Public Participation in Scientific Research: a Framework for Deliberate Design

Members of the public participate in scientific research in many different contexts, stemming from traditions as varied as participatory action research and citizen science. Particularly in conservation and natural resource management contexts, where research often addresses complex social–ecological questions, the emphasis on and nature of this participation can significantly affect both the way that projects are designed and the outcomes that projects achieve. We review and integrate recent work in these and other fields, which has converged such that we propose the term public participation in scientific research (PPSR) to discuss initiatives from diverse fields and traditions. We describe three predominant models of PPSR and call upon case studies suggesting that—regardless of the research context—project outcomes are influenced by (1) the degree of public participation in the research process and (2) the quality of public participation as negotiated during project design. To illustrate relationships between the quality of participation and outcomes, we offer a framework that considers how scientific and public interests are negotiated for project design toward multiple, integrated goals. We suggest that this framework and models, used in tandem, can support deliberate design of PPSR efforts that will enhance their outcomes for scientific research, individual participants, and social–ecological systems

Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection

Citizen science has advanced science for hundreds of years, contributed to many peer-reviewed articles, and informed land management decisions and policies across the United States. Over the last 10 years, citizen science has grown immensely in the United States and many other countries. Here, we show how citizen science is a powerful tool for tackling many of the challenges faced in the field of conservation biology. We describe the two interwoven paths bywhich citizen science can improve conservation efforts, natural resource management, and environmental protection. The first path includes building scientific knowledge, while the other path involves informing policy and encouraging public action. We explore how citizen science is currently used and describe the investments needed to create a citizen science program. We find that: 1. Citizen science already contributes substantially to many domains of science, including conservation, natural resource, and environmental science. Citizen science informs natural resource management, environmental protection, and policymaking and fosters public input and engagement. 2. Many types of projects can benefit fromcitizen science, but one must be careful tomatch the needs for science and public involvement with the right type of citizen science project and the right method of public participation. 3. Citizen science is a rigorous process of scientific discovery, indistinguishable from conventional science apart from the participation of volunteers.When properly designed, carried out, and evaluated, citizen science can provide sound science, efficiently generate high-quality data, and help solve problems

Associations for Citizen Science: Regional Knowledge, Global Collaboration

Since 2012, three organizations advancing the work of citizen science practitioners have arisen in different regions: The primarily US-based but globally open Citizen Science Association (CSA), the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA), and the Australian Citizen Science Association (ACSA). These associations are moving rapidly to establish themselves and to develop inter-association collaborations. We consider the factors driving this emergence and the significance of this trend for citizen science as a field of practice, as an area of scholarship, and for the culture of scientific research itself

Associations for Citizen Science: Regional Knowledge, Global Collaboration

Since 2012, three organizations advancing the work of citizen science practitioners have arisen in different regions: The primarily US-based but globally open Citizen Science Association (CSA), the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA), and the Australian Citizen Science Association (ACSA). These associations are moving rapidly to establish themselves and to develop inter-association collaborations. We consider the factors driving this emergence and the significance of this trend for citizen science as a field of practice, as an area of scholarship, and for the culture of scientific research itself

Child involvement, alliance, and therapist flexibility: Process variables in cognitive-behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in childhood

Background: This study examined the relations between treatment process variables and child anxiety outcomes. Method: Independent raters watched/listened to taped therapy sessions of 151 anxiety-disordered (6-14 yr-old; M=10.71) children (43% boys) and assessed process variables (child alliance, therapist alliance, child involvement, therapist flexibility and therapist functionality) within a manual-based cognitive-behavioural treatment. Latent growth modelling examined three latent variables (intercept, slope, and quadratic) for each process variable. Child age, gender, family income and ethnicity were examined as potential antecedents. Outcome was analyzed using factorially derived clinician, mother, father, child and teacher scores from questionnaire and structured diagnostic interviews at pretreatment, posttreatment and 12-month follow-up. Results: Latent growth models demonstrated a concave quadratic curve for child involvement and therapist flexibility over time. A predominantly linear, downward slope was observed for alliance, and functional flexibility remained consistent over time. Increased alliance, child involvement and therapist flexibility showed some albeit inconsistent, associations with positive treatment outcome. Conclusion: Findings support the notion that maintaining the initial high level of alliance or involvement is important for clinical improvement. There is some support that progressively increasing alliance/involvement also positively impacts on treatment outcome. These findings were not consistent across outcome measurement points or reporters.8 page(s