4.7 Article

A best-worst scaling experiment to prioritize concern about ethical issues in citizen science reveals heterogeneity on people-level v. data-level issues

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96743-4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Human Genome Research Institute [K01-HG009355]
  2. National Science Foundation [SES-1656096]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Citizen science involves lay individuals participating in scientific research and activities with scientific objectives, leading to unique ethical issues. The study found that citizen science practitioners and scholars are most concerned about power imbalances in projects, data quality, and the sharing of data and research outputs.
Citizen science refers to the participation of lay individuals in scientific studies and other activities having scientific objectives. Citizen science gives rise to unique ethical issues that stem from the potentially multifaceted contributions of citizen scientists to the research process. We sought to explore the ethical issues that are most concerning to citizen scientist practitioners, participants, and scholars to support ethical practices in citizen science. We developed a best-worst scaling experiment using a balanced incomplete block design and fielded it with respondents recruited through the U.S.-based Citizen Science Association. Respondents were shown repeated subsets of 11 ethical issues and identified the most and least concerning issues in each subset. Latent class analysis revealed two respondent classes. The Power to the People class was most concerned about power imbalance between project leaders and participants, exploitation of participants, and lack of diverse participation. The Show Me the Data class was most concerned about the quality of data generated by citizen science projects and failure of projects to share data and other research outputs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available