Facilitated Citizen Science in Public Libraries as a Context for Science Socialization

Citizen science and learning

Citizen science (CS) is a term for various forms of public participation in scientific research. CS has demonstrated impacts for participants, typically referred to as “learning outcomes.” CS research generally interprets learning as including not only cognitive outcomes such as knowledge and skill acquisition but a wide range of affective, attitudinal and behavioral factors as well (NASEM 2018). Noted learning outcomes associated with CS include: increases in science literacy or understanding of science (Bonney et al. 2009; Bonney et al. 2016; Crall et al. 2012; McNew-Birren and Gaul-Stout 2022), increased interest in science (Schneiderhan-Opel and Bogner 2020; Smith et al. 2021), development of science agency (Ballard et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2021), and behavior changes following participation in environmental CS (Jordan et al. 2011; Toomey and Domroese 2013), among others (Phillips et al. 2018).

Learning is a continuous and contextual process that occurs constantly throughout a person’s life and is impacted by broader socio-cultural contexts (e.g., formal versus informal learning environments) (NASEM 2018). Learners come to CS experiences with highly variable pre-existing interests, knowledge, motivations, and experiences with science, all of which are socially and culturally mediated (NASEM 2018). Considering a CS experience as a single encounter within a larger “ecosystem” of experiences with science (Allf et al. 2022; NASEM 2018), the outcomes of one CS experience will (hopefully) become the inputs to other experiences in the future. Therefore, learning “outcomes” are not necessarily end points but instead can serve as springboards to continued engagement in CS or science more broadly, and facilitate science learning over the course of a lifetime (NASEM 2018; Phillips et al. 2018).

Theoretical framework

Viewing science learning as a continuous and culturally-mediated process, we propose “science socialization” as a framework for exploring CS learning outcomes in both formal and informal contexts. Socialization refers to a life-long process of exposure to ideas and experiences leading to the adoption of specific norms and practices (Carlone and Johnson 2007; DiBenedetto and Bembenutty 2013). Because prior studies of science socialization have typically focused on STEM career retention and lack a centralized framework (DiBenedetto and Bembenutty 2013; Jahn and Myers 2015; Laursen et al. 2012; Levine et al. 2021), we instead turn to environmental socialization theory to understand the socialization process. Similar adaptations of theory across STEM and humanities boundaries have been seen elsewhere in the CS literature (see, for example, Haastrup et al. 2025).

Environmental socialization was developed as a framework for examining the impact of “significant life experiences” on natural history professionals and hobbyists. In their model, James et al. (2010) introduce four stages individuals encounter throughout their life course, beginning with initial experiences with nature and culminating in identity formation. Building on this work, Bixler et al. (2011) identified 5 key domains that influence the socialization process. Paraphrased to remove the environmental emphasis, these domains were: access, social support, accumulation of experiences, development of competencies, and identity formation. Figure 1 reflects the definitions we used to operationalize each of these five domains in this study.

Figure 1

Notably, Bixler et al. concluded that the socialization process is created through “repeated and diverse experiences…within supportive social worlds” (Bixler et al. 2011, pg. 60), emphasizing the importance of regular and repeated experiences and the need for facilitated connections to be made between experiences. The majority of CS research to date takes a narrow view of participants as statically engaging in a single project to assess learning outcomes. Using science socialization as a theoretical framework allows us to instead take a life course or process-based approach (Elder 1995) to understanding participants’ experiences with and outcomes from CS participation.

Learning contexts and facilitator organizations

There has been growing interest in better understanding the contextual factors that lead to learning through CS. Although participant learning outcomes have been demonstrated in individual CS project contexts, evidence of what leads to such outcomes is mixed. Several studies in recent years, pointing to inconsistent outcomes, have made calls for improved evaluation across CS projects (Bela et al. 2016; NASEM 2018; Peter et al. 2019). These works have demonstrated that learning cannot be assumed to occur without intentional support, and they have emphasized the need for better understanding the specific contexts and factors that lead to certain participant outcomes, particularly those of a more transformative nature (Bela et al. 2016; Peter et al. 2021). This recognition aligns with previous research on environmental behavior change, which has shown that acquiring knowledge does not directly translate into attitude or behavior changes due to a number of internal barriers and external influences (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002).

“Facilitated” CS, which involves an organization such as a museum, school, church, employer, or nonprofit organization laying the groundwork for participation (Golumbic et al. 2025; Lin Hunter et al. 2023; Smith et al. 2023), is one unique context for CS participation that is gaining recognition. These third parties transcend the traditional conception of CS, which has historically occurred within siloes involving only project scientists and participants (Allf et al. 2022). Facilitator organizations not only have the potential to bring new audiences to CS who may otherwise not engage with science (Lin Hunter et al. 2023); they also have great potential for enhancing participant learning through existing infrastructure and supports such as supplemental curricula and action guides (Smith et al. 2023).

