Community geography is a growing subfield that provides a framework for relevant and engaged scholarship. In this paper, we define community geography as a form of research praxis, one that involves academic and public scholars with the goal of co-produced and mutually-beneficial knowledge. Community geography draws from a pragmatist model of inquiry, one that views communities as emergent through a recursive process of problem definition and social action. We situate the growth of community geography programs as rooted in two overlapping but distinct traditions: disciplinary development of participatory methodologies and institutional traditions of community engagement in American higher education. We then trace the historical development of these programs, identifying common themes and outlining several challenges that community geographers should prioritize as this subfield continues to grow.
Many citizen science (CS) programs aim to grow and sustain a pool of enthusiastic participants who consistently contribute their efforts to a specific scientific endeavor. Consequently, much research has explored CS participants' motivations and their relationship to participant recruitment and retention. However, much of this research has focused on actively participating citizen scientists. If researchers want to elucidate the relationship between participant factors (such as demographics and motivations) and participant retention, it is necessary to develop a more comprehensive picture of the different degrees of participation in CS. This paper presents a framework for classifying participation throughout the participant's engagement in a CS project/program. We suggest a CS participation model that captures the dynamic nature of participation across an arc of volunteering. Called the Nibble-and-Drop Framework, the model describes multiple exit points and stages of contribution typical of participation in a CS program. Applying the framework to the NASA GLOBE Observer (GO) CS program, we found that it captured the dynamics of participation in a global-scale, mobile, app-based, contributorystyle CS project. The framework guided our analysis of how different participant factors correlate with degrees of participation. We found that participants were motivated to initially participate because they wanted to contribute to NASA research and science. Participants who dropped out of the program at various points often initially engaged through specific collection events and did not feel the need to continue contributing beyond the event; other drop-outs doubted whether their contributions were meaningful, showing again the need to ensure that participants understand the value of their engagement in a CS project.
Community Geography offers researchers, community groups, and students opportunities to engage in action oriented applied geographical research. Creating and sustaining these research programs can be challenging, programs can involve many partners from both academic and the community, have different goals and purposes, and utilize a variety of methods to perform research. In this paper we offer a framework of three primary overarching principles for implementing CG projects; (1) Who, (2) Why, and (3) How. (1) “Who” describes who is involved in CG, including researchers, community partners, academic institutions, (2) “Why” describes the justifications and benefits of taking this approach. (3) “How” explains how CG borrows methodologies from many disciplines within geography and beyond. Our examples are not exhaustive; rather, they serve as starting points to inspire researchers interested in CG.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.