Abstract
Citizen science (CS) is a diverse practice, with projects emphasizing scientific and/or democratization goals. While the integration of both goals is advocated for sustainability transitions, this implies contextualized methodological choices.
This contribution presents an instrument to explore methodological choices in relation to project goals and context, linking these patterns to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By way of a PRISMA scoping review, case studies implemented in the Global North (GN) or Global South (GS) were selected and categorized using the instrument to identify notable patterns. GN projects are generally published by GN authors and can predominantly be linked to productivity goals relating to SDGs on biodiversity (SDGs 14, 15). In contrast, GS projects are commonly associated with diverse co-author groups that focus on democratization and/or productivity, and prioritize SDGs on agriculture, health, sustainable communities, and climate change (SDGs 2, 3, 11, 13). The analyzed case studies could contribute directly to three SDG indicators and indirectly to 22.
Methodological choices regarding project goals and themes translate into variations in participant selection and recruitment, contribution types, and project outcomes. Further, project design and outcomes can be linked to co-authorships, with larger teams typically associated with co-created projects which in turn focus on democratization or democratization and productivity goals, and produce a wide diversity of outcomes.
Qualitative information extracted from the investigated papers was used to contextualize the relevance of combining productivity and democratization goals as well as the related challenges of harmonizing different interests and of resource limitations as well as other project constraints.