Crowds, citizens, and science: a multi-dimensional framework and agenda for future research

Figures & data

Figure 1. Large overlap between citizen science and crowd science projects.

Table 1. Examples of existing CS project taxonomies

Types of projects	Underlying dimensions	Authors
Contributory projects; collaborative projects; co-created projects	Extent of citizen involvement across different stages of the research process (number of stages) Particular types of activities performed by citizens (e.g. data collection vs. project design)	Shirk et al. (2012)
Crowdsourcing; distributed intelligence; participatory science; extreme citizen science	Extent of citizen involvement across different stages of the research process Particular types of activities performed by citizens	Haklay (2013)
Action projects; conservation projects; investigation projects; virtual projects; education projects	Project goals Mode of operation (e.g. online vs. offline)	Wiggins and Crowston (2011)
Sensing; computing; analysing; self-reporting; making	Particular types of activities performed by citizens	Strasser (2019)
Distributed coding; distributed data collection; distributed sub-problems; collective problem solving	Task complexity Skill requirements Particular types of activities performed by crowd members	Franzoni and Sauermann (2014)

Figure 2. Conceptual framework and illustrative ‘profiles’ of crowd contributions for Galaxy Zoo (Panel A), CurieuzeNeuzen (Panel B), and Polymath projects (Panel C).

Entries reflect only the primary/dominant crowd contributions, as judged by the authors based on published sources and discussions with lead investigators. We abstract from uncommon and exceptional contributions.

Figure 2. Continued.

Figure 3. Profile of project contributions made by lead investigators, crowd, and machines .

Hypothetical project, simplified for illustration. Blue cells indicate that a particular actor made a significant contribution in a particular stage of the research. To profile a real project, the blue cells will also include more detailed information, similar to the profiles shown in Figure 2.

Figure 4. Opportunities for future research on key organisational aspects of Crowd and Citizen Science.

Shirk, J. L., H. L. Ballard, C. C. Wilderman, T. Phillips, A. Wiggins, R. Jordan, E. McCallie. et al. 2012. “Public Participation in Scientific Research: A Framework for Deliberate Design.” Ecology and Society 17 (2): A29. Ddoi:https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04705-170229.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Haklay, M. 2013. “Citizen Science and Volunteered Geographic Information: Overview and Typology of Participation.” In Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge, edited by D. Sui, S. Elwood, and M. Goodchild, 105–122, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

 Google Scholar

Wiggins, A., and K. Crowston. 2011. From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science. Paper presented at the 44th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS), Kauai, Hawaii, USA.

 Google Scholar

Strasser, B., J. Baudry, D. Mahr, G. Sanchez, and E. Tancoigne. 2019. ““Citizen Science”? Rethinking Science and Public Participation.” Science & Technology Studies 32: 52–76.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Franzoni, C., and H. Sauermann. 2014. “Crowd Science: The Organization of Scientific Research in Open Collaborative Projects.” Research Policy 43 (1): 1–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar