Introduction
The potential of contributory participatory science (PS) projects to provide benefits for participants and research is hindered by such projects not being representative of the population. Contributory PS projects are those where volunteers contribute data, as opposed to co-created and collaborative projects, where volunteers take an active role in other steps of the scientific process (Bonney et al. 2009). Participants in contributory PS projects are more likely to be white (NASEM 2018; Pateman, Dyke, and West 2021; Allf et al. 2022), highly-educated (NASEM 2018; Allf et al. 2022), and have high income (Blake, Rhanor, and Pajic 2020). These biases in participation produce a number of issues. First, the benefits of participation are experienced by the most privileged demographic groups (Pandya 2012). Second, participation bias leads to spatially-biased data collection. For example, in the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, and Snow Network, rain gauges were likely to be placed in whiter and more affluent neighborhoods in the United States (U.S.) (Mahmoudi, Hawn, and Henry 2022). In another project in three U.S. cities, whiter and more affluent census tracts had more eBird and iNaturalist observations than expected based on area and population density (Estien, Carlen, and Schell 2024). The result of such “sampling bias” is that communities vulnerable to climate and environmental change may lack evidence about impacts and opportunities for adaptation (Mahmoudi, Hawn, and Henry 2022). Finally, the absence of certain communities from PS means their experiences are excluded, preventing the production of robust science enriched by a diversity of priorities and perspectives (Pandya 2012; Cooper et al. 2021).
Leaders of PS programs, who are aware of these issues, have worked to make their individual programs as well as PS as a whole more inclusive. In response to calls for greater structural changes to PS, multiple alternative frameworks for inclusive, non-extractive, community-centered PS have been presented (Pandya 2012; Cooper et al. 2024; Hall et al. 2024). Individual projects have used these frameworks and taken steps to be more inclusive (Sorensen et al. 2019; Lin Hunter, Johnson, and Cooper 2023). A strengths-based approach to inclusivity in PS follows this line of improvements, focusing on understanding participant values, interests, and skills, and systemic rather than individual barriers to participation (Pandya 2012; Cooper et al. 2021; Hall et al. 2024). Strengths-based approaches seek to include rather than further marginalize groups based on abilities, skin color, etc., and are particularly well-developed in disability work (Niemiec and Tomasulo 2023). Others have studied motivations and barriers to participation of different ages, income levels, and education levels (Martin and Greig 2019; Davis, Ramírez-Andreotta and Buxner 2020; Constant and Hughes 2023). However, we have little evidence (Davis, Ramírez-Andreotta. and Buxner 2020; West, Dyke, and Pateman 2021; Jennings, Dayer, and Chaves 2025) about motivations for and barriers to participation in PS for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color), and no evidence for disabled and neurodivergent people. Additional insights are needed to help practitioners design inclusive PS projects, in particular for BIPOC, disabled, and neurodivergent participants.
In this study, we explore how a PS project, Project FeederWatch (PFW), can be made more inclusive for disabled, neurodivergent, and BIPOC participants. While some findings are necessarily be specific to PFW, we aim to share insights that may benefit other programs working to become more inclusive. PFW is a 38-year-old PS project run by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and Birds Canada. The project involves submitting observations of birds, primarily from backyard feeders, between November and April every year. FeederWatchers (FWers) submit their observations via an app or website and are able to explore their own data and that of others. FWers in the U.S. support the program via a yearly fee, paid in USD (currently $15 for members of the Lab of Ornithology, or $18 if not a member). This fee supports the costs of running the program, including salaries for support staff; the technological infrastructure for maintaining the database, website, and mobile app; and the printing and mailing of educational support materials (the “research kit”). Participants are prompted to pay when they join or renew participation in the program on a yearly basis, and payment is necessary to access the data entry portal. All requests for fee waivers are granted. All members of the public can freely access free digital versions of the educational materials, and the online datasets, visualizations, and yearly reports. Similar participation fees exist in other PS projects, but can be controversial among the PS community (Haklay et al. 2021). U.S. PFW participants predominantly identify as white (95%), and some identify as disabled (5%) or neurodivergent (6%), compared with 67%, 21%, and 12%, respectively, of the U.S. bird feeding public (unpublished survey data from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology).
Given the underrepresentation of these groups, we hosted focus groups to understand BIPOC, disabled, and neurodivergent perspectives on inclusivity in PFW, focusing on participant interests and systemic barriers consistent with a strengths-based approach. Our aim was to inform adaptations to PFW to make it more welcoming and inclusive of all people who feed birds. We explored the following questions with focus group attendees (hereafter “attendees”):
What are attendees’ past experiences and associations with PS?
How do attendees perceive PFW to align with their interests?
What systemic barriers do attendees perceive to their participation and the participation of others in their communities?
What strategies do attendees suggest implementing to make PFW more inclusive?
Based on the experience of our research, we assembled a list of recommendations for designing inclusive focus groups, which we share in the Discussion section. In addition, to make our work more broadly applicable, we share a set of takeaways from our focus groups for creating inclusive PS projects that can be used by other practitioners.
Methods
Our research questions, recruitment strategy, and focus group discussion guide were co-designed with PFW staff and a five-member advisory board representing expertise in inclusive PS, birding, and outdoor recreation for BIPOC, disabled, and/or neurodivergent people. Our approach focused on diversity through inclusion, that is, intentional actions that change a project environment so that a diversity of participants feel they belong. This is as opposed to diversity through assimilation, where diverse participants adapt to the project environment. We followed best practices for focus group design (Cameron 2005; Hennink 2007; Stewart, Shamdasani, and Rook 2007), and with guidance from our advisory board, best practices for accessible focus groups (see Discussion).
We recruited participants who were:
18 years or older,
identified as BIPOC and/or disabled and/or neurodivergent,
lived in the U.S.,
fed birds, and
were not currently participating in PFW (see Supplemental File 1: Screening Survey).
We recruited through bird feeding industry groups and hobby stores; birding, nature, and outdoors-focused groups; direct invitations; and Black and disabled birding influencers.
Potential participants took a screening survey to determine their eligibility. We defined “neurodivergent” for potential participants as having a brain that works differently from the “average” person, and shared conditions neurodivergent people may have, including autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (see Supplemental File 2: Supplementary Methods for full definition). We collected information on potential participants’ state of residence, gender identity, income, ethnoracial identity, and accessibility challenges in an effort to ensure that focus groups captured a diversity of experiences and perspectives. All data were collected in accordance with the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (IRB #23-1346).
The focus groups were conducted over Zoom and lasted up to 90 minutes. Attendees were given a $75 Amazon gift card honorarium for attending the full session (see Supplemental File 2: Supplementary Methods). Focus groups were audio-recorded and notes were taken. We assigned attendees to groups based on their self-ascribed identities, with separate focus groups for white and disabled and/or neurodivergent attendees (WHT-DI/ND), BIPOC and non-disabled and/or neurodivergent attendees (POC-only), and BIPOC and disabled and/or neurodivergent attendees (POC-DI/ND) to allow for discussion of common experiences among attendees, as well as those experiences shaped by intersectionality (Crenshaw 1989). For each group with BIPOC attendees, we had one Black co-facilitator, and for each group with disabled and/or neurodivergent attendees, we had at least one neurodivergent co-facilitator. The first author facilitated all groups.
We asked attendees about their associations with PS in general, provided a brief overview of PFW, and then asked about what interested them, what seemed exclusionary, and strategies to increase inclusion (see Supplemental File 2: Supplementary Methods and Supplemental File 3: Discussion Guide). Attendees were asked to share experiences of their own or of close friends and family, a best practice that allows attendees to draw on the experiences of others with shared identities rather than divulge what may be considered personal and sensitive information (Hennink 2007). After the focus groups concluded, we provided attendees with two additional ways to provide input (an anonymous survey and a member-checking webinar; Supplemental File 4: Follow-up Surveys) and asked if there were any themes we had missed or misinterpreted.
We lightly edited and analyzed the transcripts in Dedoose using inductive coding to identify major themes that emerged under each research question (Thornberg and Charmaz 2014; Supplemental File 2: Supplementary Methods). Coding was performed by the first author. In the Results, we focus on codes discussed in at least three of the nine focus groups. While we recognize the importance of attendees’ individual intersectional identities, we attribute quotes based on the broad category of focus group in order to preserve anonymity.
Results
Focus group attendees
We conducted nine focus groups from April through June 2024, with three groups each for WHT-DI/ND (n = 21), POC-only (n = 9), and POC-DI/ND (n = 13) attendees, for a total of 43 attendees. Attendees represented a diversity of disability, neurodivergent, and ethnoracial identities, as well as genders, ages, incomes, and regions (Supplemental File 5: Table S1). A number of attendees indicated they work to make science, the outdoors, and birding more inclusive, through leadership in affinity groups, conservation groups, PS projects, and as educators.
Eleven attendees participated in the anonymous follow-up survey, nine attended the member-checking webinar and an additional 16 received the recording, and six responded to the webinar follow-up survey. During member-checking, attendees were satisfied with our interpretation of the discussion, and did not feel that we had missed major themes.
Associations with participatory science
Two attendees had previously taken part in PFW, and many had experience engaging with or leading other PS projects. Attendees shared many positive and negative associations with PS in general (Table 1).