Libraries as facilitators of citizen science

As longstanding community hubs for lifelong learning (Mumelas and Martek 2024; Shtivelband et al. 2017), libraries continue to expand beyond their traditional roles as repositories for books and knowledge to offer a variety of services and programs and provide community gathering spaces (Cigarini et al. 2021; Mumelas and Martek 2024; Pimentel and Gomes 2024). Both public libraries and research libraries in the United States (US) and elsewhere are increasingly making use of CS projects and tools to support these shifting goals, including informal STEM education goals (Ignat et al. 2019; Shtivelband et al. 2017).

While a swath of research has been dedicated to the role of libraries in helping to launch CS projects and support principles of open science, particularly in a European context (Ayris and Ignat 2018; Kaarsted et al. 2023; Liu and Liu 2023; Martek et al 2022; among others), there is an emerging focus on the role public libraries play in encouraging participation and facilitating informal learning among the public. Public libraries—in contrast to research libraries—are better suited to such outreach and community engagement goals due to their pre-existing connections to diverse audiences (Tautkeviciene and Pranckute 2024). Like other facilitator organizations, public libraries have the potential to reach more diverse audiences, including rural, low-income, and ethnically diverse populations, than those typically engaged in CS (Lin Hunter et al. 2023; Tawfik et al. 2023; Verbeke et al. 2019). Furthermore, the public holds a deep-rooted trust in both libraries as institutions and librarians as individuals that seems to withstand the growing divides and institutional distrust in other areas of society (Adle 2025).

Research aims

Based on the growing use of CS in public libraries and current shortage of peer-reviewed literature on the subject, our study seeks to explore informal learning associated with CS experiences facilitated by public libraries in the US. Building on Bixler et al.’s (2011) domains of environmental socialization theory (Figure 1), we aim to answer the following research question: How do public librarians in the US perceive that facilitated experiences with CS contribute to the five domains of socialization (access, social support, accumulation of experiences, competency development, and identity formation) and support the lifelong process of science socialization?

Recruitment

We used a combination of purposive sampling (Schwandt 2007) and snowball sampling (Parker et al. 2019) for targeted recruitment of public librarians facilitating CS in their libraries. An existing research partnership with SciStarter allowed us to collaborate with their team for recruitment purposes. SciStarter assisted in sending recruitment announcements via email and newsletters and in identifying individuals who might be interested in participating. Leveraging their Citizen and Community Science Library Network, we recruited nine public librarians from across the US during the spring of 2024. These librarians spanned all four US Census Regions (west, midwest, south, and northeast), and served a variety of rural, suburban, and urban populations (Supplemental File 2: Table S1). Brown (2017) suggests 4–10 cases are appropriate for multiple case study work. Indeed, nine interviews proved to be satisfactory for achieving data saturation, as common themes and repetition of data became apparent during the later interviews (Saunders et al. 2018). Each participating librarian was contacted via email and asked to complete a one-on-one semi-structured interview approximately 60 minutes in length. Interviewees were provided with a copy of the informed consent document via email, as well as a choice of participating via phone or video call. Before beginning each interview, the interviewer reviewed the consent document with the interviewee, provided an opportunity for questions, and solicited verbal consent.

Data collection and analysis

All interviews took place over Zoom between February 23rd and May 6th, 2024. Interviews were recorded and lasted between 32 minutes and 81 minutes. Audio recordings were imported into Otter.ai for transcription. Transcriptions were also manually checked. The lead author (HES) used Quirkos as a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software tool to organize the manual thematic analysis process. Analysis included a combination of deductive and inductive coding (Nowell et al. 2017) to allow for the addition of key emergent factors not included in the original science socialization framework. Deductive coding was focused around the five domains of socialization and followed our working definitions of each domain (Figure 1). As new codes emerged, HES used constant comparison between data sources to ensure consistent application of codes across all nine interviews. Following initial coding, HES exported codes and quotes into a spreadsheet to develop the codebook (Supplemental File 3: Table S2). The lead author then shared the codebook and illustrative quotes with the rest of the research team for peer debriefing before finalizing the codebook. Throughout the process, HES maintained an audit trail to document the process. A positionality statement from the lead author can be found in Supplemental File 4: Positionality Statement.

