Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Dynamics of Engagement in Citizen Science: Results from the “Yes, I do!”-Project Cover

Dynamics of Engagement in Citizen Science: Results from the “Yes, I do!”-Project

Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
Volume 4 (2019): Issue 1
By: Tine De Moor,  Auke Rijpma and  Montserrat Prats López  
Open Access
|Dec 2019

References

  1. 1Aristeidou, M, Scanlon, E and Sharples, M. 2017. Profiles of engagement in online communities of citizen science participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 74: 246–256. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.044
    Back to article
  2. 2Blohm, I, Zogaj, S, Bretschneider, U and Leimeister, JM. 2018. How to Manage Crowdsourcing Platforms Effectively? California Management Review, 60(2): 122–149. DOI: 10.1177/0008125617738255
    Back to article
  3. 3Bonney, R, Ballard, H, Jordan, R, McCallie, E, Phillips, T, Shirk, J and Wilderman, C. 2009. Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing its Potential for Informal Science Education. White Paper. CAISE Public Participation in Scientific Research Inquiry Group. Online access at http://www.informalscience.org/public-participation-scientific-research-defining-field-and-assessing-its-potential-informal-science [Last accessed 12 August 2019].
    Back to article
  4. 4Brumfield, B. 2012. Quality Control for Crowdsourced Transcription, 5 March 2012. Available at http://manuscripttranscription.blogspot.nl/2012/03/quality-control-for-crowdsourced.html [Last accessed 12 August 2019].
    Back to article
  5. 5Causer, T and Wallace, V. 2012. Building a volunteer community: Results and findings from Transcribe Bentham. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 6(2). Available at http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/6/2/000125/000125.html [Last accessed 12 August 2019]
    Back to article
  6. 6Cooper, CB, Dickinson, J, Phillips, T and Bonney, R. 2007. Citizen Science as a Tool for Conservation in Residential Ecosystems. Ecology and Society, 12(2): 11–21. DOI: 10.5751/ES-02197-120211
    Back to article
  7. 7Cox, J, Oh, EY, Brooke, S, Lintott, C, Masters, K, Greenhill, A, Graham, G and Holmes, K. 2015. Defining and Measuring Success in Online Citizen Science: A Case Study of Zooniverse Projects. Computing in Science & Engineering, 17(4): 28–41. DOI: 10.1109/MCSE.2015.65
    Back to article
  8. 8Crall, A, Kosmala, M, Cheng, R, Brier, J, Cavalier, D, Henderson, S and Richardson, AD. 2017. Volunteer recruitment and retention in online citizen science projects using marketing strategies: lessons from Season Spotter. Journal of Science Communication, 16(1): 1–28. DOI: 10.22323/2.16010201
    Back to article
  9. 9Crawford, ER, Rich, BL, Buchkman, B and Bergeron, J. 2014. The antecedents and drivers of employee engagement. In: Truss, C, Delbridge, R, Alfes, K, Shantz, A and Soane, E (eds.), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, 57–81. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
    Back to article
  10. 10Curtis, V. 2018. Online citizen science and the widening of academia: Distributed engagement with research and knowledge production. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-77664-4
    Back to article
  11. 11De Moor, T and Van Zanden, JL. 2010. Girl power: the European marriage pattern and labour markets in the North Sea region in the late medieval and early modern period. The Economic History Review, 63(1): 1–33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0289.2009.00483.x
    Back to article
  12. 12Dobreva, M. 2016. Collective Knowledge and Creativity: The Future of Citizen Science in the Humanities. In: Kunifuji, S, Papadopoulos, GA, Skulimowski, AMJ and Kacprzyk, J (eds.), Knowledge, Information and Creativity Support Systems, 565–573. S.l.: Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-27478-2_44
    Back to article
  13. 13Eveleigh, A, Jennett, C, Blandford, A, Brohan, P and Cox, AL. 2014. Designing for dabblers and deterring dropouts in citizen science. CHI ’14 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Pages, Toronto (Canada), 26 May–1 June 2014, 2985–2994. DOI: 10.1145/2556288.2557262
    Back to article
  14. 14Franzoni, C and Sauermann, H. 2014. Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Research Policy, 43(1): 1–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.005
    Back to article
  15. 15Frensley, T, Crall, A, Stern, M, Jordan, R, Gray, S, Prysby, M, Newman, G, Hmelo-Silver, C, Mellor, D and Huang, J. 2017. Bridging the Benefits of Online and Community Supported Citizen Science: A Case Study on Motivation and Retention with Conservation-Oriented Volunteers. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 2(1): art. 4. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.84
    Back to article
  16. 16Jeppesen, LB and Frederiksen, L. 2006. Why Do Users Contribute to Firm-Hosted User Communities? The Case of Computer-Controlled Music Instruments. Organization Science, 17(1): 45–63. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0156
    Back to article
  17. 17Lehmann, J, Lalmas, M, Yom-Tov, E and Dupret, G. 2012. Models of User Engagement. In: Masthoff, J, Mobasher, B, Desmarais, MC, and Nkambou, R (eds.), User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference, UMAP 2012, Montreal, Canada, July 2012, 164–175. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-31454-4_14
    Back to article
  18. 18Masters, K, Oh, EY, Cox, J, Simmons, B, Lintott, C, Graham, G, Greenhill, A and Holmes, K. 2016. Science Learning via Participation in Online Citizen Science. Journal of Science Communication, 15(3): 7. DOI: 10.22323/2.15030207
    Back to article
  19. 19Newton, C, Becker, K and Bell, S. 2014. Learning and development opportunities as a tool for the retention of volunteers: a motivational perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 24(4): 514–530. DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12040
    Back to article
  20. 20Nov, O, Arazy, O and Anderson, D. 2014. Scientists@Home: What Drives the Quantity and Quality of Online Citizen Science Participation? PLoS ONE, 9(4). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090375
    Back to article
  21. 21Ponciano, L and Brasileiro, F. 2014. Finding Volunteers’ Engagement Profiles in Human Computation for Citizen Science Projects. Human Computation, 1(2): 247–266. DOI: 10.15346/hc.v1i2.12
    Back to article
  22. 22Ponciano, L, Brasileiro, F, Simpson, R and Smith, A. 2014. Volunteers’ Engagement in Human Computation for Astronomy Projects. Computing in Science & Engineering, 16(6): 52–59. DOI: 10.1109/MCSE.2014.4
    Back to article
  23. 23Preece, J. 2016. Citizen Science: New Research Challenges for Human–Computer Interaction. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 32(8): 585–612. DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2016.1194153
    Back to article
  24. 24Raddick, MJ, Bracey, G, Gay, PL, Lintott, CJ, Murray, P, Schawinski, K, Szalay, AS and Vandenberg, J. 2010. Galaxy Zoo: Exploring the Motivations of Citizen Science Volunteers. Astronomy Education Review, 9(1). DOI: 10.3847/AER2009036
    Back to article
  25. 25Riesch, H and Potter, C. 2014. Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 107–120. DOI: 10.1177/0963662513497324
    Back to article
  26. 26Rotman, D, Hammock, J, Preece, J, Hansen, D, Boston, C, Bowser, A and He, Y. 2014. Motivations Affecting Initial and Long-Term Participation in Citizen Science Projects in Three Countries. Paper presented at the iConference 2014, Berlin, Germany 4–7 March, 2014. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266629092_Motivations_Affecting_Initial_and_Long-Term_Participation_in_Citizen_Science_Projects_in_Three_Countries [Last accessed 12 August 2019].
    Back to article
  27. 27Sauermann, H and Franzoni, C. 2015. Crowd Science User Contribution Patterns and Their Implications. Proceedings of the Natonal Academy of Sciences 112(3): 679–684. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1408907112
    Back to article
  28. 28Schaufeli, WB. 2014. What is engagement? In: Truss, C, Delbridge, R, Alfes, K, Shantz, A and Soane, E (eds.), Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, 15–35. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
    Back to article
  29. 29Shirk, JL, Ballard, HL, Wilderman, CC, Phillips, T, Wiggins, A, Jordan, R, McCallie, E, Minarchek, M, Lewenstein, BV, Krasny, ME and Bonney, R. 2012. Public Participation in Scientific Research: a Framework for Deliberate Design. Ecology and Society, 17(2): 29. DOI: 10.5751/ES-04705-170229
    Back to article
  30. 30Simpson, MR. 2009. Engagement at work: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(7): 1012–1024. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.05.003
    Back to article
  31. 31Simula, H. 2013. The Rise and Fall of Crowdsourcing? HICSS ‘13 Proceedings of the 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Hawaii, 7–10 January 2013), 2783–2791. DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2013.537
    Back to article
  32. 32Van der Kraan, S. 2016. Do ut des: het principe van wederkerigheid. Historica Tine de Moor over citizen science en burgercollectieven. EOS wetenschap [2016]. Available at https://www.iedereenwetenschapper.be/article/do-ut-des-het-principe-van-wederkerigheid.
    Back to article
  33. 33Van der Loo, MPJ. 2014. The Stringdist Package for Approximate String Matching. The R Journal, 6(1): 111–122. DOI: 10.32614/RJ-2014-011
    Back to article
  34. 34Van der Wal, R, Sharma, N, Mellish, C, Robinson, A and Siddharthan, A. 2016. The role of automated feedback in training and retaining biological recorders for citizen science. Conservation Biology, 30(3): 550–561. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12705
    Back to article
  35. 35Van Weeren, R and Boele, A. 2016. Het West-Europese huwelijkspatroon: Beter laat en soms wel nooit? Gen, 22(3): 30–35.
    Back to article
  36. 36Wald, DM, Longo, J and Dobell, AR. 2016. Design principles for engaging and retaining virtual citizen scientists. Conservation Biology, 30(3): 562–570. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12627
    Back to article
  37. 37West, S and Pateman, R. 2016. Recruiting and Retaining Participants in Citizen Science: What Can Be Learned from the Volunteering Literature? Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(2): 15. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.8
    Back to article
  38. 38Wiggins, A. 2013. Free as in puppies: compensating for ICT constraints in citizen science. Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, San Antonio, Texas, USA (23–27 February 2013). DOI: 10.1145/2441776.2441942
    Back to article
  39. 39Wiggins, A and Crowston, K. 2011. From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science. Proceedings of the 2011 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Hawaii, 4–7 January 2011). DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2011.207
    Back to article
  40. 40Wiggins, A and Crowston, K. 2015. Surveying the Citizen Science Landscape. First Monday, 20(1). Available at https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5520/4194 [Last accessed 12 August 2019]. DOI: 10.5210/fm.v20i1.5520
    Back to article
  41. 41Wiggins, A, Newman, G, Stevenson, RD and Crowston, K. 2011. Mechanisms for Data Quality and Validation in Citizen Science. Proceedings of the 2011 Seventh IEEE International Conference on e-Science Workshops (Stockholm, 5–8 December 2011). DOI: 10.1109/eScienceW.2011.27
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.212 | Journal eISSN: 2057-4991
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Oct 9, 2018
Accepted on: Sep 30, 2019
Published on: Dec 12, 2019
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
online citizen science,
engagement,
humanities

© 2019 Tine De Moor, Auke Rijpma, Montserrat Prats López, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 4 (2019): Issue 1