Who takes part in Citizen Science projects & why?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

CS Track: “Citizen Science in Europe, as elsewhere, continues to manifest itself in a variety of different ways. While attracting interest across multiple sectors of society, its definition remains unclear. The first CS Track White Paper on Themes, objectives and participants of citizen science activities has just been published and, along with the initial results of the first large scale survey into participation in citizen science, provides an important overview of who participates in citizen science projects and what motivates them. This short report focuses on one aspect that emerges in this white paper.

Citizen Science Participants – who are they? 

Participants and who they are, have a significant impact on the objectives and outcomes of citizen science projects. However, existing information on the demographics of participants in citizen science projects is very limited and most studies have focused on a single project or programme. Furthermore, certain groups, like young people, are underrepresented in the available data.

What our research team has gathered from the literature and the initial results of the CS Track large-scale survey is the following:

  • Well-educated, affluent participants outnumber less affluent participants,
  • More men than women take part in many of the programmes that have been analysed.
  • Citizen scientists seem to be white, middle-aged, scientifically literate or generally interested in science or scientific topics.
  • Scientists, academics, teachers, science students and people who have a passion for the outdoors are among the groups of people most likely to take part in citizen science.
  • In agricultural, biological and environmental science-based programmes, participants are often scientists themselves, science teachers or students, conservation group members, backpackers or hikers or other outdoor enthusiasts – in other words people who care about nature.
  • Community and youth citizen science projects are underrepresented in the available data….(More)“.

Goldman Sachs will soon launch its own version of LinkedIn

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Sarah Butcher at EFC: “Sometime soon, it will happen. After two years of construction, Goldman Sachs is expected to launch its own version of LinkedIn – first at Goldman, and then into the world at large. 

Known as Louisa, the platform was conceived by Rohan Doctor, a former head of bank solutions sales at Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong. Doctor submitted his idea for a kind of “internal LinkedIn network” to Accelerate, Goldman Sachs’ internal incubator program in 2019. He’s been building it from New York ever since. It’s thought to be ready soon.

Neither Doctor nor Goldman Sachs would comment for this article, but based on statements Doctor has made on his LinkedIn profile and recent job advertisements for members of his team, Louisa is a “collective intelligence platform” that will enable Goldman staff to connect with each other and to share information in a more meaningful and intuitive way. In doing so, it’s hoped that Goldman will be able to improve knowledge transfer within the firm and that Goldman people will be able to serve clients better as a result.

Goldman has built Louisa around artificial intelligence. When an employee asks Louisa a question, the platform uses natural language processing (NLP) techniques like named entity recognition, language modelling and query parsing to understand the kind of information that’s being sought. Data from user interactions is then used to build user preference feedback loops and user representation models that can target content to particular users and suggest topics. Network analysis is used to identify how users are engaging with each other, to suggest other users or groups of users to engage with, and to look at how Louisa’s features are being used by particular user clusters…(More)”.

Less complex language, more participation: how consultation documents shape participatory patterns

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Simon Fink, Eva Ruffing, Tobias Burst & Sara Katharina Chinnow: “Consultations are thought to increase the legitimacy of policies. However, this reasoning only holds if stakeholders really participate in the consultations. Current scholarship offers three explanations for participation patterns: Institutional rules, policy characteristics, and interest group resources determine participation. This article argues that additionally the linguistic complexity of consultation documents influences participation. Complex language deters potential participants, because it raises the costs of participation. A quantitative analysis of the German consultation of electricity grids lends credibility to the argument: If the description of a power line is simplified between two consultation rounds, the number of contributions mentioning that power line increases. This result contributes to our understanding of unequal participation patterns, and the institutional design of participatory procedures. If we think that legitimacy is enhanced by broad participation, then language of the documents matters….(More)”.

Are citizen juries and assemblies on climate change driving democratic climate policymaking? An exploration of two case studies in the UK

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Rebecca Wells, Candice Howarth & Lina I. Brand-Correa: “In light of increasing pressure to deliver climate action targets and the growing role of citizens in raising the importance of the issue, deliberative democratic processes (e.g. citizen juries and citizen assemblies) on climate change are increasingly being used to provide a voice to citizens in climate change decision-making. Through a comparative case study of two processes that ran in the UK in 2019 (the Leeds Climate Change Citizens’ Jury and the Oxford Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Change), this paper investigates how far citizen assemblies and juries are increasing citizen engagement on climate change and creating more citizen-centred climate policymaking. Interviews were conducted with policymakers, councillors, professional facilitators and others involved in running these processes to assess motivations for conducting these, their structure and the impact and influence they had. The findings suggest the impact of these processes is not uniform: they have an indirect impact on policy making by creating momentum around climate action and supporting the introduction of pre-planned or pre-existing policies rather than a direct impact by truly being citizen-centred policy making processes or conducive to new climate policy. We conclude with reflections on how these processes give elected representatives a public mandate on climate change, that they help to identify more nuanced and in-depth public opinions in a fair and informed way, yet it can be challenging to embed citizen juries and assemblies in wider democratic processes….(More)”.

Expertise, ‘Publics’ and the Construction of Government Policy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Introduction to Special Issue of Discover Society about the role of expertise and professional knowledge in democracy by John Holmwood: “In the UK, the vexed nature of the issue was, perhaps, best illustrated by (then Justice Secretary) Michael Gove’s comment during the Brexit campaign that he thought, “the people of this country have had enough of experts.” The comment is oft cited, and derided, especially in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, where the public has, or so it is argued, found a new respect for a science that can guide public policy and deliver solutions.

Yet, Michael Gove’s point was more nuanced than is usually credited. It wasn’t scientific advice that he claimed people were fed up with, but “experts with organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.” In other words, his complaint was about specific organised advocacy groups and their intervention in public debate and reporting in the media.

… the Government has consistently mobilised the claimed expert opinion of organisations in justification of their policies

Michael Gove’s extended comment was disingenuous. After all, the Brexit campaign, no less than the Remain campaign, drew upon arguments from think tanks and lobby groups. Moreover, since the referendum, the Government has consistently mobilised the claimed expert opinion of organisations in justification of their policies. Indeed, as Layla Aitlhadj and John Holmwood in this special issue argue, they have deliberately ‘managed’ civil society groups and supposedly independent reviews, such as that currently underway into the Prevent counter extremism policy.

In fact, there is nothing straightforward about the relationship between expertise and democracy as Stephen Turner (2003) has observed. The development of liberal democracy involves the rise of professional and expert knowledge which underpins the everyday governance of public institutions. At the same time, wider publics are asked to trust that knowledge even where it impinges directly upon their preferences; they are not in a position to evaluate it, except through the mediation of other experts. Elected politicians and governments, in turn, are dependent on expert knowledge to guide their policy choices, which are duly constrained by what is possible on the basis of technical judgements….(More)”

It’s not all about populism: grassroots democracy is thriving across Europe

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Richard Youngs at The Guardian: “The past decade has been a bruising one for the health of European democracy. The dramatic authoritarian turns in Hungary and Poland have attracted most attention, but nearly all European governments have chipped away at civil liberties, judicial independence and civil society.

With Covid accentuating many of the challenges posed by populism, disinformation and a collapse in public trust, the narrative of democracy labouring in deep crisis is now well established. Yet as the threats have mounted, so have efforts to defend and rethink Europe’s democratic practices.

Most spontaneously, there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of mass protests, even during the pandemic, many in support of democratic values. People have mobilised against corruption or around particular policy issues and then taken on a broader democratic reform agenda. This has been the case in Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia, the women’s strike in Poland, the Sardines movement in Italy, the Million Moments movement in the Czech Republic and protests in Malta initially triggered by journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder. Climate movements such as Extinction Rebellion are also beginning to marry their ecology demands to concerns with democratic reform. People invented new forms of protest under Covid: for example, Polish citizens protested against new abortion laws and the timing of elections by taking to their cars in procession, honking horns and playing alarms out of their windows, still in full compliance with restrictions on public gatherings.

New civil society initiatives aim at tackling polarisation. One example is a project called Arguments Against Aggression, which tries to equip people with more empathetic communication and debating skills than those typically experienced on social media and has now run in seven EU member states. Meanwhile, Covid has given rise to hundreds of civic mutual aid initiatives, such as En Première Ligne in France whose website puts those who need help directly in touch with local volunteers. Civil society organisations are also working more closely with protest movements. The Corruption Kills group in Romania, for example, evolved from anti-corruption protests and an outpouring of public anger at the deaths of more than 60 people in a nightclub fire. Online initiatives, meanwhile, are reclaiming the positive democratic potential of digital technology, finding new formats to feed citizens’ views into policymaking.

