IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i8d10.1007_s11192-024-05099-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychosocial factors that favor citizen participation in the generation of scientific knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Flor Sánchez

    (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (España)
    Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (España))

  • Ricardo Olmos

    (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (España))

  • Leyla Angélica Sandoval

    (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (España)
    Instituto Inaecu (UAM-UC3M))

  • Fernando Casani

    (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (España)
    Instituto Inaecu (UAM-UC3M))

Abstract

Background Citizen participation in the generation of scientific knowledge is one of the major challenges facing science and technology systems. This study takes a psychosocial approach to analyzing the process whereby citizens participate in science. Method A specific questionnaire was answered by 1002 residents of Spain belonging to different age groups, occupations, and education levels. Results Cluster analysis revealed two profiles: a minority group of people who are well informed, motivated, and interested, recognize the value and impact of science, and would be willing to donate money for and participate in science projects, and a group of people of the opposite profile who feel little if any interest in science. A logistic regression model designed to find the variables that contribute the most to participation showed that gender is a major predictor of participation and that knowing people who have participated in scientific projects is another important motivating factor. Conclusions Only a minority group of the population (young, university-educated women) participates prominently in scientific projects. Strategic initiatives are needed to increase the engagement of institutions and the public in citizen science.

Suggested Citation

  • Flor Sánchez & Ricardo Olmos & Leyla Angélica Sandoval & Fernando Casani, 2024. "Psychosocial factors that favor citizen participation in the generation of scientific knowledge," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 5021-5036, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05099-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05099-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05099-9
    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/s11192-024-05099-9?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. Loreta Tauginienė & Eglė Butkevičienė & Katrin Vohland & Barbara Heinisch & Maria Daskolia & Monika Suškevičs & Manuel Portela & Bálint Balázs & Baiba Prūse, 2020. "Citizen science in the social sciences and humanities: the power of interdisciplinarity," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Peter Weingart & Marina Joubert & Karien Connoway, 2021. "Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-30, July.
    3. Elizabeth Lehman & Ruth Jepson & John McAteer & Daryll Archibald, 2020. "What Motivates Volunteers to Engage in Health-Related Citizen Science Initiatives? A Case Study of Our Outdoors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-15, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stefan Thomas & David Scheller & Susan Schröder, 2021. "Co-creation in citizen social science: the research forum as a methodological foundation for communication and participation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. McKee, Martin & Altmann, Danny & Costello, Anthony & Friston, Karl & Haque, Zubaida & Khunti, Kamlesh & Michie, Susan & Oni, Tolullah & Pagel, Christina & Pillay, Deenan & Reicher, Steve & Salisbury, , 2022. "Open science communication: The first year of the UK's Independent Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 234-244.
    3. Fernando Almeida, 2022. "The Contribution of Local Agents and Citizens to Sustainable Development: The Portuguese Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Bruce V. Lewenstein, 2022. "Is Citizen Science a Remedy for Inequality?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 183-194, March.
    5. Sasha Marie Woods & Maria Daskolia & Alexis Joly & Pierre Bonnet & Karen Soacha & Sonia Liñan & Tim Woods & Jaume Piera & Luigi Ceccaroni, 2022. "How Networks of Citizen Observatories Can Increase the Quality and Quantity of Citizen-Science-Generated Data Used to Monitor SDG Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Justus Henke, 2022. "Can Citizen Science in the Humanities and Social Sciences Deliver on the Sustainability Goals?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-20, July.
    7. Raffael Heiss & Desirée Schmuck & Jörg Matthes & Carolin Eicher, 2021. "Citizen Science in Schools: Predictors and Outcomes of Participating in Voluntary Political Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, October.
    8. Lisa Mohebati & Elisa Iori & Morten Haugaard & Violeta Stancu & Javier de la Cueva & Patrik Rovný & Erik Jansto & Clara Mehlhose & Alina Schäfer & Isabelle Weiß & Charo Hodgkins & Monique Raats & Lada, 2024. "European Perspectives on Public Benefit in Relation to Food: Insights from a Serious Game Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-18, November.
    9. Anna Berti Suman & Edwin Alblas, 2023. "Exploring Citizen Science over Time: Sensing, Technology and the Law," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-13, March.
    10. Isabelle Bonhoure & Anna Cigarini & Julián Vicens & Bàrbara Mitats & Josep Perelló, 2023. "Reformulating computational social science with citizen social science: the case of a community-based mental health care research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Claudia Göbel & Sylvi Mauermeister & Justus Henke, 2022. "Citizen Social Science in Germany—cooperation beyond invited and uninvited participation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    12. Giffoni, Francesco & Florio, Massimo, 2023. "Public support of science: A contingent valuation study of citizens' attitudes about CERN with and without information about implicit taxes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    13. Bianca Vienni-Baptista & María Goñi Mazzitelli & María Haydeé García Bravo & Inta Rivas Fauré & Daniel Felipe Marín-Vanegas & Cecilia Hidalgo, 2022. "Situated expertise in integration and implementation processes in Latin America," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    14. Jean-Claude Baraka Munyaka & Jérôme Chenal & Pablo Txomin Harpo de Roulet & Anil Kumar Mandal & Uttam Pudasaini & Nixon Ouku Otieno, 2023. "Multi-Level Participatory GIS Framework to Assess Mobility Needs and Transport Barriers in Rural Areas: A Case Study of Rural Mumias East, a Sub-County of Kakamega, Kenya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-19, June.
    15. Jasmin Bhawra, 2022. "Decolonizing Digital Citizen Science: Applying the Bridge Framework for Climate Change Preparedness and Adaptation," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-14, April.
    16. Livia Fritz & Ulli Vilsmaier & Garance Clément & Laurie Daffe & Anna Pagani & Melissa Pang & Daniel Gatica-Perez & Vincent Kaufmann & Marie Santiago Delefosse & Claudia R. Binder, 2022. "Explore, engage, empower: methodological insights into a transformative mixed methods study tackling the COVID-19 lockdown," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.

    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:129:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05099-9. 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.