbinger C (1982) Utilization in the policy cycle: directions for research. Rev Policy Res 2:300–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Newman G, Wiggins A, Wiggins A, Graham E, Newman S, Crowston K (2012) The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Front Ecol Environ 10(6):298–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nonnecke B, Preece J (2000) Lurker demographics: counting the silent. Proceedings of CHI 2000. CHI 2000, ACM, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  38. Nosek B (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 248(6251). doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716
  39. Papacharissi Z (2009) The public sphere and beyond. In: Chadwick A, Howard PN (eds) The Routledge handbook of internet politics. Routeledge, New York, pp 230–245Google Scholar
  40. Parycek P, Schöllhammer R, Schoßböck J (2016) Governmental ideation systems. In: Carlsen A, Cerne M, Dysvik A, Skerlavaj M (eds) Capitalizing on creativity at work: fostering the implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., Cheltenham, pp 305–319Google Scholar
  41. Prozesse—Der Policy-Cycle (2009) In: Politikfeldanalyse. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp 101–140Google Scholar
  42. Ratto M, Boler M (2014) DIY citizenship. Critical making and social media. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  43. Reinhart CM, Rogoff KS (2010) Growth in a time of debt. National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  44. Resnik DB, Elliot KD, Miller AK (2015) A framework for addressing ethical issues in citizen science. Environ Sci Pol 54:475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rieder G, Simon J (2016) Datatrust: or, the political quest for numerical evidence and the epistemologies of big data. Big Data Soc 2016:1–6. doi: 10.1177/2053951716649398 Google Scholar
  46. Sawhney M, Prandelli E (2000) Communities of creation: managing distributed innovation in turbulent market. Calif Manag Rev 42(4):24–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schudson M (2000) Good citizens and bad history: today’s political ideals in historical perspective. Commun Rev 1(4):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stevens M, Vitos M, Altenbuchler J, Conquest G, Lewis J, Haklay M (2014) Taking participatory citizen science to the extremes, pervasive computing. IEEE CS 13(2):20–29Google Scholar
  49. Svensson J (2014) Political participation on social media platforms in Sweden today: connective individualism, expressive issue-engagement and disciplined updating. Int J Media Cult Politics 10(3):347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taleb NN (2007) The black swan. The impact of the highly improbable. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Thiel S-K (2016) A review of introducing game elements to e-particpation. In: Edelmann N, Parycek P (eds) CeDEM 16. Proceedings of the 6th international conference for e-democracy and open government, IEEE computer society no. P5845, 3-9Google Scholar
  52. Ulbricht L (2016) Big data: big power shifts? Internet Policy Rev 6(1):1–8Google Scholar
  53. Van Dijk JAGM (2009) One Europe, digitally divided. In: Chadwick A, Howard PN (eds) The Routledge handbook of internet politics. Routeledge, New York, pp 288–304Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johann Höchtl
    • 1
  • Judith Schossböck
    • 1
  • Thomas J. Lampoltshammer
    • 1
  • Peter Parycek
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for E-Governance and AdministrationDanube University Krems, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Str. 30KremsAustria

Personalised recommendations