Science Communication
decision-making
Jan 1st, 12:00 AM
Citizen Science: Evaluating for Civic Engagement
Nancy Grudens-SchuckIowa State University, ngs@iastate.edu Zulham Sirajuddin
Iowa State University, zulham_tpuh@yahoo.com
Follow this and additional works at:https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/sciencecommunication
Part of theSpeech and Rhetorical Studies Commons
This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Symposia at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Iowa State University Summer Symposium on Science Communication by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contactdigirep@iastate.edu.
Grudens-Schuck, Nancy and Sirajuddin, Zulham (2016). Citizen Science: Evaluating for Civic Engagement. Jean Goodwin (Ed.),
Confronting the Challenges of Public Participation in Environmental, Planning, and Health Decision-Making. https://doi.org/10.31274/ sciencecommunication-180809-5
Citizen Science: Evaluating for Civic Engagement
NANCY GRUDENS-SCHUCK & ZULHAM SIRAJUDDIN
Agricultural Education and Studies Iowa State University
Curtiss Hall Ames IA 50010 ngs@iastate.edu
http://zulham_tpuh@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT: Citizen science programs directly engage the public in collecting data for science-related projects. This paper will investigate the claim that citizen science programs deliver opportunities and outcomes for a specific kind of benefit, “civic engagement.” The paper will identify specific behaviors and conditions that have been used as indicators of citizen engagement in citizen science and discuss probable theoretical bases. Second, the paper will report on progress of an empirical study (a program evaluation) conducted in spring of 2016 of the Iowater Program, a citizen science program managed by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, which has trained over 5,000 citizens in water monitoring and reporting. The Iowater evaluation will ground the discussion of citizen science in contemporary experiences of the public.
KEYWORDS: adult education, environmental education, Iowa, networking, program evaluation, water quality monitoring
1. INTRODUCTION
Citizen science programs directly engage the public in collecting data for science projects and programs.
Long established programs include Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count (Audubon Society, n.d.; Dickinson & Bonney, 2012); programs with recent upswing in activity such as Monarch Watch in the U.S., conducted since the 1950s (Ries & Oberhauser, 2015); internet-based astronomy and star watching, for example Zooniverse (https://www.zooniverse.org/); and water monitoring programs like Iowater [Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), 2002; Iowater, 2010]. Species counts and environmental monitoring take precedence over experimentation in most citizen science programs, although inquiry can be an important part of programs for youth and post-secondary students as part of fulfilling academic standards in school-based science (Dickinson & Bonney, 2012; Oberhauser & Lebuhn, 2012; Trumbull, Bonney, & Grudens-Schuck, 2005); and informal museum and afterschool science (Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse, & Feder, 2009; Friedman, 2008). Citizen science is imbued with both technical science claims and problems [Are the data valid? Can results be published?) (Raudsepp-Hearne & Capistrano, 2010)]; and quandaries of public participation [What do citizens gain? Do participants influence policy? (Dickinson & Bonney, 2012)]. Adult programs term partici pants “volunteers.” Typically, volunteers are not compelled by professional contracts to perform the work, but rather by the complex elements that motivate volunteers across settings (Lawrence, 2010; Morton & Brown, 2011). Lawrence observes a common denominator of the point-of-view of citizen science program volunteers is the phenomenon that “something changed, as a result of data about species, gathered by people
among the several impacts on adults who contribute to citizen science programs, changes in civic engagement behaviors are measurable, and fit the meanings of the terms “participatory” and “public participation” emphasized for this conference.
The paper will touch upon key views of public participation that have underpinned citizen science programs since the 1990s in the U.S., although citizen science programs (under different monikers) have thrived in the United Kingdom (Lawrence, 2010) spanning nearly three centuries [think: Audubon Societies’ (n.d.) Christmas Bird Count]. The paper then turns to an empirical study of the Iowater program which has produced, as a citizen science program in a small state, steady outputs and some outcomes and has weathered program challenges such as funding reductions, staff turnover, and policy uncertainty. A planned study of Iowater over the next year could help the program to make strides in understanding the relationships between program goals and outputs, the value of particular measures for civic engagement and other outcomes, and the production of intended and unintended outcomes. This paper’s empirical contribution is limited examples of preliminary frequency reports (unweighted percentages) from an online quantitative survey. Statistical analysis is in progress.