Table 1
BIPOC, disabled, and neurodivergent attendees’ positive and negative associations with participatory science.
| ASSOCIATIONS | THEME | EXAMPLE |
|---|---|---|
| Positive | Feeling a sense of belonging as a scientist | “Using PS to learn and to gather data, and making people scientists that wouldn’t necessarily call themselves scientists, is really important.” – POC-only attendee |
| Connecting with nature | “It can help people … feel connected and come in closer relationship with the land.” – POC-DI/ND attendee | |
| Providing representation | “Participatory science to me is important because if you have different groups of people – diverse, whatever – participating in it you get all this extra data that you wouldn’t … you get a better picture and so people feel more represented.” – POC-DI/ND attendee | |
| Contributing to science and conservation | “I’ve had a really good experience … being able to have a hand in keeping track of data that leads to actual legislation has been really encouraging.” – POC-DI/ND attendee | |
| Serving communities | “One thing I’ve noticed with participatory science is when the data can be shared with folks so that they can utilize it…that also encourages us to then reciprocally participate in that as well.” – WHT-DI/ND attendee | |
| Being in community | “Citizen science and participatory science gives me a way to feel connected to a community that is also interested in data collection and research.” – WHT-DI/ND attendee | |
| Learning | “I think participatory science is really crucial to learning about the environment and learning about nature” – POC-only attendee | |
| Keeping records of observations | “I love using eBird to track my observations!” – WHT-DI/ND attendee | |
| Negative | Exclusion from spaces | “I’ve been made aware of this [participatory] science recently through a bird collision project in Chicago and went to a meeting with them. I felt excited to learn new information but ultimately felt lonely as the only brown and ‘alternatively’ dressed person.” – POC-DI/ND attendee |
| Hierarchy between professional researchers and participants | “While I appreciate what citizen science intends to do in bringing the viewpoints of so-called lay people or just regular folks to professional scientists, I feel like the separation of it at all sort of furthers the racist chauvinism that permeates science in general, where only the learned, the academic tower, the Ivory Tower people’s’ opinions matters. And everybody else might have an opinion, but it’s unlearned. And so it’s gonna be weighted less than.” – POC-DI/ND attendee | |
| Doubts about quality of data | “I wonder about data signal to noise … how, if at all, are they accounting for accuracy in data input?” – WHT-DI/ND attendee | |
| Projects do not align with priorities given limited resources to participate | “[Projects that] have a bit more structure and want you monitoring on a specific schedule are a bit harder, for … having the spoons [available energy] to go [participate].” – WHT-DI/ND attendee |
Benefits of participating in Project FeederWatch
Attendees identified that PFW could support a number of their interests and goals, and meets certain access needs that other PS projects do not. The conversation built on our discussion of PS in general, and attendees brought up many similar benefits of participating in PFW.
Participants’ interests are supported
Attendees appreciated that PFW created opportunities to connect with nature while observing and counting birds. One WHT-DI/ND attendee stated, “I love the mindfulness element of just needing to be present and setting that time aside … just being present and just counting.”
The fact that PFW provided an avenue for contributing to science and conservation, especially bird conservation, was also important to attendees. Passion for birding and the natural world was an ongoing theme, and attendees were eager to play a role in stewarding nature. As one WHT-DI/ND attendee shared, “I agree with … the ability to feel a part of a solution. So many folks feel helpless about the climate crisis, but this gives us a concrete way to make a difference.”
Having a structure to record and access project data was exciting to attendees. Some shared that they already recorded observations about birds on their own and appreciated that PFW could offer a way to organize observations, while others were looking forward to saving information about their observations for the first time. Attendees also expressed enthusiasm about being able to use their own and others’ data to answer their own questions and explore topics of interest. For example:
“What sounds interesting is having the record keeping of it, the looking back and seeing how it’s compared from year to year … Also saying, ‘Hey, if I do any changes, if I have a suet feeder, am I gonna get more stuff this year? … What can I do to attract more species?’” – POC-only attendee
Finally, attendees were interested in the informational resources PFW provides that could help them learn more about how to identify birds and bird feeding best practices.
Various access needs are met
Attendees emphasized that PFW’s flexible schedule could allow people with limited or unpredictable physical or cognitive capacity to take part. For example:
“I think the thing that stood out to me was the flexible schedule, because most of the things that I have looked at or done do not have a flexible schedule. I guess that’s my main struggle, usually, as someone with ADHD and autism … I don’t know until right before, if I’m gonna be able to do that [activity].” – POC-DI/ND attendee
The fact that people could take part in PFW from home was also important to attendees, who noted it could be helpful for folks with mobility disabilities or limited ability to leave their home. In addition, attendees noted financial savings associated with not having to travel, and the reduced burden of participation as feeding birds at home was something that they were already doing. As one WHT-DI/ND attendee said, “Watching from your own residence makes it more accessible.”
Systemic barriers to participation in Project FeederWatch
Attendees felt that a number of aspects of PFW were exclusionary. The participation fee was discouraging, and they felt that socioeconomic barriers, accessibility barriers, and a general lack of belonging might prevent people from participating.