Access

Access was the most prominent domain, with subthemes related to both opportunities for and barriers to enhancing access to science via CS programming (Table 1). The variety of programs, connections to diverse audiences, and hands-on experiences subthemes centered around different aspects of appealing to and making programs accessible to audiences of varied interests, ages, and other demographics. The varied programs subtheme in particular encompassed ways librarians can leverage existing programs to introduce CS to new audiences, while the hands-on experiences subtheme emphasized why CS programs are a valuable addition to more traditional STEM programs. As one librarian shared:

Libraries are uniquely able to provide patrons with physical (or virtual) access to scientific tools and experts, and access to spaces to engage with science that they may not otherwise have. Common examples shared by interviewees included offering citizen science kits for checkout (providing access to tools like binoculars or clip-on macro lenses), as well as inviting professional scientists to engage with patrons as guest speakers. One librarian articulated the unique role libraries play as a physical gathering place that bridges the gap between the public and science:

In addition to offering access to spaces and tools, three subthemes (existing library infrastructure, resources, and partnerships) highlighted assets that enable libraries to successfully offer CS programming and services. Commonly mentioned assets included social media accounts, newsletters, and mailing lists that let libraries share opportunities with their communities; financial and training resources from sources like IMLS, SciStarter, STARnet, and individual CS projects; staff resources and expertise; and partner and community resources. Across the nine librarians interviewed, more than 30 partner groups were mentioned, including local and state government groups, nonprofits, CS projects or platforms, universities, and informal educational centers like museums and botanical gardens.

Librarians also noted how the nature of CS itself promotes easy entry to engaging with science, particularly due to the minimal cost of equipment needed. As one librarian stated, “the great thing about CS projects is not all of them are super equipment-intensive…some of them, you just need an app for.”

The final subtheme related to access was “putting things out there.” Librarians emphasized the importance of continuing to advertise CS kits and programs to remind people to participate and take advantage of the resources and programs on offer.

In addition to opportunities for providing access to science, several subthemes emerged around barriers to access, including: technological barriers; general CS barriers (such as field safety, protocol challenges, participants’ lack of time, seasonality, etc.); difficulty keeping kits furnished or kits getting stolen; age barriers (perceived and actual); challenges with staffing and turnover; lack of interest, awareness, or comfort with science among patrons; librarians lacking comfort facilitating or teaching about CS; and challenges with terminology and appealing to diverse audiences. Despite the challenges mentioned, each of these libraries has offered—and continues to offer—successful CS and STEM programs over the years.

Accumulation of experiences

Accumulation of experiences (AoE) was the second most common domain referenced by librarians, with subthemes highlighting several common opportunities and two key barriers. Many librarians emphasized the use of program design elements that allow them to scaffold learning and help participants continue exploring a subject on their own (Belland 2017), often by introducing CS kits for checkout during other programs. Similarly, many librarians noted that they offer citizen science programs as part of a series or recurring program, allowing experiences to build on one another and encouraging participants to attend on a recurring basis. One librarian highlighted her library’s monthly “Citizen Science Saturdays” program, intended to spur momentum and engagement around CS. Paired reading programs offered opportunities for libraries to extend or supplement reading programs by integrating CS activities. For example, one librarian shared plans to incorporate Globe at Night into a summer reading program about constellations:

Interviewees also discussed their own accumulated experiences with science and CS, namely: alignment with lifelong interests, prior exposure or proximity to science, and AoE with CS in both their career(s) and free time. For many librarians, their interest in STEM programming grew out of a lifelong interest in the environment. Several also mentioned they may be more open to STEM programming than a typical librarian due to previous exposure to science. One interviewee shared:

Many interviewees also described their repeated experiences participating in CS projects through work and in their free time, either before or as a result of introducing CS programming at their library.

As with access, we also identified subthemes related to barriers to AoE – things that deter repeated experiences with science in libraries. Specifically, librarians referred to challenges related to a lack of consistency in programming and the difficulty of not having a captive audience. As one librarian stated: “I’m glad to be in a public library, but I don’t have a captive audience, and so I can’t guarantee that the kid who came on Tuesday will come next Tuesday, you know?”

Despite these barriers to repeated engagement among library patrons, libraries can structure programs to encourage and even reward repeated engagement—namely through scaffolding, paired reading, and series and recurrent programs. Librarians who facilitate CS programming often find the activities to be a way to extend or develop existing STEM knowledge and interests.

Social support

Social support was the third most common domain with four major subthemes identified (Table 1). Several librarians highlighted instances of familial support during programs, in which families did activities and learned together, parents or adults encouraged learning among youth, and youth took home what they learned at a program to share with older family members—an example of intergenerational learning (IGL) (Newman and Hatton-Yeo 2008).