2. WHY DOES CITIZEN NEEDED TO BE ADDED TO SCIENCE? The stand-out concept in citizen science is public participation.
Science otherwise is confined – conceptually, socially, and institutionally – to a definition of a profession peopled with highly credentialed individuals associated with a public or private employer. A key question is “Why does ‘citizen’ need to be added to science?” The suggestions arise that science is not doing well enough on its own, and that science should be serving citizens better. Drivers for changes to the way science conducts its business described by Irwin (1995), Bäckstrand (2003), Carolan (2006), Fisher (2000), Lawrence (2010) and others are (a) the difficulties science appears to face, such as public mistrust and uneven funding; and (b) dissatisfaction that the public appears to experience with science, such as ecological problems that science does acknowledge or repair. The concept of boundary organizations and individuals explained by Lewin in the early 1900s extended by authors, for example, Guston (2001) appears to obviate the need for prolonged or whole scale direct participation of citizens. These boundary entities provide a place for ongoing, mediated exchange of science and the public. They would seem to provide a more efficient mechanism for exchange of public-expert needs and wherewithal than direct participation. Parker and Crona (2012) describe contemporary pressures by stakeholders on the university, conceptualized as a boundary organization, regarding research on water. Along with Carolan (2006), these authors remind us that boundary organizations are not necessarily ideal or universally efficacious approaches to public involvement.There is more that is relevant in this important arena of science, technology, and the public that we will not address in this paper.
3. CRITICAL VERSUS ENLIGHTENED
Irwin (1995) provides a dichotomy, useful in analysis if not in practice, of views of participation with respect to participation in science, denoted “critical” (Figure 1) and “enlightened” (Figure 2).
Fig. 1. Critical view per Irwin (1995) of potential effects of modern approaches to participation of the public in science.
A critical view draws from several lines of critical theory, from fields such as sociology and philosophy. Prominent writers who apply a critical analysis of science and society include Arnstein (1969) who coined the term “tokenism” and is legendary in her use of ladder imagery to denote use of participation strategies used by powerful institutions which, in the end, do not result in social justice or betterment. Prokopy and Floress (2011) apply these concepts to watershed group dynamics and assessment. Clover (2006) provides examples of use of critical theory in adult education, using examples of women and environmental education programs. Silverman (2006) provides a critique applicable to community development. Conrad and HiNchey (2010), Jansen (1995), and Silvertown (2009) provide arguments that science participation programs may exploits the cheap labor force of volunteers, and at the same time deny professional scientists fair wages and full employment. The claim that science participation program is supported or tolerated mainly because they improve science’s negative public reputation is argued by Bäckstrand (2003) and Irwin (1995); and is present in several of the case studies provided in Lawrence (2010).
Fig. 2. Enlightened view per Irwin (1995) of potential effects of modern approaches to participation of the public in science.
Authors who argue that overall, science participation programs support a range of positive outcomes, including social justice, include Carolan (2006) who claims that participation can lead to public valuing of science different from other science experts. Fischer (2000) and Lawrence (2010) provide examples of the ways public participation in science contributes local and indigenous knowledge to the stock of professionally-supported science knowledge and processes. Arguments in Cervero and Wilson (1994) and Lewandowski and Oberhauser (2016) show the range of settings in which post-secondary, adult and lifespan education provide choices for adults when they include a participatory element in the science realm. Public programs for participation, especially if long term, may also structure the witnessing of ecological and technology disasters (Irwin, 1995; Lawrence, 2010). Public participation programs, many agree, have the potential to enhance learning at many levels and in several domains (Bell et al., 2009; Dickinson & Bonney, 2012). Finally, public participation in science may enable networking and building of social capital (Morton & Brown, 2011; Robinson & Flora, 2003; Stepanuck & Green, 2015).
4. IOWATER PROGRAM BACKGROUND
The Iowater Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring program is typical of citizen science programs which focus on monitoring water quality (Conrad & Hinchey, 2011).
Such programs have been supported by instructional materials for citizens since at least the 1990s [see for example government-supported materials by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1996); and history of Monarch Watch’s university-based program since the 1950s (Ries & Oberhauser, 2015)]. Biophysical program goals may focus on substantiating pollution from point and nonpoint source pollution by documenting indicators of surface water
health (such as type of benthic organism) or levels of specific chemicals or nutrient pollutants (such as phosphorus). Data from volunteers (also called monitors) are used for local, as well as state water quality assessments, baseline reports, and compliance reports, such as Iowa’s 305(b) “Impaired Waters” report (Iowater, 2010, p. 6), which is a highly visible measure of surface water health required as part of accountability to the federal Clean Water Act. The Iowater program provides a summary of issues related to poor surface water quality conditions in Iowa as part of the program’s warrant (IDNR, 2000; Iowater, 2010; Riessen, 2009). Issues are visible statewide related to harmful levels of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) as well as sediment and other contaminates in water related in particular to decades-long changes in agricultural practices, for example, Gassman, Jha, Wolter, and Schilling (2015) describe efforts to ameliorate conditions of on the Raccoon River, an important source of drinking water for the capital city of Des Moines in Iowa. The attention to Iowa problems is also national, and part of the drive to solve hypoxic conditions of the Mississippi River Delta (Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, IDNR, and Iowa State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 2014, revised). Large-scale Corn Belt agriculture attracts criticism because row-crop agriculture is a nonpoint source of pollution. Monitoring of surface waters across many sites is anticipated to provide a portrait of worsening problems, trends of improvement, and the increased contribution of development as agricultural lands support growing cities and suburbs. One of the types boundary organizations that has increased in visibility over the era of Iowater has been watershed-oriented organizations, complemented by grants for watershed and watershed-level research and improvement with respect to water quality (Morton & Brown, 2011). Farmer and landowner participation has been facilitated in watershed council and originations. Citizen involvement was also urged, and was expected to produce a different dynamic with respect to motivation, outputs, and outcomes.
Iowater Program Structure. Iowater is not the only volunteer opportunity supported by the IDNR, nor is it the only monitoring program. Individuals may monitor eagles, frogs and toads, and nests (IDNR, n.d. b). The size of supports for Iowater, and the more intense tone of the materials, set Iowater apart.
The IOWATER Mission: To protect and improve Iowa's water quality by raising citizen awareness about Iowa's watersheds, supporting and encouraging the growth and networking of Iowa's volunteer water monitoring communities, and promoting water monitoring activities as a means of assessing and understanding Iowa's aquatic resources.
Iowater Goals
Expand the amount of data collected on Iowa's water bodies. Increase the availability of water quality data to citizens.
Provide a balanced approach for citizens to become involved in protecting and improving streams, rivers and lakes.
Develop opportunities for citizens experience and discover the clean water (IDNR, n.d. a).
Two key strategies of the Iowater program relevant to this paper are (1) to “assist new partnerships and alliances throughout Iowa in designing and implementing water monitoring projects”; and (2) to “facilitate communication among volunteer groups, local landowners, and government agencies, to promote sharing of data and resources” (IDNR, n.d. a).
5. PROGRAM EVALUATION
The Iowater Program maintained data regarding outputs (workshop participation levels) (IDNR, 2003) and story-based information on outputs and outcomes, such as use of Iowater in the classroom, and use by anglers to predict fish populations.
The program also designed hybrid, end-of-session workshop satisfaction and needs assessment forms for both Part I (basic level training) and Part II (focused on benthic organisms) workshops as part of the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Iowater (2010). The program has used these forms to plan for improvements to workshops and, where funds and staffing allowed, to implement improvements. Fore et al. (2001) provided a comprehensive review of volunteer water quality assessment and directly measured volunteer knowledge and skill using a study design with a comparison group of professional biologists. Their study findings showed higher skill (especially taxonomic identification) by professionals “yet the results of volunteer and professional laboratory analyses were highly correlated.” A recent study is provided for a “bioblitz” style water quality assessment for water quality measures, again with a comparison against professional results, in an Indiana watershed (Muenich, Peel, Bowling, Heller, Turco, Frankenberger, & Chaubey, 2016) which also found volunteer cf. professional results to be highly correlated for most measures. Protocols for increasing the likelihood that species identification is correct are not new (EPA, 1996). The Christmas Bird Count, originated by the Audubon Society and held since the year 1900, focuses on areas (“circles”) and is managed by a “compiler” (n.d.). The Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s (n.d.) Great Backyard Bird Count’s entry activities are simple, but if an attempt is made to claim that a rare or unexpected species was sited, there is a multi-layered process for checking on the website, and then checking in with experts at the Lab. However, reviews such as Freitag et al.’s (2016) paper on bird monitoring volunteer programs established a typology of protocols that would enhance precision of programs’ monitoring and reporting of data, and it would seem more programs will be held accountable.