Participation fee
The $18 annual fee for participation in PFW was a major concern for attendees, who mentioned it as a barrier in every focus group even before we asked questions about exclusion. Attendees objected to the fee because of the cost, which they felt was extractive of their voluntary labor, and because other PS projects were free.
Two attendees stated that they themselves would have difficulty affording PFW. One WHT-DI/ND attendee shared, “It doesn’t make sense to me, and it is a barrier, because … I live on a very limited income. So I would have put that aside and be like, ‘Okay, budget for that.’” Meanwhile, others thought it would be an issue for members of their community with limited incomes, including seniors, students, and disabled people who rely on social security.
Attendees also wondered why they would pay to take part in PFW when they could feed birds and join other PS projects with similar benefits for free. One WHT-DI/ND attendee asked, “Why am I paying to help you with research when I can log my own birds in my own backyard all I want?” Others shared they use eBird (a PS project also run by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology) to keep track of birds for free.
Finally, attendees felt that the fee demanded more resources from them when they were already volunteering their time and energy to provide data for scientists. One POC-only attendee stated, “They’re gonna use my data to write up some kind of paper that presumably will be published to build up their own name recognition, and I have to pay on top of it?”
Additional financial barriers to participation
Beyond the fee, attendees noted the cost of participating in bird feeding itself is high (e.g., purchasing feeders, bird food, binoculars). One POC-only attendee shared, “Bird watching is an activity of leisure … socioeconomically where POC are in our society right now … it’s difficult to engage us if it’s such a leisurely activity … feeding my birds are [sic] expensive.” In addition, attendees reflected that those with limited income might not have computers, smartphones, or internet access for logging data.
Accessibility barriers
The focus groups revealed that the way PFW is currently set up does not support participation of people with certain disabilities. Attendees, reflecting on the experiences of friends and acquaintances, pointed out that the requirement to record birds that FWers see (but not birds they hear) excludes birders who are blind or have low vision. Disabled/neurodivergent attendees were concerned about PFW’s web accessibility, including whether the project website was screen reader friendly and had good contrast for visual access, and whether voice-to-text data entry was available. A POC-DI/ND attendee shared, “Because if I have to use my phone to record anything, with being ADHD and autistic, it’s never gonna happen, you’re not gonna get good work from me … Finding alternative ways to record data is really important.”
Some attendees shared that they had limited energy, and taking part in the project would be an extra cognitive or physical load. A WHT-DI/ND attendee reflected, “Especially when you’re like me, and you have limited resources in terms of energy, and you have fatigue, and you’ve got a certain number of hours in the day where you feel like doing something.”
Cultural barriers
Echoing their associations with PS in general, attendees felt that cultural barriers caused a pervasive lack of belonging in science, PS, birding, and outdoor spaces, which could make people feel unwelcome in PFW. Reflecting on science and PS, a WHT-DI/ND attendee shared, “I think that the scientific community can, unfortunately, sometimes be very insular and unwelcoming in certain ways.” Other attendees pointed out issues with birding itself feeling exclusive, with a POC-only attendee sharing, “I think there is just in general a perception, not necessarily PFW specifically, but anything birding related, is just thought of as a white man activity or hobby.”
Relatedly, attendees shared they felt like the project only valued certain types of knowledge. After suggesting ways to build additional types of knowledge about bird species into the PFW interface, a POC-DI/ND attendee shared:
“There’s just been so much fracturing between Black and brown folks’ relationship with the land. And a lot of that’s been [because of] … Western ways of relating to it that also delegitimize all the very credible ways that we’ve always understood.”
Attendees, especially Latina/o/e/x attendees, felt a lack of belonging could be exacerbated by a lack of language support, in particular Spanish, as the webpage and resources are only provided in English and French.
Strategies to increase inclusion in Project FeederWatch
Attendees shared many strategies for PFW to increase inclusion, which fell into two major categories: reducing systemic barriers and further supporting the interests of FWers.
Reduce systemic barriers
All focus groups agreed that the participation fee needed to be addressed. For some, that meant removing the fee, while others stated they would like more transparency about where the money was going and why it was necessary. Other attendees were in favor of adding scholarships or “sliding scale” fees based on income. However, some felt such approaches would still be exclusionary, and wanted the fee removed altogether.
Attendees felt that PFW should prioritize representation by bringing on staff with shared identities with underrepresented groups, and including diverse FWers on the website and in communications. As one WHT-DI/ND attendee shared:
“I think representation is the most important … it’s clear that more intersectional representation and reflection are needed – not because it’s what the data says but because it’s the right thing to do. Historically, ornithology has white supremacist-based practices, falsifications, and a complicated history with the abuse and misuse of both species, land, and BIPOC folks. Science has a complex history with these folks AND the neurodiverse and disabled. Rebuilding that trust is pivotal to intersectional citizen science that includes class diversity.”
