Table 1
Overview of the DIP taxonomy and its link into the citizen science literature.
| DIMENSION | SUB-DIMENSION AND CHARACTERISTICS | LINK TO THE CITIZEN SCIENCE LITERATURE/PRACTICE |
|---|---|---|
| Degree of participation | D1 Extent of participation (information sharing, consultative, democratic) | 5 levels of the participatory degree in Shirk et al. (2012) 4 levels of participation degree in Haklay (2013) |
| D2 Participation offer (single task, multiple tasks optional or mandatory) | Based on empirical project examples | |
| D3 Type of participation (active effort- or resource-based, low-effort) | Based on e-participation and crowdsourcing literature | |
| Implementation of participation | D4 Format (digital, hybrid, either parallel or sequential) | Based on practitioners’ feedback |
| D5 Implementation (asynchronous via platforms or mobile applications, synchronous) | Based on empirical project examples | |
| D6 Structure of participation (teamwork, individual work) | Individual contributions in crowdsourcing or contributory citizen science, teamwork in collegial citizen science (Haklay 2013; Shirk et al. 2012) | |
| D7 Time requirements (high, low, self-selected) | Based on empirical project examples | |
| D8 Prerequisites (domain knowledge, domain-specific equipment, assumed preconditions) | Based on empirical project examples | |
| Incentives | D9 Incentives for participation (self-related intrinsic or extrinsic, impact-related) | Highlighting different participation incentives (Haklay 2013), such as intrinsic motivation (e.g., curiosity, topic interest in Haklay (2013) or Jennett et al. (2016)) or impact-related motivation (e.g., contributing to science in Jennett et al., (2016)) |
| D10 Reasons for the participatory design (acceptance and legitimation, funding, access, and resources, value-based, profit maximization) | Sociological, natural science, and policy perspectives on citizen science depict social and economic reasoning for participatory scientific practices (Levy and Germonprez 2017). | |
| Communication | D11 Direction of communication (one-sided, two-sided, multi-sided) | One-sided formats in citizen science crowdsourcing versus multi-sided communication in collegial projects (Haklay 2013; Shirk et al. 2012) |
| D12 Suggestions feedbacked (expert or crowd feedback, none) | Based on empirical project examples | |
| D13 Community building (yes, no) | Based on empirical project examples | |
| D14 Moderation (crowd, individual from crowd, internal or external organization/expert, none) | Based on practitioners’ feedback | |
| Project stakeholder | D15 Project driver (crowd, individual from crowd, organization/expert, equal partnership) | Citizen-initiated contractual projects that are driven by experts versus expert-initiated co-created projects driven in an equal partnership (Shirk et al. 2012) |
| D16 Project owner (crowd, individual from crowd, organization/expert) | ||
| D17 Target group (open, restricted, closed) | Based on empirical project examples | |
| Gains and outcomes | D18 Project outcome (product, knowledge, decision, sharing things) | Knowledge outcomes that are desirably public, yet in reality often only available upon academic publication of results (ECSA 2015) |
| D19 Publicity of the outcome (public, accessible for participants, non-public) |
Figure 1
Screenshot of the DIP taxonomy web app, utilized for the survey conduct.
Table 2
Distribution of design characteristics across all projects (percentages).
| DIMENSION | SUB-DIMENSION | CHARACTERISTICS (FRACTION OF PROJECTS) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degree of participation | D1: Extent of participation | Information sharing (0.40) | Consultative (0.45) | Democratic (0.28) | |
| D2: Participation offer | Single task (0.15) | Multiple tasks optional (0.63) | Multiple tasks mandatory (0.22) | ||
| D3: Type of participation | Active-effort (0.70) | Active-resources (0.17) | low-effort (0.12) | ||
| Implementation of participation | D4: Format | Digital (0.48) | Analog digital (parallel) (0.33) | Analog digital (sequential) (0.13) | Analog (0.13) |
| D5: Implementation | Asynchronous web-based platform (0.62) | Asynchronous-mobile application (0.27) | Synchronous (0.30) | None (0.10) | |
| D6: Structure of participation | Team work participation (0.57) | Individual work participation (0.37) | |||
| D7: Time requirements | High (0.22) | Low (0.17) | Self-selected (0.72) | ||
| D8: Prerequisites | Domain knowledge (0.18) | Domain-specific experience (0.06) | Assumes preconditions (0.80) | ||
| Incentives | D9: Incentives for participation | Self-related extrinsic (0.22) | Self-related intrinsic (0.76) | Impact-related (0.87) | |
| D10: Reasons for the participatory design | Acceptance and legitimation (0.42) | Funding (0.08) | Skill and resources (0.23) | Value-based social maximization (0.30) | |
| Communication | D11: Direction of communication | One-sided (0.02) | Two-sided (0.43) | Multi-sided (0.60) | |
| D12: Suggestions feedback | Expert feedback (0.70) | Crowd feedback (0.43) | No feedback (0.13) | ||
| D13: Community building | Yes (0.57) | No (0.38) | |||
| D14: Moderation | Crowd (0.12) | Individual from crowd (0.15) | Organization/experts (0.67) | None (0.25) | |
| Project stakeholder | D15: Project driver | Crowd (0.00) | Individual from crowd (0.12) | Organization (0.29) | Organization/partners (0.48) |
| D16: Project owner | Crowd (0.00) | Individual from crowd (0.18) | Organization (0.69) | Organization/experts (0.08) | |
| D17: Target group | Experts (0.57) | Crowd (0.68) | |||
| D18: Project outcome | Product (0.20) | Knowledge (0.39) | Decisions (0.30) | Sharing of things (0.11) | |
| D19: Publicity of the outcome | Public (0.98) | Accessible to participants (0.10) | Non-public (0.01) | ||
[i] Note: Values indicate fraction of projects selecting the characteristic (0–1).
Figure 2
Comparison of the design clusters regarding the share of their projects employing the design characteristics.
Figure 3
Visualization of the projects in the sample and distribution across the two design clusters.