Citizen science and learning. Individual and community-level education are the most frequently documented goals of citizen science programs (Stepenuck &Green, 2015) beyond the production of data. However, measures appear to be more fully developed for citizen science programs in schools than for the community or adult settings. Citizen science is employed to assist youth to become more versant in the science content areas (typically, biology and environmental science) and, more broadly, in the more challenging areas (higher order thinking) of processes and the nature of science (Jordan, Ehrenfield, Gray, Brooks, Howe, & Hmelo-Silver, 2012; Trumbull, Bonney, & Grudens-Schuck, 2005). Special focus on involvement of youth in inquiry dovetailed with science standards in the 1990s and 2000’s, and is growing. Citizen science was projected to be superior to other approaches to teaching science with respect to development of inquiry skills and understanding of the nature of science, but this claim is not yet substantiated (Dickinson & Bonney, 2012). Learning outcomes are sometimes are negative or result in no change (Stepenuck & Green, 2015). Trumbull et al. (2005) found, for example for Classroom FeederWatch, that gains were tightly coupled with knowledge in the content area, which many students never developed. For birds, that meant students learned best if they could identify some birds (“lower-level” cognitive skills) before they were asked to arrive at experimental designs or research questions involving birds (“higher level” cognitive skills).
Citizen science and adult learning. Elements of programs with adult participation differ according to broad professional and personal interests of planners (Cervero & Wilson, 1994).
Adult programs do not typically have as many recognized pressures for participants to develop an identity as a scientist, or to support ethnic, gender, and racial diversity in science, but nonetheless may be susceptible to unstated agendas, such as legitimizing public participation without benefit to themselves or to a civic or justice agenda. The focus on adult learning in citizen science projects shows a different face from K-12 and post-secondary schooling. Studies emphasize the need for adults to meet standards so that the science is correct, and leave out concerns such as learning for employer and corporate needs (think: 1960s space race themes); and respect to democratic public participation, learning for equity. Adult education also is frequently confounded with the term “community engagement” (Lewandowski & Oberhauser, 2016; Morton & Brown, 2011), which lacks a theory-based foundation as an adult education tenet. Critical theory-based adult education (Cervero & Wilson, 1996; Clover, 2006), which fits with concepts of power issues embedded in Irwin’s (1995) “citizen participant as a ‘witnesses’” (p. 88) and by Lawrence (2010) and explored by Kolok, Schoenfuss, Propper, and Vail (2011). Adults are producers of knowledge (Carolan, 2006; Fischer, 2000), and can initiate and shape citizen science programs to fit knowledge production needs important to their communities (Lawrence; Silverman, 2005). Adult education theory and practice can support a broad range of learning goals (Jansen, 1995), including social learning that may occur during networking opportunities (Bandura, 1977, 2012; Karlovic & Patrick, 2003).
Citizen science and participatory science programs may also produce results that are less desirable to environmental scientists and activists, such as the rejection of wholly nature-based landscapes in Lewis (2010) regarding renewal of forests in the Pacific Northwest. The choice factor in adult education is its empowerment flag, but also is weak spot with respect to supporting science institutions, including what may be interpreted as civic engagement. Adults may reject messages to provide greater and greater contributions to science institutions, being content or empowered to provide a contribution balanced with other life goals and life stage issues. With less control over science agendas and protocols, citizen science that features public participation is not a tidy package for schools, boundary institutions, or government. 6. CITIZEN SCIENCE’S ROLE IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Finally, how do we understand the undercurrent of pride which runs through most contemporary citizen science programs which claims that citizen science programs involve participants more deeply in democracy: (a) in public service, by supplementing the meager government and nonprofits; (b) by enhancing civic engagement by directly addressing science and technology problems in society; and (c) by leading participants to use their learning to independently and directly influence local, state, regional, and national public policy?