Attendees recommended PFW perform more targeted outreach to BIPOC, disabled, and neurodivergent people who feed birds. They felt this would make potential FWers feel valued and wanted in the project, but emphasized that this needed to be a consistent effort to feel genuine:
“Being more vocal about bringing up intersectionality [in recruitment]…it doesn’t have to be like a specific heritage month or a specific awareness month for it to be included in their promotion of [PFW]. People might feel more interested, or even less intimidated to take part in [it], and they [might] say, ‘Oh, they not only see me, but they value what I have to contribute because of my specific place of experience…’” – POC-DI/ND attendee
Partnering with other organizations to show potential FWers they are welcomed was another suggested strategy. Attendees suggested community groups, affinity groups such as disabled or BIPOC birding groups, and other organizations like schools could help PFW attain a larger reach, and committed, reciprocal partnerships could increase inclusion. A POC-only attendee recommended, “Get involved with community events … You say you want information or stuff, but you don’t talk to the people you say you don’t hear from.”
Finally, attendees highlighted the power of community in creating a sense of belonging. Attendees were interested in opportunities for in-person gatherings, and recommended that instead of focusing on individual participation, PFW should facilitate participation with friends and family, affinity groups, and even strangers.
Further support potential participants’ interests
Attendees felt that PFW had the potential to increase inclusion by amplifying the interests the program already supports: making it clearer how FWers are contributing to science and conservation, and empowering FWers to gain skills and knowledge through participation. One POC-only attendee recommended,
“Even if [the goal of participating is] just [to] increase knowledge or … being part of a community or being able to share with people you have things in common with. … Communicate the benefit to the participant.”
Attendees also called for communicating the conservation impact of the project and the benefits of participation to help potential FWers see how PFW aligns with their goals and interests, in particular contributing to conservation. Attendees felt PFW could go even further in creating educational resources, which could strengthen skills FWers want to build in birding and scientific methodology, as well as answer questions they have. These resources could empower FWers to use PFW as a tool to help them care for the environment. As one POC-DI/ND attendee shared, “We care for the land … Having a tool like this, like Project FeederWatch … [in] a school setting … gives [youth] a sense of ownership over how they relate to the world.”
Discussion
Through our focus groups, we gained insights on how to make PFW, as well as PS in general, more inclusive for BIPOC, disabled, and neurodivergent people. Informed by our experience, we created a set of recommendations for designing inclusive focus groups that we include here as a resource for other researchers.
How participatory science can support the interest of marginalized participants
Attendees’ assessment of how PFW could align with their interests directly reflected what they valued about PS as a whole: It allowed them to connect with nature, contribute to science, belong as a scientist, create community, serve their community, increase representation, and learn. Similar motivations to take part in PS have been found in other studies of PS participants (e.g., Frensley et al. 2017; Martin and Greig 2019; West, Dyke, and Pateman 2021; Constant and Hughes 2023). However, the motivations to belong as a scientist, increase representation, and serve communities are less common in the literature, and may reflect the position of BIPOC, disabled, and neurodivergent people as more excluded from and less served by professional science than the typical PS volunteer (Soleri et al. 2016).
BIPOC attendees mentioned contributing to science and conservation as an appealing aspect of PFW and PS as a whole, countering earlier findings that BIPOC PS participants are less likely than white participants to be motivated by contributing to science and/or helping wildlife (Davis, Ramírez-Andreotta, and Buxner 2020; West, Dyke, and Pateman, 2021), and more likely to want to learn and enhance their personal development (West, Dyke, and Pateman 2021). This is unsurprising given that, despite widely-held stereotypes to the contrary, Latino, Asian, and Black Americans report higher levels of concern about the environment than white Americans (Pearson et al. 2018).
Attendees appreciated PS programs that allow them to participate from home, on a flexible schedule, and as often as they would like, supporting the recommendations of Davis, Ramírez-Andreotta, and Buxner (2020) to create programs that allow for flexible schedules and tiered engagement for participants with different amounts of time to commit. Finally, attendees shared how PFW and PS could be empowering through fostering a sense of belonging as a scientist, and providing a tool to increase their knowledge, answer their own questions, and contribute to conservation. This may be true of other programs that provide educational resources and give participants access to data, whether directly or through reports or visualizations.
Barriers to participation of marginalized people in participatory science
Some barriers our attendees identified in PFW have been found in the PS literature focused on majority groups, but many were unique to the experience of our BIPOC, disabled, and neurodivergent attendees. Notably, lack of time, one of the most commonly cited barriers to taking part in PS (Frensley et al. 2017; Martin and Greig 2019), was not common in our focus groups. Instead, attendees were more specific about their capacity (e.g., caring for children, having limited energy or focus). Barriers that all participants in PS face may be more significant for marginalized participants, as has been shown in people with disabilities participating in birding (Sinkular et al. 2025). As in other research on PS participants as a whole (Frensley et al. 2017), attendees pointed to lack of access to technology and the internet as a barrier, which has also been reported as a more significant barrier for Latinx participants in a PS project (Davis, Ramírez-Andreotta, and Buxner 2020).