More and more citizens’ assemblies have sprung up…(More)”.

You Have More Influence Than You Think

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Vanessa Bohns: “An original investigation of our hidden power to persuade, and how to wield it wisely.

If you’ve ever felt ineffective, invisible, or inarticulate, chances are you weren’t actually any of those things. Those feelings may instead have been the result of a lack of awareness we all seem to have for how our words, actions, and even our mere presence affect other people.

In You Have More Influence Than You Think social psychologist Vanessa Bohns draws from her original research to illustrate why we fail to recognize the influence we have, and how that lack of awareness can lead us to miss opportunities or accidentally misuse our power.

Weaving together compelling stories with cutting edge science, Bohns answers the questions we all want to know (but may be afraid to ask): How much did she take to heart what I said earlier? Do they know they can push back on my suggestions? Did he notice whether I was there today? Will they agree to help me if I ask?

Whether attending a meeting, sharing a post online, or mustering the nerve to ask for a favor, we often assume our actions, input, and requests will be overlooked or rejected. Bohns and her work demonstrate that people see us, listen to us, and agree to do things for us much more than we realize—for better, and worse.

You Have More Influence Than You Think offers science-based strategies for observing the effect we have on others, reconsidering our fear of rejection, and even, sometimes, pulling back to use our influence less. It is a call to stop searching for ways to gain influence you don’t have and to start recognizing the influence you don’t realize you already have…(More)”.

Media and Social Capital

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Filipe R. Campante, Ruben Durante & Andrea Tesei: “We survey the empirical literature in economics on the impact of media technologies on social capital. Motivated by a simple model of information and collective action, we cover a range of different outcomes related to social capital, from social and political participation to interpersonal trust, in its benign and destructive manifestations. The impact of media technologies hinges on their content (“information” vs “entertainment”), their effectiveness in fostering coordination, and the networks they create, as well as individual characteristics and media consumption choices….(More)”

Introducing collective crisis intelligence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blogpost by Annemarie Poorterman et al: “…It has been estimated that over 600,000 Syrians have been killed since the start of the civil war, including tens of thousands of civilians killed in airstrike attacks. Predicting where and when strikes will occur and issuing time-critical warnings enabling civilians to seek safety is an ongoing challenge. It was this problem that motivated the development of Sentry Syria, an early warning system that alerts citizens to a possible airstrike. Sentry uses acoustic sensor data, reports from on-the-ground volunteers, and open media ‘scraping’ to detect warplanes in flight. It uses historical data and AI to validate the information from these different data sources and then issues warnings to civilians 5-10 minutes in advance of a strike via social media, TV, radio and sirens. These extra minutes can be the difference between life and death.

Sentry Syria is just one example of an emerging approach in the humanitarian response we call collective crisis intelligence (CCI). CCI methods combine the collective intelligence (CI) of local community actors (e.g. volunteer plane spotters in the case of Sentry) with a wide range of additional data sources, artificial intelligence (AI) and predictive analytics to support crisis management and reduce the devastating impacts of humanitarian emergencies….(More)”

The Future of Citizen Engagement: Rebuilding the Democratic Dialogue

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Congressional Management Foundation: “The Future of Citizen Engagement: Rebuilding the Democratic Dialogue” explores the current challenges to engagement and trust between Senators and Representatives and their constituents; proposes principles for rebuilding that fundamental democratic relationship; and describes innovative practices in federal, state, local, and international venues that Congress could look to for modernizing the democratic dialogue.

cmf citizen engagement rebuilding democratic dialogue cover 200x259

The report answers the following questions:

  • What factors have contributed to the deteriorating state of communications between citizens and Congress?
  • What principles should guide Congress as it tries to transform its communications systems and practices from administrative transactions to substantive interactions with the People it represents?
  • What models at the state and international level can Congress follow as it modernizes and rebuilds the democratic dialogue?

The findings and recommendations in this report are based on CMF’s long history of researching the relationship between Members of Congress and their constituents…(More)”.