Consistent with tenets of adult education, citizen science program participants such as members of watershed groups in Pennsylvania described by Brasier, Lee, Stedman, and Weigle (2011) entered and exited participant and leadership positions. In a review of effects of citizen science programs, Stepenuck andGreen (2015) cited both the need for, and lack of, measures for social capital gains and networking opportunities and outcomes. Prokopy and Floress (2011) provide a guide for organizations, including government, to assess participation, based on an Arnstein-style (1969) hierarchy and stakeholder analysis.
programs are complex to set up and rely, in part, on the enthusiasm of potential attendees for the issue at hand (monitoring a troubled local waterway, tracking scarce wildlife). The quality of program evaluation of citizen science is challenged however by unclear program goals, lack of pre-test data, and lack of questions that can be used across programs (Dickinson & Bonney, 2012; Friedman, 2008). John Fraser and associates (2016) from NewKnowledge Ltd. (2016) have pledged to change the type of measure they use, noting:
We’ve decided to stop using likelihood to engage in individual sphere behaviors as a representation of achieving sustainability outcomes. We suggest that unless we assess likelihood that individuals are working to engage others in their innovation, technology transfer, substitution and curtailment at a wholesale level.
Water monitoring programs with a citizen science component usually add to, rather than substitute for, technical knowledge and data-production attributes. Few programs look to engage citizens without technical preparation; however, many stop at technical preparation, and leave civic elements up to “unintended outcomes” or story-based outcomes that are not systemically established. However, success with core technical knowledge is necessary prior to program participants’ ability to move forward into social and civic elements of programs. Several studies have directly measured competence of adult volunteers in the science area, for example Fore et al. (2001) who reported positive findings; Kebo and Bunch (2013) who reported negative results; and Muenich et al. (2016) who reported a mixed set of results, mostly positive. Freitag et al. (2016) provide a review of studies which compared volunteer competence with professional competence or other standard. Direct measurement using a control or comparison group is one of the strategies recommended but it is costly and not considered the only way to establish credibility. The link from technical elements to social and civic elements can be understood through a perceived self-efficacy model (Bandura, 1977, 2012). This is a well-established self-report modality, simplified for use in this program evaluation to gain a measure of “confidence” regarding training and successful application of training. The customized and validated self-efficacy scale for citizen science for youth by Hiller and Kitsantas (2016) was not available at the time we constructed the survey but we are looking forward to exploring its value for adults.
Items on the survey span the logic model series from inputs to outcomes. This model has currency in several organizations, including Cooperative Extension and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and non-formal science education programs such as museums and citizen science programs (Friedman, 2008). Single-site, census surveys evaluations have the opportunity to employ tailored terms and phrases that enable potential respondents to provide higher quality data by better recognizing questions, acknowledged by evaluators of citizen science (Phillips, Bonney, & Shirk, 2012) as well as other program evaluation efforts. These questions used program terms such as “clean-up day” to refer to goal-centered inputs, outputs and outcomes of the program. The Snapshot is a sub-program of Iowater, a designated day, one in spring and one in fall, on which teams and individuals around the state take water samples at sites that are duplicated year to year. The activity of a common day or time period for testing is common to many types of citizen science programs, and is seen as a means for bolstering data quality, for maintaining enthusiasm and for serving as a reportable event for the press and organizations. Iowater also encourages testing of three more types: single site, comparison site, and over time. More challenging was devising means for respondents to recognize themselves in questions how they engage in public work, and how their skills allow
them to participate in public work, related to water quality. Survey questions presumed that civic engagement needed to stay wedded to the context of water quality monitoring, and to the current felt situation regarding water quality and its amelioration in Iowa. Survey items were also purposefully designed with redundant characteristics, usually by employing a different question format (pre-then-post questions, check all questions, Likert-type scale questions). A very few standard questions (gender, age) were asked regarding personal characteristics. Constructs include the following four categories.
A. Networking opportunities
B. Organizing and influencing behaviors
C. Content knowledge and skill related to water quality D. Content knowledge and skill related to public participation
Networking opportunity questions. There are relatively more items related to networking, both because we have more experience measuring them, and because opportunities are more easily experienced (outputs) than outcomes. Networking opportunities between and among citizens, organizations and government agencies is a specific goal of Iowater (Iowater, 2010, p. 7), and citizens are encouraged to decision which organizations they work with (p. 5), if any. Iowater volunteers (monitors) are not required to upload data to the database. Once measures are uploaded to the database however, open-access viewing permits others to see data. Networking is important in theories of watershed collaboration and across social endeavors more broadly, with the touchstone of social capital (Robinson & Flora, 2003).