The facilitated nature of many CS programs in libraries elicited a unique theme of “we’re going to do it together.” This theme centered around learning experiences with a non-family group—especially those directly facilitated by a librarian or content expert:

Minor but notable social support subthemes related to spreading the word about CS and the opportunity for programs to provide relatable role models. The first involved patrons, members of the public, or even librarians themselves leveraging their social system to encourage others to participate in CS. Though mentioned by only one librarian, a particularly poignant example of social support involved a local professional scientist acting as a role model for rural youth by co-hosting a moth night program:

As community gathering places, it is perhaps unsurprising that libraries offer ample opportunities for social support around CS programming—among families and strangers, experts and newcomers. Indeed, we identified no themes related to barriers to social support, suggesting libraries have a unique capacity to build these connections in communities.

Competency development

Our interviews revealed that librarians view CS experiences in libraries as supportive venues for fostering scientific competency development among their patrons—particularly for promoting interest, skills, and knowledge. We identified five subthemes related to opportunities for libraries to support STEM competency development through CS programming. The training and engaging with scientific practices subthemes encompassed participants and librarians actively learning and applying scientific tools and knowledge through CS activities. Interestingly, librarians discussed training most explicitly in the context of their own learning experiences with CS. However, while many alluded to preparing members of the public to participate in CS, they rarely used the term “training,” but instead talked about “teaching” or “showing” their patrons the process.

The curiosity and knowledge acquisition subtheme encompassed instances where CS participants (including librarians) expressed excitement about and/or interest in science and a desire to learn more, while the relevance and real-world applications of the science subtheme involved ways CS projects helped library patrons relate to and understand scientific concepts. One librarian described this reason for adding CS to their STEM programming:

A common motivator for librarians wanting to offer CS programming was to promote science and data literacy skills. Librarians also discussed the value of the data coming from their CS experiences, both in terms of its impact and being able to share the information it provides with their patrons:

Identity formation

The identity formation domain manifested around four subthemes, beginning with “contributing to knowledge about the place that I live.” Librarians perceived that their patrons were able to exhibit place-based identities and valued the opportunity to contribute to scientific knowledge related to that place through CS. Though not exclusively place-based, a related subtheme is that of community action and sense of agency, in which librarians and participants felt they were able to use science as a tool to drive change:

Another identity-forming experience shared by librarians and patrons was having their “non-science” identities challenged through CS participation. In such cases, CS helped counteract participants’ beliefs that they were not a “science person,” making them feel like they were scientists. Similarly, many of our interviewees had developed identities as “the STEM person” or “CS person” at their library among both coworkers and patrons.

Based on our conversations with the nine interviewees, there is certainly potential for participation in CS to cultivate a science identity, as many librarians had themselves experienced this phenomenon. However, our ability to indirectly infer identify shifts in their patrons was limited.

Emergent themes

A handful of emergent codes appeared as major subthemes across interviews but lacked alignment with the five domains of science socialization (Table 1). Five of the nine interviewees discussed the COVID pandemic in our conversations. A couple librarians mentioned challenges related to COVID impacting their momentum and flow of programming, while another mentioned that COVID impacted her community’s relationship with science. She felt that polarizing messaging during the pandemic caused her community to lose some of the progress that had been made through STEM programming at the library. However, that same interviewee also perceived some opportunities that were afforded by COVID where bigger questions about science were raised and spurred in-depth conversations with patrons. As she noted: “science is ever changing all the time. And we’re always learning about it. So it [COVID] did bring science way to the forefront.” This highlights potential opportunities for librarians to capitalize on the immediacy of other science-related current events to engage communities and “bring science to the forefront.”

Six of the nine interviewees also discussed working with school or homeschool audiences. Most librarians found partnering with homeschool groups provided valuable opportunities to work with a recurring audience. One librarian even shared that they had used their homeschool group as the test audience for their CS kits. Conversely, while the interviewees seemed interested in working more with formal school groups, they had generally encountered challenges in collaborating with these audiences. One librarian explicitly mentioned the challenges of having to align programming with school curricula. However, one interviewee discussed successfully working with high school students for volunteer events in the park adjacent to their library. Other libraries might find success working with homeschool groups, while challenges with school groups could be addressed by leveraging existing curriculum-aligned resources from individual projects and organizations like SciStarter and STARnet.

Eight of the nine librarians interviewed mentioned the final emergent subtheme: librarian’s knowledge of and connections to their audiences. Interviewees emphasized librarians’ skills and strengths relating to their audience(s), which allowed them to know both the CS topics and programs that would interest people, and the terminology and framing that would appeal to and be accepted by their communities. This was stated very well by one librarian who said: