Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
25
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
25 results for “citizen participation”
[Dataset] Does Volunteer Engagement Pay Off? An Analysis of User Participation in Online Citizen Science Projects - Raw Data
<p><strong>Explanation/Overview:</strong></p> <p>Corresponding raw data for the analyses described in D3.3 (can be found here), which are the result of our research that culminated into the publication "Does Volunteer Engagement Pay Off? An Analysis of User Participation in Online Citizen Science Projects", a conference paper for the conference CollabTech 2022: <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-20218-6">Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing</a> and published as part of the <a href="https://link.springer.com/bookseries/558">Lecture Notes in Computer Science</a> book series (LNCS,volume 13632) <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-20218-6_5">here</a>. Usernames have been anonymised.</p> <p>The raw data is in the <code>.json</code> format and can be read by most languages/tools. It is recommended to import the data into a MongoDB to work with it.</p> <p><strong>Purpose:</strong></p> <p>The purpose of this dataset is to provide the basis for possible further examinations, involving additional (not yet analysed) features such as the content of the comments etc. and also new ways of extracting networks.</p> <p><strong>Relatedness:</strong></p> <p>The data of the different projects was derived from the forums of 7 Zooniverse projects based on similar discussion board features. The projects are: 'Galaxy Zoo', 'Gravity Spy', 'Seabirdwatch', 'Snapshot Wisconsin', 'Wildwatch Kenya', 'Galaxy Nurseries', 'Penguin Watch'.</p> <p><strong>Content:</strong></p> <p>The dataset contains three files:</p> <ul> <li><code>Comments.json</code> <ul> <li>contains the basic data representation with multiple fields (e.g., <code>time_created</code>, <code>user_login</code>). Each data field represents a comment.</li> </ul> </li> <li><code>Discussions.json</code> <ul> <li><code></code>contains all discussions. Each data field is a discussion, with multiple fields (e.g., <code>comments_count</code>, <code>user_login</code>)</li> </ul> </li> <li><code>Projects.json</code> <ul> <li><code></code>contains all projects. Each data field is a project, with multiple fields (e.g., <code>project_id</code>, <code>description</code>)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p><strong>Grouping:</strong></p> <p>The projects (and thus the corresponding discussions and comments) were collected on the basis of common forum features such as the discussion boards.</p>
Survey Study about Motivation for Participants in Citizen Science Projects
<p>The survey study about motivation for participants in Citizen Science projects was designed within the ongoing H2020 project named <a href="https://actionproject.eu/">ACTION</a> (pArticipatory sCience Toolkit agaInst pollutiON). Volunteers participate to citizen science initiatives for multiple reasons: personal enjoyment, desire for improvement or achievement, establishment of personal relationships, care for the environment, etc.<br> Studying motivation and investigating the factors influencing people participation to citizen science projects is an essential aspect in the analysis of citizen science communities. Understanding the reasons that foster people to engage can support the successful design and implementation of effective participant involvement tasks, as well as pave the way for long-term engagement.<br> The goal of the study is to analyse the motivation to participate of a specific citizen science community and the structure of the survey proposed shuold be customised considering the topic of the activities.</p> <p><br> This research object describes the studies performed within the ACTION project to investigate motivations of different citizen science communities: the TESS Network (<a href="https://tess.stars4all.eu/">https://tess.stars4all.eu/</a>); the 6 ACTION pilots (<a href="https://actionproject.eu/citizen-science-pilots">https://actionproject.eu/citizen-science-pilots</a>) Mapping Mobility, Open Soil Atlas, Water Sentinels, Restart Data Workbench, Wow Nature, Walk Up Aniene.<br> The surveys were designed and administered through Coney (<a href="https://coney.cefriel.com">https://coney.cefriel.com</a>) and made available as linked data exploiting the Survey Ontology (<a href="https://w3id.org/survey-ontology">https://w3id.org/survey-ontology</a>).</p> <p>The research object adopts the <a href="https://www.researchobject.org/ro-crate/1.0/">RO-Crate</a> specification. Files made available within the research object are:</p> <ul> <li><em>*-procedure.ttl</em> contains the RDF representation of the <strong>template</strong> structure of the conversational survey (questions, answers, etc.) using the <a href="https://w3id.org/survey-ontology">Survey Ontology</a></li> <li>*-<em>mean-var-motivating-questions.csv </em>contains the computed mean and average for each question considered (observable variables) comparing all the surveys performed</li> <li>*-<em>mean-var-motivating-factor.csv </em>contains the computed mean and average for each motivation factor considered (latent variables) comparing all the surveys performed</li> <li>*-<em>correlation-factors-global-motivation.csv </em>contains the correlation analysis between each motivation factor and the global motivation comparing all the surveys performed</li> </ul> <p>The Research Object also references all the RO-Crates describing the different survey motivation studies in details.</p>
[Dataset] Does Volunteer Engagement Pay Off? An Analysis of User Participation in Online Citizen Science Projects