Organizing and influencing behaviors. The “ladder” of sequential power theories which emphasize the power of citizens in science are represented by a few items in the survey. There are fewer items than for networking because they are harder won and like many outcomes and impacts, confounded by time and other influences.
Content knowledge and skill related to water quality. Knowledge about water quality in citizen science programs does not equal that of a professional scientist in either breadth or depth, but it’s not supposed to. This survey used indirect measures, and self-report measures, to assess change in content knowledge. This survey also aimed to establish a basic assessment of perceived self-efficacy, a widely-used concept established in psychology by Bandura (1977, 2012) to establish a construct often termed “confidence”; and provided specific questions about before-and-after self-perceived effects of Iowater on abilities related to water quality knowledge. The questions overlap STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) themes and indicators. Duplication of selected items from two STEM oriented scales, the Science Motivation Questionnaire II by Glynn, Brickman, Armstrong, and Taasoobshirazi (2011) and a scale used by Williams and George-Jackson (2014) as an effort to employ common measures. We do not explore this area further in this paper.
Content knowledge and skill related to public participation. The category asked about skills related to public participation, noted by Stepenuck and Green (2015) “diplomacy, public speaking, data synthesis, or communications” as an under-valued and under-explicated knowledge outcomes goal for citizen science programs.
Questions on the survey.
A. Networking Opportunity Questions
What activities are you involved with during the weeks leading up to, and including, the day of the Snapshot?
Someone locally organizes us by email, phone or text. A team meets face to face.
Some of us may visit the test sites together.
Currently I test without a team, but I may bring someone with me to the site.
What activities do you experience, typically, on or after a Snapshot? We share how sites have changed physically.
We share how sites may be more or less dangerous (banks, water flow). We tell about upcoming meetings related to water quality.
We share problems with equipment or collection.
We set deadlines for completing activities, especially uploading data.
How has Iowater helped you to “do” something? Participate in a watershed group. Participate in a clean-up day. Join a paddling or river group. Join any other conservation group.
B. Organizing and influencing behaviors Organize a watershed group. Organize a watershed authority. Organize a clean-up day.
C. Content knowledge and skill related to public participation We compare test site water quality data.
We discuss strategies for upcoming or ongoing water quality initiatives.
Paired pre-then retrospective post questions:
Q#15. How easy is it to network with members of other water-quality focused groups NOW that you are a Iowater volunteer?
Q#16. How easy was it to network with members of other water-quality focused groups BEFORE you were a Iowater volunteer?
Q#17. NOW that you are a Iowater volunteer, how frequently do you talk to family and friends about water quality issues?
Q#18. BEFORE you were a Iowater volunteer, how frequently did you talk to family and friends about water quality issues?
Q#19. NOW that you are a Iowater volunteer, how frequently do you talk to colleagues (at work and organizations) about water quality issues?
Q#20. BEFORE you were a Iowater volunteer, how frequently did you talk to colleagues (at work and organizations) about water quality issues?
The Iowater survey approach was devised by co-authors in collaboration with the Director of Iowater, Dr. Mary Skopec, IDNR, during the period December 2015-April 2016, and feedback on survey construction by Janice Larson and Dr. Zhulin He in the Department of Statistics at Iowa State University. The survey and protocol were approved under human subjects number for Iowa State University IRB# 16-104. The census survey relied upon an accumulated (2000s forward) mailing list of 2,165 Iowater participants which, after removing
383 nonworking addresses and doubled entries, resulted in 1,782 usable addresses. Web entry was required of successful volunteers therefore computer literacy was presumed to be high. The Qualtrics™ version 04-05 2016 was used to send the survey on April 6, 2016 to all usable emails through the IDNR email address of the program to increase the likelihood that the message was recognized, received positively, and responded to as an official request. Four invitations over five weeks were sent to the whole mailing list resulting in 611 responses on the closing date, May 11, 2016.
Findings. The findings were discussed for the first time among co-authors and statisticians on May 25, 2016. Data were not weighed and partial responses were not accounted for at the time of the presentation of the conference paper. Some findings appear to generate a normal curve, such as number of years in the program and age ranges. A report of findings in this section is restricted to preliminary descriptive statistics related to measures of civic engagement. A few general notes: gender ration of respondents was 50/50 but may change when compared to the list provided by the program, which recorded gender. Five areas of the survey allowed for comments, which generated responses 1 to 4 or more lines long, including 87 and 175 individual comments in two comments-only sections.
CONCLUSION
The paper aimed to test and consider, together with our program stakeholders and academic and evaluation colleagues, how participants of an established citizen science program might respond to inquiries into the civic engagement potential of their involvement in a citizen science program called Iowater, managed by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. There are interesting questions related to what constitutes a “social capital moment” and what is an outcome that affects institutions and organizations in durable ways. There are further questions related to the role that technical self-report skill, technical self-report self-efficacy play in civic engagement outputs and outcomes such as networking and organizing.
REFERENCES
Arnstein, S. R. (1969/1996). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216-224.
Audubon Society. (n.d.). Christmas Bird Count compiler resources. Available from
https://www.audubon.org/conservation/christmas-bird-count-compiler-resources#06
Bäckstrand, K. (2003). Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 3, 24-41.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44.
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). (Eds.). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Brasier, K., Lee, B., Stedman, R., & Weigle, J. (2011). Local champions speak out: Pennsylvania’s community watershed organizations. In L. W. Morton and S. S. Brown (Eds.). Pathways for getting to better water quality: The citizen effect (pp. 133-144). New York: Springer.
Cervero, R. M., & Wilson, A. L. (1994). Planning responsibly for adult education: A guide to negotiating power and interests. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clover, D. E. (2006). Policy development, theory and practice in environmental adult education: Reflections on the Learning for Environmental Action Programme from 1995 to the present. Convergence, 39(4), 51-54. Conrad, C. C., & Hinchey, K. G. (2011). A review of citizen science and community-based environmental
monitoring: Issues and opportunities. Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 176, 273-291. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (n.d.). Great Back Yard Bird Count Instructions. Retrieved from
http://gbbc.birdcount.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2016Updates_English_DownloadableInstructions.pdf Dickinson, J. L., & Bonney, R. (Eds). (2012). Citizen science: Public participation in environmental research.
Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Associates.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1996). The volunteer monitor’s guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans. EPA #841-B-003. September 1996. Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Fore, L. S., Paulsen, K., & O’Laughlin, K. (2001). Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology, 46(1), 109-123
Fraser, J. (2016). EPE TIG Week: John Fraser on choosing meaningful indicators for conservation impacts. Retrieved April 25, 2016 from http://aea365.org/blog/epe-tig-week
Freitag, A., Meyer, R. & Whiteman, L. (2016). Strategies employed by citizen science programs to increase the credibility of their data. Journal of Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 1-11.
Friedman, A. (2008). Framework for evaluating impacts of informal science education projects. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Gassman, P., Jha, M., Wolter, C., & Schilling, K. (2015). Evaluation of alternative cropping and nutrient management systems with soil and water assessment tool for the Raccoon River Watershed Master Plan.
American Journal of Environmental Sciences, 11(4), 227-244.
Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science Motivation Questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 127-146.
Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Journal of Science, Technology, and Human Values, 26(4), 399-408.
Hiller, S. E., & Kitsantas, A. (2016). The validation of the Citizen Self-Efficacy Scale (CSSES). International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(5), 543-558.
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship; Iowa Department of Natural Resources; and Iowa State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. (2014, revised). Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy: A science and technology-based framework to assess and reduce nutrients to Iowa waters and the Gulf of Mexico. Des Moines, IA: Authors.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. (2000). Iowa’s Water monitoring plan. Des Moines, IA: Author.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. (2002). Iowater executive summary 2000-2003. Des Moines, IA; Author. Iowa Department of Natural Resources. (n.d. a). Iowater: Iowa’s Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Program.
Retrieved from http://www.iowadnr.gov/Environmental-Protection/Water-Quality/Water-Monitoring/ IOWATER
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. (n.d. b) Becoming a wildlife volunteer. Retrieved from http://www.iowadnr.gov/Conservation/Wildlife-Stewardship/Non-Game-Wildlife/Volunteer-Wildlife-Surveys /Volunteer-Monitoring
IOWATER Program. (2010). Quality assurance project plan for Iowater. QA/WM/01-02. Prepared for U.S. EPA Agency Region 7, Environmental Services Division. Iowa City, IA: Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program, Iowater.
