Scientists’ Perceptions of Community and Citizen Science in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic: Benefits, Challenges, and Motivations

Sarah J. Clement; Katie V. Spellman; Peter J. Fix

doi:10.5334/cstp.859

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Interview respondent demographics. CCS: community and citizen science.

DEMOGRAPHICS	n	%
Gender
Men	6	26
Women	17	74
Total	23	100
Age
18–24	1	4
25–34	5	22
35–44	12	52
45–54	5	22
Total	23	100
Years participating in CCS research
Less than 1	1	4
1–5	10	44
6–10	6	26
11–20	6	26
Total	23	100
Years lived in the Arctic/sub-Arctic
Never	6	26
1–5	3	13
6–10	1	4
11–20	10	44
21+	3	13
Total	23	100

Table 2

Interview respondents’ community and citizen science (CCS) project characteristics.

CCS PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS	n	%
Location
United States (Alaska)	16	70
Canada	5	22
Finland	1	4
Iceland	1	4
Total	23	100
Type of CCS Research
Contributory	2	9
Collaborative	4	17
Co-created	5	22
Hybrid	12	52
Total	23	100

Table 3

Theme descriptions, sub-themes, and relevant literature describing the themes. CCS: Community and citizen science.

THEME	DESCRIPTION	SUB-THEMES	RELEVANT LITERATURE
Actionable science	Science that produces tangible outcomes for end users	Produces results that influence planning or decision-making on local or regional scales Influences individuals’ awareness or knowledge of a topic Provides resources or skills to participants Supports social networks Improves socio-ecological systems	Meadow and Owen (2021); Schwoerer et al. (2021) van Noordwijk et al. (2021); Goolsby et al. (2023)
Cross-cultural knowledge co-production	Conducting CCS research in partnership with Arctic Indigenous communities	Attitudes about co-production, including preserving traditional knowledge and bringing multiple ways of knowing into science research Acknowledgement of past and continuing extractive colonial research practices Practices for ethical and responsible partnership with Indigenous communities	Castleden et al. (2012); Johnson et al. (2015); Spellman et al. (2018); Tengo et al. (2021); Yua et al. (2022)
Data	Data collection and governance within CCS research	Attitudes around CCS data quantity, quality, documentation, access, infrastructure, and/or governance Attitudes about the perceptions of CCS data in the wider scientific community	Riesch and Potter (2014); Kosmala et al. (2016); Bowser et al. (2020)
Interdisciplinary nature of CCS research	Working with people across different scientific disciplines and areas of expertise	Attitudes about CCS topics crossing disciplinary boundaries and the necessity of using inter- or transdisciplinary approaches	Crain et al. (2014); Pettibone et al. (2017)
Scientist-participant relationships	Working with participants in CCS research	Attitudes about recruiting and retaining participants Descriptions of how participants contribute to the research Descriptions of the outcomes scientists help facilitate for participants Personal benefits experienced through working with participants	Danielsen et al. (2009); Shirk et al. (2012); West and Pateman (2016); Phillips et al. (2018); L’Astorina et al. (2023)

Scientists associated benefits, challenges, and motivations across the five themes. Each bar represents the percentage of the total sample (n = 23) who identified each theme as a benefit, challenge, and/or motivation. CCS: community and citizen science.

Scientists’ Perceptions of Community and Citizen Science in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic: Benefits, Challenges, and Motivations

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Figure 1

Paradigm

My account