<p><strong>Explanation/Overview:</strong></p> <p>Corresponding dataset for the analyses and results achieved in the CS Track project in the research line on participation analyses, which is also reported in the publication "Does Volunteer Engagement Pay Off? An Analysis of User Participation in Online Citizen Science Projects", a conference paper for the conference CollabTech 2022: <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-20218-6">Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing</a> and published as part of the <a href="https://link.springer.com/bookseries/558">Lecture Notes in Computer Science</a> book series (LNCS,volume 13632) <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-20218-6_5">here</a>. The usernames have been anonymised.</p> <p><strong>Purpose:</strong></p> <p>The purpose of this dataset is to provide the basis to reproduce the results reported in the associated deliverable, and in the above-mentioned publication. As such, it <strong>does not</strong> represent <strong>raw data</strong>, but rather files that already include certain analysis steps (like calculated degrees or other SNA-related measures), ready for analysis, visualisation and interpretation with R.</p> <p><strong>Relatedness:</strong></p> <p>The data of the different projects was derived from the forums of 7 Zooniverse projects based on similar discussion board features. The projects are: 'Galaxy Zoo', 'Gravity Spy', 'Seabirdwatch', 'Snapshot Wisconsin', 'Wildwatch Kenya', 'Galaxy Nurseries', 'Penguin Watch'.</p> <p><strong>Content:</strong></p> <p>In this Zenodo entry, several files can be found. The structure is as follows (<code>files</code> and <strong>folders </strong>and<strong> </strong><em>descriptions</em>).</p> <ul> <li><code>corresponding_calculations.html</code> <ul> <li><em>Quarto-notebook to view in browser</em></li> </ul> </li> <li><code>corresponding_calculations.qmd</code> <ul> <li><em>Quarto-notebook to view in RStudio</em></li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>assets</strong> <ul> <li><strong>data</strong> <ul> <li><strong>annotations</strong> <ul> <li><code>annotations.csv</code> <ul> <li><em>List of annotations made per day for each of the analysed projects</em></li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>comments</strong> <ul> <li><code>comments.csv </code> <ul> <li><em>Total list of comments with several data fields (i.e., comment id, text, reply_user_id)</em></li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>rolechanges</strong> <ul> <li><code>478_rolechanges.csv</code> <ul> <li><em>List of roles per user to determine number of role changes </em></li> </ul> </li> <li><code>1104_rolechanges.csv</code> <ul> <li><em>...</em></li> </ul> </li> <li><code>...</code></li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>totalnetworkdata</strong> <ul> <li><strong>Edges</strong> <ul> <li><code>478_edges.csv</code> <ul> <li><em>Network data (edge set) for the given projects (without time slices)</em></li> </ul> </li> <li><code>1104_edges.csv</code> <ul> <li><em>...</em></li> </ul> </li> <li><code>...</code></li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>Nodes</strong> <ul> <li><code>478_nodes.csv</code> <ul> <li><em>Network data (node set) for the given projects (without time slices)</em></li> </ul> </li> <li><code>1104_nodes.csv</code> <ul> <li><em>...</em></li> </ul> </li> <li><code>...</code></li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>trajectories</strong> <ul> <li><em>Network data (edge and node sets) for the given projects and all time slices (Q1 2016 - Q4 2021)</em></li> <li><strong>478</strong> <ul> <li><strong>Edges</strong> <ul> <li> <p><code>edges_4782016_q1.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>edges_4782016_q2.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>edges_4782016_q3.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>edges_4782016_q4.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>...</code></p> </li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>Nodes</strong> <ul> <li><code>nodes_4782016_q1.csv</code></li> <li> <p><code>nodes_4782016_q4.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>nodes_4782016_q3.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>nodes_4782016_q2.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>...</code></p> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li> <p><strong>1104</strong> </p> <ul> <li> <p><strong>Edges</strong> </p> <ul> <li> <p><code>...</code></p> </li> </ul> </li> <li> <p><strong>Nodes</strong> </p> <ul> <li> <p><code>...</code></p> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li> <p>...</p> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>scripts</strong> <ul> <li><code>datavizfuncs.R</code> <ul> <li><em>script for the data visualisation functions, automatically executed from within </em><code>corresponding_calculations.qmd</code></li> </ul> </li> <li><code>import.R</code> <ul> <li><em>script for the import of data, automatically executed from within </em><code>corresponding_calculations.qmd</code></li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>corresponding_calculations_files</strong> <ul> <li>f<em>iles for the html/qmd view in the browser/RStudio</em></li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p><strong>Grouping:</strong></p> <p>The data is grouped according to given criteria (e.g., <code>project_title </code>or <code>time</code>). Accordingly, the respective files can be found in the data structure</p>
Birdwatching, eBird and citizen science in India: qualitative interviews with participants, practitioners and ecologists
<h1>Abstract</h1> <p>This study consists of qualitative interviews about birdwatching, citizen science, and the use of the birdwatching data platform <em>eBird </em>in India. Interview partners are birdwatchers, citizen science practitioners, and ecologists who have used eBird data. Some of the main topics covered include: the nature of the birdwatching community and styles of birdwatching in India; the history of the adoption of eBird in India; the value of birdwatching and citizen science; challenges involved in conducting or participating in citizen science; opportunities and limitations of using data from eBird and citizen science; processes of data collection and quality control in eBird; and ecological research, conservation priorities, and environmental activism in India. This study is part of the project A Philosophy of Open Science for Diverse Research Environments (PHIL_OS).</p> <h1>Methods</h1> <p>The data in this study was collected using semi-structured qualitative interviews.</p> <p>Interview partners were recruited by snowball sampling through their engagement with eBird India and related organisations. There were 17 interview partners, interviewed either once or several times. 19 interviews were conducted in total.</p> <p>Interview guides/questionnaires were designed for each interviewee depending on their status as birdwatchers, citizen science coordinators, and eBird data users.</p> <p>Interviews were conducted between April 2022 and June 2023. The interviews took place online using Zoom videoconferencing software. Interviews lasted 35-70 minutes. When participants provided their written consent, interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed smart verbatim using otter.ai and manual proofreading. Sensitive information was removed before publishing transcripts.</p> <p>Transcripts were analysed using semi-grounded coding. Codes were organised into parent codes using an inductive approach based on emergent categories.</p> <h1>Description of the data and file structure</h1> <p>Documentation files include interview guides, the information sheet and consent form, ethics approval, and the data narrative. Documentation files are named according to the structure: authorname_filename_DOCUMENTATION.</p> <p>Data files consist of a summary of participants, 17 of the interview transcripts, and a code list. Interview transcript files are named according to the structure: authorname_interviewnumber_date.</p> <p>A full list of files is provided in the README file.</p> <h1>Notes</h1> <p>This study was conducted as part of the project A Philosophy of Open Science for Diverse Research Environments (PHIL_OS). More information can be found at <a href="https://opensciencestudies.eu/">https://opensciencestudies.eu</a></p> <p>This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 101001145).</p>
Participant survey data from the citizen science project FLOW, 2021
<p>This dataset is linked to the following publication:</p> <p>von Gönner, J., Masson, T., Köhler, S., Fritsche, I., Bonn, A. (in press): Citizen science promotes knowledge, skills and collective action to monitor and protect freshwater streams. People and Nature.</p> <p> </p>
[Dataset] Does Volunteer Engagement Pay Off? An Analysis of User Participation in Online Citizen Science Projects
<p>Corresponding dataset for the publication "Does Volunteer Engagement Pay Off? An Analysis of User Participation in Online Citizen Science Projects", a conference paper for the conference CollabTech 2022: <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-20218-6">Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing</a> and published as part of the <a href="https://link.springer.com/bookseries/558">Lecture Notes in Computer Science</a> book series (LNCS,volume 13632) <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-20218-6_5">here</a>. Usernames have been anonymised.</p> <p>The structure of the dataset is as follows:</p> <p><strong>Annotations</strong> </p> <p><em>List of annotations made per day for each of the analysed projects.</em></p> <p><code>annotations.csv </code></p> <p><strong>Comments </strong></p> <p><em>Total list of comments with several data fields (i.e., comment id, text, reply_user_id)</em></p> <p><code>comments.csv </code></p> <p><strong>Rolechanges</strong> </p> <p><em>List of roles per user to determine number of role changes </em></p> <p><code>478_rolechanges.csv</code></p> <p><code>1104_rolechanges.csv</code></p> <p><code>...</code></p> <p><strong>Totalnetworkdata</strong> </p> <p><em>Network data (edge and node sets) for the given projects (without time slices).</em></p> <p>Edges </p> <ul> <li> <p><code>478_edges.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>1104_edges.csv</code></p> </li> </ul> <p>Nodes </p> <ul> <li> <p><code>478_nodes.csv</code> </p> </li> <li> <p><code>1104_nodes.csv</code> </p> </li> </ul> <p><strong>Trajectories</strong> </p> <p><em>Network data (edge and node sets) for the given projects and all time slices (Q1 2016 - Q4 2021)</em></p> <p>478 </p> <ul> <li>Edges <ul> <li> <p><code>edges_4782016_q1.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>edges_4782016_q2.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>edges_4782016_q3.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>edges_4782016_q4.csv</code></p> </li> </ul> </li> <li> <p>...</p> </li> <li>Nodes <ul> <li><code>nodes_4782016_q1.csv</code></li> <li> <p><code>nodes_4782016_q4.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>nodes_4782016_q3.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>nodes_4782016_q2.csv</code></p> </li> <li> <p><code>...</code></p> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p> </p> <p>1104 </p> <ul> <li> <p>Edges </p> <ul> <li> <p><code>...</code></p> </li> </ul> </li> <li> <p>Nodes </p> <ul> <li> <p><code>...</code></p> </li> </ul> </li> <li> <p><code>...</code></p> </li> </ul> <p> </p>
Underlying data - Results from the Open Call: How Citizens can participate in solar energy research?
<p>Underlying data to the "Results from the Open Call: How Citizens can participate in solar energy research?" @</p> <pre>https://zenodo.org/record/3554901#.YAgimxaCE2w</pre> <p>Answers to the online survey in "Call for ideas_answers online_survey.xlsx"</p> <p>Notes from the World Cafe and other meetings from the secretaries: "notes_MMLs_GRECO_2019.pdf</p> <p> </p>