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. London, UK: Routledge.
Jansen, L. (1995). Citizen activism in the foundations of adult environmental education in the United States.
Jordan, R. C., Ehrenfield, J. G., Gray, S. A., Brooks, W. R., Howe, D. V., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2012). Cognitive considerations in the development of citizen science projects. In J. L. Dickinson and R. Bonney (Eds.). Citizen science: Public participation in environmental research (pp. 167-178). Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing.
Karlovic, L., & Patrick, K. (2003). Environmental adult education: Women living the tensions. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, (99), 59-68.
Kebo, S., & Bunch, M. J. (2013). Canadian ENGOs in governance of water resources: Information needs and monitoring practices. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185(11),9451-60.
Kolok, A. S., Schoenfuss, H. L., Propper, C. R., & Vail, T. L. (2011). Empowering citizen scientists: The strength of many in monitoring biologically active environmental contaminants. BioScience, 61(8), 626-630.
Lawrence, A. (Ed.). (2010). Taking stock of nature: Participatory biodiversity assessment for policy, planning and practice. Cambridge, UK: Leiden Cambridge University Press.
Lewandowski, E. J., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2016). Butterfly citizen science projects support conservation activities among their volunteers. Journal ofCitizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(1): 6, 1–8.
Lewis, J. (2010). Perceptions of landscape change in British Columbia’s Northwest: Implications for biodiversity and participatory management. In A. Lawrence, A. (Ed.). Taking stock of nature: Participatory biodiversity assessment for policy, planning and practice (pp. 185-210). Cambridge, UK: Leiden Cambridge University Press.
Morton, L. W., & Brown, S. S. (Eds.). (2011). Pathways for getting to better water quality: The citizen effect. New York: Springer.
Muenich, R. L., Peel, S., Bowling, L. C., Heller, M. H., Turco, R. F., Frankenberger, J. R., & Chaubey, I. (2016). The Wabash Sampling Blitz: A study on the effectiveness of citizen science. Journal of Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 3. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.1
Oberhauser, K., & Lebuhn, G. (2012). Insects and plants: Engaging undergraduates in authentic research through citizen science. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 318-320.
Parker, J., & Crona, B. (2012). On being all things to all people: Boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Journal of Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 262-289.
Phillips, T., Bonney, R., & Shirk, J. L. (2012). What is our impact? Toward a unified framework for evaluating outcomes of citizen science participation. In J. L. Dickinson and R. Bonney (Eds.). Citizen science: Public participation in environmental research (pp. 82-96). Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Associates.
Prokopy, L. S., & Floress, K. (2011). Measuring the citizen effect: What does good citizen involvement look like? In L. W. Morton and S. S. Brown (Eds.). Pathways for getting to better water quality: The citizen effect (pp. 83-94). New York: Springer.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., & Capistrano, D. (2010). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: A multi-scale assessment for global stakeholders. In A. Lawrence, A. Taking stock of nature: Participatory biodiversity assessment for policy, planning and practice (pp. 49-68). Cambridge, UK: Leiden Cambridge University Press.
Ries, L., & Oberhauser, K. (2015). A citizen army for science: Quantifying the contributions of citizen scientists to our understanding of Monarch butterfly biology. BioScience, 65(4), 419-430.
Riessen, J. (2009). Comprehensive water planning in Iowa: Past efforts. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Robinson, L. J., & Flora, J. L. (2003). The social capital paradigm: Bridging across disciplines. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, (85)5, 1187-1193.
Silverman, R.M. (2005). Caught in the middle: Community development corporations (CDCs) and the conflict between grassroots and instrumental forms of citizen participation. Community Development, 36(2): 35-51. Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(9), 467-471.
Stepenuck, K. F., &Green, L. T. (2015). Individual- and community-level impacts of volunteer environmental monitoring: A synthesis of peer-reviewed literature. Ecology and Society, 20(3), 1-16.
Trumbull, D. J., Bonney, R., & Grudens-Schuck, N. (2005). Developing materials to promote inquiry: Lessons learned. Science Education, 89 (6), 879-900.
Williams, M. M., & George-Jackson, C. E. (2014). Using and doing science: Gender, self-efficacy, and science identity of undergraduate students in STEM. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20(2), 99-126.