Economic barriers may be greater for BIPOC, disabled, and neurodivergent participants (e.g., Jennings, Dayer, and Chaves 2025), who are more likely to earn less money because of systemic bias–for example, Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income in the U.S. are notoriously low (Stapleton et al. 2006). Economic barriers may also be a greater concern in projects that, like PFW, have a participation fee or require other investments in equipment or supplies to participate. However, the lack of diversity in contributory PS programs overall, most of which are free (NASEM 2018; Allf et al. 2022), suggests removing the fee alone may be an inadequate solution.
A long history of science being extractive, hierarchical, and unethical in its treatment of BIPOC, disabled, and neurodivergent communities creates layered barriers for people with these identities. For example, our attendees first have to engage in the activity itself (birding), then decide to join the PS project. Yet, barriers result in an absence of others with similar identities in science (Soleri et al. 2016), birding (Carver 2024), and outdoor recreation more broadly (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2023), which can leave PS participants feeling as if they are the “only one.” Macro- and micro aggressions from majority PS participants compound and cement this exclusion (Jennings, Dayer, and Chaves 2025). Similarly, hierarchy in PS, which is a common characteristic of contributory projects, may be particularly off-putting to BIPOC, disabled, and neurodivergent people (e.g., Jennings, Dayer, and Chaves 2025). These communities may distrust scientists because of a history of abuses from the scientific and medical establishments (i.e., Nielsen 2012; Garrison 2013), extractive science practices (Baptiste 2025), or feelings that their ways of knowing and local knowledge are not valued (Walajahi 2019), all of which were noted by our attendees. Hall et al. (2024) have noted the prevalence of such data-centered and extractive relationships in PS, and suggest that they pose ethical dilemmas (participants are not able to realize their motivations) as well as practical ones (science is not relevant and meaningful to society, and does not incorporate all perspectives).
Strategies for increasing inclusion in participatory science
Some strategies that attendees recommended were things that PFW is already working on–for example, PFW communicates conservation impact through regular newsletters and provides educational curricula for teachers. Attendees were not current participants in PFW, thus were not aware of such efforts; however, that they came up as important strategies affirms that PFW should continue these programs.
A number of the suggested strategies have been utilized successfully by other organizations, including adopting targeted recruitment (Brouwer and Hessels 2019) and partnering with outside organizations (Lin Hunter, Johnson, and Cooper 2023). However, partnering is not without challenges, including the need to effectively build trust with partners, manage short project timelines, and address misalignment between project and community priorities (Sorensen et al. 2019). Best practices for scientists working with community partners, including acknowledging power and privilege, actively maintaining trust, operating with transparency, making projects relevant, and being committed to ongoing collaboration, can mitigate challenges (Annoni et al. 2019). Likewise, although attendees emphasized the importance of targeted outreach, they also made it clear that this outreach needed to go beyond token efforts and be thoughtful, committed, and reciprocal. Attendees did not just want to be contacted during “a specific heritage month,” but rather see projects making a consistent effort to connect with them and share the benefits of participation to them specifically. It is important for PS projects to do outreach with cultural humility, recognizing community expertise and not presuming they bear all the knowledge and solutions by virtue of being part of the scientific establishment (Annoni et al. 2019).
In addition, research on what facilitates participation in wildlife viewing suggests that a sense of community and social support is particularly important for disabled birders (Sinkular et al. 2025) and BIPOC wildlife viewers (Jennings, Dayer, and Chaves 2024), a point that our attendees emphasized. Creating opportunities to participate in community events are important for increasing inclusion in PS projects like PFW, where participants primarily take part on their own.
Limitations and future work
We experienced many of the typical challenges associated with qualitative research (e.g., participants may not have shared all perspectives, findings may not be transferable, our positionality shaped our interpretation of the results), yet we focus here on specific limitations associated with our approach.
Our focus on BIPOC, disabled, and/or neurodivergent participants is unlikely to be representative of all marginalized identities. In particular, we were missing attendees from specific ethnoracial groups as well as men, and our attendees were younger with higher incomes than the general U.S. population that feeds birds. Additionally, attendees may have had other salient identities that affected their experience in PS and bird feeding that were not discussed here, or that came up in discussion but were not explicitly identified. Future work could consider additional identities of people underrepresented in PS, in particular people with low incomes, as the cost of participation was frequently brought up by attendees. We also made the choice to describe study results based on attendees’ focus groups as opposed to their individual identities in order to preserve their anonymity. Thus, results may be overgeneralized.
Although our study design—grouping attendees based on multiple identities—was meant to allow for discussion of intersectional identities, participants in the POC-DI/ND focus groups did not bring up their BIPOC and disabled or neurodivergent identities in concert, but rather discussed them separately. Future work may need to incorporate questions specifically designed to elicit discussions of intersectionality to explore in depth how multiple identities affect people’s experiences with PS.
Recommendations for designing inclusive focus groups
Based on the literature, the expertise of our advisory board, and our experience conducting this work, we have collated a list of lessons learned on how to design inclusive focus groups, in particular for people with marginalized identities.
Recruit focus group participants through willing partner organizations. Partner organizations are a great way to reach specialized audiences, and to ensure that potential participants receive information through a trusted source. Affinity groups for the target audience are especially effective partners. Provide partners with draft email templates, posters, and social media posts that they can send/share/repost.
Engage in meaningful reciprocity. Ensure the topic is of interest to the partner organizations and audiences you hope to engage, share study results in a public forum (webinar, report, flyer) that is accessible to them and their members, and spread the word about their events in the future.
Offer generous compensation to value the time of participants from marginalized groups. Marginalized populations are often overstudied or live in communities where extractive research is common, and it is important to ensure that their time is appropriately valued. In addition, people who have less disposable income and more demands on their time may engage if costs associated with study participation are offset (time not worked, covering childcare costs, etc.).
Engage an advisory board. Our advisory board, made up of experts in inclusion in the outdoors, PS, and birding for disabled people, neurodivergent people, and BIPOC, was an invaluable resource. The board helped ensure that our overall approach, the questions asked of participants, and our recruitment materials were respectful and relevant. In addition, board members helped us connect with partner organizations and recruit participants. We recommend providing an honorarium and making sure your research is relevant and applied to make participation valuable for board members.
Bring in a facilitation team with shared identities and positionality. Engaging facilitators that share identities with participants increases participant comfort and facilitator ability to engage with participants. This can be accomplished through a team of facilitators with different identities. Sharing facilitator positionality is also important—sharing salient identities, recognizing privilege, and sharing commitment to work. A white facilitator of a BIPOC group, for example, can acknowledge any relevant privileges of their identities and reiterate their commitment to accurately portraying BIPOC voices and increasing inclusion. In this way, they can build rapport and trust.
Provide information in multiple formats. Using multiple formats for disseminating information is especially important for working with disabled and neurodivergent participants, but can be helpful for all participants. We provided detailed information about the focus groups (e.g., questions we would ask, format, timing) by email and in documents in advance of the actual group, and then via slides, the chat, and verbally during the discussions. This provided participants with the opportunity to process information in the way that was easiest for them, whether visually or auditorily, and in advance if they wished to be prepared.
Provide clear information about discussion format and norms. Our advisory board as well as focus group attendees themselves recommended sharing an agenda in advance of the focus group and having clear discussion norms. In our case, discussion norms included being mindful of how much you were speaking, taking turns speaking, raising your hand or unmuting if you wanted to join the discussion, respecting others’ experiences and disagreeing respectfully, having your camera on or off as you felt comfortable (an important adaptation for disabled and neurodivergent participants), encouraging breaks as needed, keeping the discussion confidential, reminding participants they could use the chat, and reminding participants that there were no right or wrong answers.
Leave space for discussion. It can be tempting to move on quickly when there are lingering silences in focus groups. However, neurodivergent participants may require more time to process a question and formulate their answer. We recommend allowing for longer silences so that participants have adequate time to take part in discussions, not quickly transitioning to new topics, and reminding participants that prior topics can be revisited at any time.
Offer multiple opportunities to give feedback. Giving participants additional opportunities to provide feedback will help ensure that your interpretation of the focus groups is accurate, as well as allow participants to share insights they might not have been comfortable sharing in the group setting. Options for this include sharing a summary of the discussion at the end of each group and asking participants if there is anything they would like to change or add, sending around an anonymous feedback form after the focus groups, and holding webinars to share focus group interpretation with room for participants to give additional feedback.
Communicate what is happening with study data and applied results. Extractive research consists of researchers collecting data and not sharing findings with communities or using it to help with community issues. These approaches have led to distrust of researchers and disbelief in the efficacy of research. Clearly communicating to participants what their data will be used for, and sharing research results and any policy, program, or other applied changes arising from the study, are important to rebuild trust and make sure research is reciprocally beneficial to participants.
Conclusion
Through focus groups on how to make PFW more inclusive for BIPOC, disabled, and neurodivergent people who feed birds, we learned that PFW has the potential to support participants’ interests and goals. The structure of PFW allows it to meet some access needs that other PS projects do not, but there are also systemic barriers to participation. The fee is a non-starter for some attendees because of cost and because it is perceived as unfair and extractive. Beyond that, attendees face economic barriers, accessibility barriers, and a pervasive lack of belonging. However, attendees suggested that PFW could be more inclusive and increase diverse representation of participants by further supporting participant interests, improving accessibility, and reducing or removing these barriers.
Many of our broader findings can inform other PS projects aiming to become more inclusive. While our research focused on BIPOC, neurodivergent, and disabled participants, the insights may also be helpful for working in partnership with other marginalized communities. We summarize our takeaways here for that purpose. As with all allyship efforts, these are not a checklist for quick fixes. Meaningful, lasting change requires deep personal reflection, confronting biases, and committing to steady, sustainable progress.
Create accessible programs. Obtain funding to hire an accessibility consultant. Make sure your website and digital materials meet web accessibility guidelines, and seek feedback from members of your intended audience on what changes beyond the guidelines are needed. Design programs and activities so they can be easily modified by participants with different access needs, and share information about ways the program can be adapted with participants. Avoid valuing one form of participation over another. Refer to publicly available materials on improving access to science and the outdoors.
Support participant interests. Early on in your program design, talk to the participants you want to include in your program, learn what they want to get out of participating, and then ensure your program meets those needs.
Consider alternatives to participation fees. Consider alternative funding models, such as sliding scale fees, scholarships, voluntary contributions from those who can pay more, or grant or donor funding.
Reduce costs associated with participation. Many PS projects require costly equipment (e.g., binoculars, camera) or training (e.g., SCUBA certification). Despite a desire to participate, participants from historically marginalized communities may have fewer financial resources. Wherever possible, provide participants with equipment, subsidize the costs of participation, or provide alternative ways to participate.
Share project impacts with participants. Before, during, and after participation, show participants how their data and contributions are being used, focusing on the project impacts that matter to them. This can be done through reports, blog posts, and webinars.
Create reciprocal partnerships. Partner with groups that engage with the participants you wish to include in your project, whether schools, community groups or organizations, or affinity groups. Practice meaningful acts of reciprocity with the partner groups (see recommendations for designing inclusive focus groups), and ensure that your project is providing benefits to your partners as well as the participants they may help you recruit.
Increase representation in project staff. Hire staff that share identities with the participants you hope to engage, and provide paid opportunities for community members to work on project design, leadership, or data in a part-time capacity; for example as interns, on an advisory board, or as consultants.
Create opportunities to build community. Fostering communities with shared identities and values within PS projects can help counter the systemic lack of belonging in PS, outdoor activities, and science as a whole. Support the creation of affinity groups within your project or other opportunities for participants to get to know others with shared identities.
Acknowledge and emphasize intersectionality. Doing so allows participants to bring all of their identities with them when they join a PS project. Recognize how multiple intersecting identities may influence participants’ relationships with science, nature, and scientific institutions. Celebrate intersectional identities and represent them in your recruitment and project materials, in your events, and on your teams. For example, help create an affinity group for queer women, and include BIPOC disabled participants in your project materials.
These takeaways can help create inclusive and representative PS projects that benefit both participants and scientists. If successful, the benefits of PS and the empowerment that it can provide to solve problems and address environmental crises can be realized by all, more comprehensive and representative data can be collected, and PS can live up to its original promise (Irwin 1995) of democratized science that represents public priorities.
Positionality Statement
The authors share identities with focus group attendees—two are Black, three are neurodivergent and/or experience mental health challenges, and one is disabled. The project was co-designed with an advisory board where members had additional disability, neurodivergent, and ethnoracial identities, and experience advocating for the rights of BIPOC, neurodivergent, and disabled people in outdoor spaces. This informed the research and focus group questions, and the ways we interacted with attendees. The authors’ identities and disciplinary backgrounds—conservation social science, ecology, participatory science, occupational therapy, psychotherapy—influenced how we interpreted focus group discussions.
Data Accessibility Statement
In order to preserve participant anonymity, transcripts will not be made publicly available.
Supplementary Files
The Supplementary files for this article can be found as follows:
Ethics and Consent
All data were collected in accordance with the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (IRB #23–1346).
Acknowledgements
We are indebted to the focus group attendees for sharing their insights; without them this study would not be possible. Thanks to our advisory board (Caren Cooper, Nenita Lapitan, Freya McGregor, Corina Newsome, and Tammah Watts), Project FeederWatch staff, and the project’s research team for helping us design this research. Thank you to all the organizations and individuals that helped us recruit participants. We thank Christy Pototsky for co-facilitating focus groups, and Emy Delaporte and Kelsey Jennings for transcribing. We dedicate this piece to Emma Greig, in memory of her work to make Project FeederWatch joyful and welcoming for all participants.
Competing Interests
EG was the leader of Project FeederWatch, the participatory science project that is the subject of this work, and TBP works closely with the project as part of the same center.
Author Contributions
KEL, CC, AMD, EG, FM, TBP, TW, and AAD conceptualized the study. KEL led focus group design assisted by CC, AMD, EG, FM, TBP, TW, and AAD. KEL recruited participants assisted by CB, FM, and TW. KEL and CB faciliated focus groups. KEL analyzed results. KEL wrote the manuscript, which was reviewed by all co-authors. AAD supervised the study.