Citizen science at public libraries: Data on librarians and users perceptions of participating in a citizen science project in Catalunya, Spain
<p>As libraries struggle to keep pace with the changing societal landscape, emerging practices such as citizen science (CS) initiatives are being incorporated to reinforce the idea of public libraries as gathering, meeting, and collaboration spaces within the context of shared community and shared learning resources. However, there is little empirical evidence of whether the most open and participatory ways that CS puts forward can converge with and be nurtured by the essence of public libraries. Also, the roles of librarians and users in the ‘next generation public library’ have been under-developed. As the number of CS initiatives at public libraries grows, so does the need to collect evidence on the impact and the capacity of assimilation of CS practices. The data describes librarians and users' perceptions of participating in a citizen science project. Two hands-on activities for librarians of the Barcelona Network of Public Libraries were implemented. One was a training course for 30 librarians from 24 libraries which allowed them to envisage citizen science implementation in each library. The second activity consisted in the co-creation of a citizen social science project. 40 library users, 7 librarians from 3 different cities, and professional scientists, were involved. The data on librarians and users' perception was collected through participant observation, surveys, and a focus group to identify strengths and challenges of implementing citizen science at public libraries. The data covers librarians and users attitudes towards citizen science, their motivations to participate, their perceived ability to implement a citizen science project (as for librarians) or to contribute to science (as for library users), and the participants intention to keep engaged with citizen science, drawing on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Responses to closed-ended survey questions are analyzed at a descriptive level. The qualitative feedback from the focus group and the open-ended survey question on motivations is subjected to a thematic analysis. The data offers interesting insights to identify opportunities and challenges of implementing citizen science at public libraries, contributing to the debate over the public library's mission as local community hub.</p> <p>The dataset is formed by 5 tables:</p> <ol> <li>Librarians_pre.csv: data on librarians profiles, attitudes towards citizen science, expected impact of the project and self-efficacy collected at the beginning of the Citizen Science Lab.</li> <li>Librarians_post.csv: data on librarians profiles, attitudes towards citizen science, perceived impact of the project and self-efficacy collected at the end of the Citizen Science Lab.</li> <li>Users_first_phase.csv: data on users profiles, motivation, attitudes towards the library, confidence to perform scientific tasks and self-efficacy collected at the beginning of the Science and Citizen Action.</li> <li>Users_second_phase.csv: data on users profiles and motivation collected at the middle of the Science and Citizen Action.</li> <li>Users_last_phase.csv: data on users profiles, attitudes towards the library, confidence to perform scientific tasks and perceived impact of the project collected at the end of the Science and Citizen Action.</li> </ol> <p><strong>Citizen Science Lab Questionnaire (Librarians_pre)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [rol_1] What is your role at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Director</li> <li>Library technician</li> <li>Support technician</li> <li>Service support</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [years_1] How long have you been working at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>2 or less</li> <li>3 to 5 years</li> <li>6 to 10 years</li> <li>11 to 20 years</li> <li>more than 20 years</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [back_1] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [know_1] Have you already heard about citizen science?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>5. [part_1] Have you already participated in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attitudes towards users engagement</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>6. [att_lib_pre1] Do you believe that library users are able to participate in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>7. [att_lib_pre2] Do you believe that library users will commit to participating in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Expected impacts</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>8. [exp_lib_pre] To what extent do you believe that citizen science may bring positive impacts to your library?</p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Self-efficacy</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>9. [se_lib_pre1] Right now, do you feel able to recommend any citizen science project to library users?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>10. [se_lib_pre2] Right now, do you feel able to implement yourself and lead a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Citizen Science Lab Questionnaire (Librarians_post)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [years_2] How long have you been working at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>2 or less</li> <li>3 to 5 years</li> <li>6 to 10 years</li> <li>11 to 20 years</li> <li>more than 20 years</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [back_2] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [sat_1] To what extent does the project meet your initial expectations?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attitudes towards users engagement</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [att_lib_post1] Do you believe that library users will commit to participating in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>5. [att_lib_post2] What are/could be the potential barriers to users engagement in citizen science?</p> </td> <td> <p>[open]</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Perceived impact</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>6. [imp_lib] What do you believe that citizen science may bring to public libraries and users?</p> <p>1 [Not at all] …… 5 [Totally]</p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <p>a. Knowledge of the scientific process</p> <p>b. New connections among participants </p> <p>c. Fun</p> <p>d. New knowledge of the local environment</p> <p>e. Scientific evidence on a common concern</p> <p>f. Social cohesion</p> <p>g. Positive attitudes towards science</p> <p>h. Willingness to learn</p> <p>i. Critical thinking and self-efficacy</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Self-efficacy</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>8. [se_lib_post1] Right now, do you feel able to recommend any citizen science project to library users?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>9. [se_lib_post2] Right now, do you feel able to implement yourself and lead a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Intention to keep engaged</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>10. [eng_lib] To what extent are you motivated to keep engaged with citizen science?</p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p> <p><strong>Science and Citizens Action Focus group guide (Librarians)</strong></p> <p><strong>Opening questions</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> To start with…. Are you satisfied with the project?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> Yes, no, why? Was it fun/interesting/challenging/enriching….</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> Do you feel you have learned something new?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> About your library’s environment, users, science and citizen science... Is there anything special that you will take with you after the project?</p> <p><strong>Reflections on the cocreation process</strong></p> <p><strong>3.</strong> At what time during the project have you felt most comfortable?</p> <p><strong>Probe:</strong> For example, has it been easier to lead the activity and/or involve and retain the community? Did you find it entertaining?</p> <p><strong>4.</strong> At what time during the project have you felt less at ease?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> What was challenging during the cocreation process?</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> To what extent do you feel more capable of implementing and leading a citizen science project in your library right now?</p> <p><strong>Probe: </strong>For example, in the case of both more crowdsourcing and of cocreated projects that actively involve the community</p> <p><strong>Reflections on the perceived impact</strong></p> <p><strong>6. </strong>To what extent does the project meet your initial expectations?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> in line with what you discussed at the beginning of the project, you expected it to promote participation, new connections among participants, improve the library perceptions and stimulate the participants’ critical thinking...Do you think that citizen science may meet these expectations?</p> <p><strong>Reflections on citizen science at public libraries</strong></p> <p><strong>7.</strong> To what extent can citizen science (in its most ‘extreme’ form of participation) be imagined as an activity within the library that promotes more active user participation?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> Through for example cocreation, experimentation, and hands-on learning activities...</p> <p><strong>8. </strong>Do you think that the activity has brought new knowledge? What new knowledge has the activity brought from your perspective?</p> <p><strong>Probe</strong><strong>:</strong> Knowledge of the scientific process, knowledge of the community or new users...</p> <p>9. What could be the opportunities and barriers of introducing citizen science at public libraries? And the barriers?</p> <p><strong>Probe:</strong> Like for example improving the perception of the library, actively involving certain users...What could be the ‘return’ for the community? What impact can citizen science projects have on making the environment more dynamic from libraries?</p> <p><strong>10. </strong>More generally, what could be the ‘added value’ of the introduction of citizen science within the library’s range of activities?</p> <p><strong>Probe:</strong> Is it a fun activity that promotes socialization, for example? Or that allows to generate new knowledge? Or that highlights the library’s social value? Or, also, that may offer new uses and new roles to the library? Can it foster a sense of community with the library as a connector? What other impacts can be generated in your environment?</p> <p><strong>Closing</strong></p> <p><strong>11.</strong> Do you see yourselves the next year, implementing a citizen science project as part of the library’s range of activities? And adopting an existing one?</p> <p><strong>Probe: </strong>Are you motivated to get more involved with citizen science projects? What kind of projects? What level of user involvement do you expect? What barriers do you see to users’ involvement? What benefits and opportunities do you think you can bring to the library?</p> <p><strong>12.</strong> We have now reached the end of the discussion. Anyone want to add anything else?</p> <p><strong>Science and Citizens Action Questionnaire (Users_first_phase)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [gen_1] Are you..?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Woman</li> <li>Man</li> <li>NA</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [years_3] How old are you?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>18-25</li> <li>26-35</li> <li>36-45</li> <li>46-55</li> <li>56-65</li> <li>66+</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [rol_2] What is your role at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Library user not associated with local associations</li> <li>Library technician</li> <li>Member of a local association</li> <li>Representative of public administrations</li> <li>Representative of the private sector</li> <li>Others:</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [back_3] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>5. [part_2] Have you already participated in a citizen science project?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Motivations to participate</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>6. [mot_us] What did motivate you to participate in the project?</p> </td> <td> <p>[open]</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attitudes towards the library</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>7. [att_us_pre1] To what extent do you believe that your library is responsive to the community needs?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>8. [att_us_pre2] To what extent to you believe your library is able to face local challenges based on users' active participation?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Confidence to perform scientific tasks</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>9. [conf_us_pre] To what extent do you feel able to contribute to perform the following scientific tasks:</p> <p>1 [Not at all] …… 4 [Totally]</p> </td> <td> <p>a. Formulate the research question</p> <p>b. Data collection</p> <p>c. Analysis and interpretation of the results</p> <p>d. Propose concrete actions based on scientific evidence</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Self-efficacy</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>10. [se_us_pre] To what extent do you feel able to positively contribute to the library and your community?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Science and Citizens Action Questionnaire (Users_second_phase)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [gen_3] Are you..?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Woman</li> <li>Man</li> <li>NA</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [years_5] How old are you?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>18-25</li> <li>26-35</li> <li>36-45</li> <li>46-55</li> <li>56-65</li> <li>66+</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [rol_4] What is your role at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Library user or technician not associated with local associations</li> <li>Member of a local association</li> <li>Representative of public administrations</li> <li>Representative of the private sector</li> <li>Others:</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [back_5] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [mot_us2] To what extent are you motivated to carry out the experiment?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Science and Citizens Action Questionnaire (Users_last_phase)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Personal information</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>1. [gen_2] Are you..?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Woman</li> <li>Man</li> <li>NA</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>2. [years_4] How old are you?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>18-25</li> <li>26-35</li> <li>36-45</li> <li>46-55</li> <li>56-65</li> <li>66+</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [rol_3] What is your role at the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Library user or technician not associated with local associations</li> <li>Member of a local association</li> <li>Representative of public administrations</li> <li>Representative of the private sector</li> <li>Others:</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>3. [back_4] Do you have a scientific background?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>Yes</li> <li>No</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>4. [part_3] To how many cocreation sessions have you participated?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>None</li> <li>1</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>5. [sat_2] To what extent are you satisfied with the experiment?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Attitudes towards the library</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>6. [att_us_post] To what extent do you believe that the project has positively changed your perception of the library?</p> </td> <td> <ul> <li>1 [Not at all]</li> <li>2</li> <li>3</li> <li>4</li> <li>5 [Totally]</li> </ul> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Confidence to perform scientific tasks</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>7. [conf_us_post] To what extent do you feel able to contribute to perform the following scientific tasks:</p> <p>1 [Not at all] …… 5 [Totally]</p> </td> <td> <p>a. Formulate the research question</p> <p>b. Data collection</p> <p>c. Analysis and interpretation of the results</p> <p>d. Propose concrete actions based on scientific evidence</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Perceived impact</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>8. [imp_us] What do you believe that citizen science may bring to public libraries and users?</p> <p>1 [Not at all] …… 5 [Totally]</p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <p>a. Knowledge of the scientific process</p> <p>b. New connections among participants </p> <p>c. Fun</p> <p>d. New knowledge of the local environment</p> <p>e. Scientific evidence on a common concern</p> <p>f. Social cohesion</p> <p>g. Positive attitudes towards science</p> <p>h. Willingness to learn</p> <p>i. Critical thinking and self-efficacy</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p>
Survey Results - Use of new technologies for citizen participation
<p>This survey took place in Münster, Germany between April 07, 2016 and April 17, 2016. The goal of the survey was collect citizens' perspectives about new technologies' role for citizen participation. The survey questions, as well as its results are provided in German. The datasets features both the raw data (i.e., all answers preprocessed to keep all participants anonymous), and the summary of the survey results.</p>
[Dataset] Does Volunteer Engagement Pay Off? An Analysis of User Participation in Online Citizen Science Projects - Graph Files
<p><strong>Explanation/Overview:</strong></p> <p>Corresponding graph files of the extracted Zooniverse networks described in D3.3 (can be found here), which are the result of our research that culminated into the publication "Does Volunteer Engagement Pay Off? An Analysis of User Participation in Online Citizen Science Projects", a conference paper for the conference CollabTech 2022: <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-20218-6">Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing</a> and published as part of the <a href="https://link.springer.com/bookseries/558">Lecture Notes in Computer Science</a> book series (LNCS,volume 13632) <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-20218-6_5">here</a>. Usernames have been anonymised.</p> <p>The graph files are in <code>.gexf</code> (graph exchange XML format) and <code>.gml</code> (graph modeling language) formats which can be used by common graph/network-analysis and visualisation tools such as Gephi.</p> <p><strong>Purpose:</strong></p> <p>The purpose of this dataset is to provide the basis for possible further examinations of the network structure, involving additional (not yet analysed) features such as the content of the comments etc.</p> <p><strong>Relatedness:</strong></p> <p>The data of the different projects was derived from the forums of 7 Zooniverse projects based on similar discussion board features. The projects are: 'Galaxy Zoo', 'Gravity Spy', 'Seabirdwatch', 'Snapshot Wisconsin', 'Wildwatch Kenya', 'Galaxy Nurseries', 'Penguin Watch'.</p> <p><strong>Content:</strong></p> <p>The dataset contains distinct graph files for each of the analysed projects. For each graph file, there are <em>nodes </em>and <em>edges</em> and their associated attributes (i.e., each edge can have an attribute). For the edges, apart from source and target, we have as attributes:</p> <ul> <li><code>weight</code></li> <li><code>project_title</code></li> <li><code>body </code>(i.e., text)</li> <li><code>created_at</code></li> <li><code>userRoles</code></li> <li><code>discussion_title</code></li> <li><code>discussion_id</code></li> <li><code>user_id</code></li> <li><code>board_title</code></li> <li><code>relation</code></li> <li><code>target_role</code></li> </ul> <p>For the nodes, the attributes are:</p> <ul> <li><code>user_id</code></li> <li><code>userRoles</code></li> <li><code>degree_reply </code>(i.e., degree for the reply relation)</li> <li><code>in_degree_reply</code></li> <li><code>out_degree_reply</code></li> <li><code>degree_comment</code></li> <li><code>in_degree_comment</code></li> <li><code>out_degree_comment</code></li> <li><code>degree_total</code></li> <li><code>in_degree_total</code></li> <li><code>out_degree_total</code></li> <li><code>target_role</code></li> </ul> <p><strong>Grouping:</strong></p> <p>Each graph file represents all the comments for the respective project across its lifespan irrespective of any time slices. Edges represent the comments and users represent the nodes. While the different boards are still contained within the data, all boards occur in the data.</p> <p> </p>
Changes in participant behaviour and attitudes are associated with knowledge and skills gained by using a turtle conservation citizen science app
Citizen science has become a popular way to collect biodiversity data and engage the wider public in scientific research. It has the potential to improve the knowledge and skills of participants, and positively change their behaviour and attitude towards the environment. Citizen science outcomes are particularly valuable for wildlife conservation, as they could help alleviate human impacts on the environment. We used an online questionnaire to investigate the consequences of participating in an Australian turtle mapping app, TurtleSAT, on skills and knowledge gain, and test for any association between these gains with behavioural or attitudinal changes reported by the participants. 148 citizen scientists completed our questionnaire, mostly from the states of New South Wales and Victoria. Participants listed TurtleSAT as the third most common source of knowledge about turtle ecology and conservation, after a talk about turtles and personal observations/research. Citizen scientists who participated more often were more knowledgeable about turtles than infrequent users. Self-reported gains in knowledge and skills were positively linked to attitudinal and behavioural changes, such as being more aware of turtles on roads. However, behaviour and attitude changes were not related to participation rate. Respondents also reported that after learning about the current decline in turtle populations, they adopted several turtle-friendly practices, such as habitat restoration or moving turtles out of harm's way, underlining the importance of increasing people's awareness on species declines. The reported changes in attitudes and behaviours are likely to positively impact the conservation of Australian freshwater turtles. Engagement with citizen science projects like TurtleSAT may result in participants being more interested in the natural world, by learning more about it and being more exposed to it, and therefore contribute more actively to its protection.
