Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the Effectiveness of Citizen Science

Abstract

In light of arguments that citizen science has the potential to make environmental knowledge and policy more robust and democratic, this article inquires into the factors that shape the ability of citizen science to actually influence scientists and decision makers. Using the case of community-based air toxics monitoring with ‘‘buckets,’’ it argues that citizen science’s effectiveness is significantly influenced by standards and standardized practices. It demonstrates that, on one hand, standards serve a boundary-bridging function that affords bucket monitoring data a crucial measure of legitimacy among experts. On the other hand, standards simultaneously serve a boundary-policing function, allowing experts to dismiss bucket data as irrelevant to the central project of air quality assessment. The article thus calls attention to standard setting as an important site of intervention for citizen science-based efforts to democratize science and policy.

A framework for addressing ethical issues in citizen science

“…Likewise, a bird-watcher may participate in a bird counting project to help protect wildlife. Citizens can also influence research projects so that they are more responsive to the needs of disadvantaged or marginalized groups (Epstein, 1998;Corburn, 2005;Ottinger, 2010).…”

“…To collect air samples, the citizens used inexpensive, easy-to-use devices colloquially called ''buckets,'' whereas the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality used more sophisticated ''Summa canisters.'' Many regulators expressed skepticism about whether the buckets provided sufficiently accurate data, but Ottinger (2010) reports that these concerns were partially alleviated because the air from the buckets was analyzed using the same standardized analytical technique used by regulators and industry. Another concern about the buckets was that they were used to collect short-term air samples, whereas state regulatory standards were based on average pollution levels over longer periods of time.…”

“…Lay people may also petition to use techniques for data collection or analysis that have some merits (e.g. because they are inexpensive or more likely to identify potential hazards) but which are somewhat less reliable than other techniques and therefore not preferred by the scientific community (Ottinger, 2010). There are several strategies scientists can use to address this issue.…”

“…They may need to discard or correct data that they believe have been collected improperly (Riesch and Potter, 2014). In some cases, scientists may find it appropriate to reconsider accepted standards for data collection or analysis in response to legitimate citizen concerns about the potential for conventional techniques to underestimate hazards (Corburn, 2005;Elliott, 2014;Ottinger, 2010).…”

The Civic Informatics of FracTracker Alliance: Working with Communities to Understand the Unconventional Oil and Gas Industry

“…Hess (2016) argues that civil society organizations contend with the issue of undone science in a variety of ways, such as by identifying knowledge gaps and generating independent research to fill those gaps. Indeed, many STS scholars have demonstrated that civil society groups are capable of sophisticated levels of independent engagements with scientific research (Ottinger 2009;P. Brown 2007;Irwin 2002;McCormick 2009;Epstein 1996;Wynne 1996).…”