IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i8d10.1007_s11192-021-04050-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the invisible college of citizen science: questions, methods and contributions

Author

Listed:
  • Lala Hajibayova

    (Kent State University)

  • L. P. Coladangelo

    (Kent State University)

  • Heather A. Soyka

    (Kent State University)

Abstract

This study contributes to an understanding of citizen science using the lens of collaborative scientific communication and methods as a key part of theoretically driven citizen science projects. Findings of this study demonstrate application of diverse research methodologies to understand various aspects of individuals’ participation in science projects, including incentives for engagement and motivation. Research questions addressed by citizen science studies revealed seven broad areas of scholarly interest: natural science, behavior, social justice, technology, education, research design, and health. Citizen science research was predominantly led by questions associated with natural and behavioral sciences, including environmentalism and conservation, climate and climate change, environmental monitoring, and the motivations of individuals to become citizen scientists. Applied citizen science research demonstrated a relatively higher preference for survey and mixed method approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Lala Hajibayova & L. P. Coladangelo & Heather A. Soyka, 2021. "Exploring the invisible college of citizen science: questions, methods and contributions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6989-7003, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04050-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04050-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04050-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-04050-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roman Lukyanenko & Jeffrey Parsons & Yolanda F. Wiersma, 2014. "The IQ of the Crowd: Understanding and Improving Information Quality in Structured User-Generated Content," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 669-689, December.
    2. Lokman I. Meho & Kiduk Yang, 2007. "Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(13), pages 2105-2125, November.
    3. Aurora A. C. Teixeira, 2011. "Mapping the (in)visible college(s) in the field of entrepreneurship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 1-36, October.
    4. Francesco Cappa & Federica Rosso & Darren Hayes, 2019. "Monetary and Social Rewards for Crowdsourcing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, May.
    5. Alesia Zuccala, 2006. "Modeling the invisible college," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(2), pages 152-168, January.
    6. Florian Heigl & Barbara Kieslinger & Katharina T. Paul & Julia Uhlik & Daniel Dörler, 2019. "Opinion: Toward an international definition of citizen science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(17), pages 8089-8092, April.
    7. Mel Galbraith & Barbara Bollard-Breen & David R. Towns, 2016. "The Community-Conservation Conundrum: Is Citizen Science the Answer?," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, October.
    8. M. Pelacho & G. Ruiz & F. Sanz & A. Tarancón & J. Clemente-Gallardo, 2021. "Analysis of the evolution and collaboration networks of citizen science scientific publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 225-257, January.
    9. Lala Hajibayova, 2020. "(Un)theorizing citizen science: Investigation of theories applied to citizen science studies," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(8), pages 916-926, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lloyd S. Davis & Lei Zhu & Wiebke Finkler, 2023. "Citizen Science: Is It Good Science?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-13, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lala Hajibayova, 2020. "(Un)theorizing citizen science: Investigation of theories applied to citizen science studies," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(8), pages 916-926, August.
    2. Aurora A. C. Teixeira & Luisa Mota, 2012. "A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots and influence of the literature on university–industry links," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 719-743, December.
    3. Alberto Gherardini & Alberto Nucciotti, 2017. "Yesterday’s giants and invisible colleges of today. A study on the ‘knowledge transfer’ scientific domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 255-271, July.
    4. Guadalupe Palacios-Núñez & Gabriel Vélez-Cuartas & Juan D. Botero, 2018. "Developmental tendencies in the academic field of intellectual property through the identification of invisible colleges," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1561-1574, June.
    5. Aldrich, Howard E., 2012. "The emergence of entrepreneurship as an academic field: A personal essay on institutional entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1240-1248.
    6. Jarrahi, Mohammad Hossein & Sawyer, Steve, 2019. "Networks of innovation: the sociotechnical assemblage of tabletop computing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(S).
    7. João J. M. Ferreira & Fernando A. F. Ferreira & Cristina I. M. A. S. Fernandes & Marjan S. Jalali & Mário L. Raposo & Carla S. Marques, 2016. "What do we [not] know about technology entrepreneurship research?," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 713-733, September.
    8. Lakshmi Balachandran Nair & Michael Gibbert, 2016. "What makes a ‘good’ title and (how) does it matter for citations? A review and general model of article title attributes in management science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1331-1359, June.
    9. Graziano Salvalai & Marta Maria Sesana & Paolo Dell’Oro & Diletta Brutti, 2023. "Open Innovation for the Construction Sector: Concept Overview and Test Bed Development to Boost Energy-Efficient Solutions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-19, July.
    10. Eduardo Kunzel Teixeira & Mirian Oliveira, 2018. "Editorial board interlocking in knowledge management and intellectual capital research field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1853-1869, December.
    11. Takanori Ida & Naomi Fukuzawa, 2013. "Effects of large-scale research funding programs: a Japanese case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1253-1273, March.
    12. Masaru Kuno & Mary Prorok & Shubin Zhang & Huy Huynh & Thurston Miller, 2022. "Deciphering the US News and World Report Ranking of US Chemistry Graduate Programs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2131-2150, May.
    13. Aladwani, Adel M. & Dwivedi, Yogesh K., 2018. "Towards a theory of SocioCitizenry: Quality anticipation, trust configuration, and approved adaptation of governmental social media," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 261-272.
    14. Luciana Cingolani & Tim Hildebrandt, 2022. "Incentive Structures for the Adoption of Crowdsourcing in Public Policy: A Bureaucratic Politics Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Teja Koler-Povh & Primož Južnič & Goran Turk, 2014. "Impact of open access on citation of scholarly publications in the field of civil engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1033-1045, February.
    16. Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "Academic inventors as brokers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 843-857, September.
    17. Yongjun Zhu & Erjia Yan, 2015. "Dynamic subfield analysis of disciplines: an examination of the trading impact and knowledge diffusion patterns of computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 335-359, July.
    18. M. Ausloos, 2013. "A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: the co-author core," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 895-909, June.
    19. Christoph Bartneck & Servaas Kokkelmans, 2011. "Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 85-98, April.
    20. Borrett, Stuart R. & Sheble, Laura & Moody, James & Anway, Evan C., 2018. "Bibliometric review of ecological network analysis: 2010–2016," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 382(C), pages 63-82.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04050-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.