Data for: Citizen science as an ecosystem of engagement: Implications for learning and broadening participation
<p>The bulk of research on citizen science participants is project-centric, based on an assumption that volunteers experience a single project. Contrary to this assumption, survey responses (n=3,894) and digital trace data (n=3,649) from volunteers, who collectively engaged in 1,126 unique projects, revealed that multi-project participation was the norm. Only 23% of volunteers were singletons (who participated in only one project), and multi-project participants split evenly between disciplines specialists (39%) and discipline spanners (38% joined projects with different disciplinary topics), and unevenly between mode specialists (67%) and mode spanners (33% participated in online and offline projects). Public engagement was narrow: multi-project participants were eight times more likely to be white, and five times more likely to hold advanced degrees, than the general population. We propose a volunteer-centric framework that explores how the dynamic accumulation of experiences in a project ecosystem can support broad learning objectives and inclusive citizen science. </p>
Knowledge of returning wildlife species and willingness to participate in citizen science projects among wildlife park visitors in Germany
<p>Successful conservation efforts have led to recent increases of large mammals such as European bison (Bison bonasus), moose (Alces alces) and grey wolf (Canis lupus) and their return to former habitats in central Europe. While embraced by some, the recovery of these species is a controversial topic and holds potential for human-wildlife conflicts. Involving the public has been suggested to be an effective method for monitoring wildlife and mitigating associated conflicts. To assess two interrelated prerequisites for engaging people in Citizen Science (CS) – knowledge of returning species and respondents' readiness to participate in CS activities for monitoring and managing these species – we conducted a survey (questionnaire) in two wildlife parks located in different states of Germany. Based on 472 complete questionaires, we developed generalized linear models to 1) understand how sociodemographic variables and exposure to the species affected visitors' knowledge of each species, and to 2) investigate if sociodemographic variables and knowledge influenced the likelihood of visitors to participate in CS activities. Almost all visitors were aware of the returning wolf population, while knowledge and awareness about bison and moose were significantly lower. Knowledge of the two herbivores differed geographically (higher knowledge of moose in the north-eastern state), possibly indicating a positive association between exposure to the species and knowledge. However, models generally performed poorly in predicting knowledge about wildlife, suggesting that such specific knowledge is insufficiently explained by sociodemographic variables. Our model to explain stated willingness in CS indicated that younger participants and those with higher knowledge scores in the survey were more willing to engage in CS activities. Overall, our analyses highlight how exposure to large mammals, knowledge about wildlife and human demographics are interrelated - insights that are helpful for effectively recruiting citizen scientists for wildlife conservation.</p>
Data for: Citizen science as an ecosystem of engagement: Implications for learning and broadening participation
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Changes in participant behaviour and attitudes are associated with knowledge and skills gained by using a turtle conservation citizen science app
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Knowledge of returning wildlife species and willingness to participate in citizen science projects among wildlife park visitors in Germany
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Evolution of the Debate on Citizen Participation: A Bibliometric Analysis and a systematic literature review
<p>Attached it is possible to find results of the systematic literature review provides and discusses in the paper: <strong>Evolution of the Debate on Citizen Participation: A Bibliometric Analysis and a systematic literature review</strong></p>
Results from the Open Call: How Citizens can participate in solar energy research?
<p>Results from the public consultation that GRECO Project (H2020-787289) launched in November 2018. These responses were collected from around 70 research teams along the world. The document is structured in three sections to think beyond researchers' needs. Any kind of successful collaboration implies that both parts must have a benefit and the consultation was also focused on such perspective.</p>
Effect of Personalised Citizen Assistance for Social Participation(APIC) on Older Adults Health and Social Participation
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03161860. IPD Sharing: UNDECIDED. Countries: 1. Publications: 2.
Biodiversity citizen science: outcomes for the participating citizens
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.