Table 1
Process evaluation framework for citizen science programs, adapted from Kieslinger et al. (2018).
| CORE CRITERIA | GUIDING FOCUS |
|---|---|
| Dimension 1: Scientific quality and governance | |
| Purpose and knowledge orientation | Are the scientific objectives clear, credible, and appropriate for a CS approach, and do they address socially relevant problems through joint knowledge creation? |
| Data integrity and governance | Are data validation, quality assurance, ethics, and data governance (ownership, access, consent) clearly defined, transparent, and understood by participants? |
| Openness and system integration | Does the project ensure appropriate openness, interoperability, and long-term data stewardship to enable reuse and institutional uptake? |
| Evaluation and adaptative management | Does the project include reflexive evaluation and adaptive management mechanisms to respond to scientific, social, and political risks over time? |
| Collaboration and interdisciplinarity | Does the project mobilize relevant interdisciplinary expertise and partnerships to enhance learning, credibility, and robustness? |
| Dimension 2: Participant engagement and capacity | |
| Inclusivity and role design | Are participation opportunities aligned with the capacities, motivations, and constraints of different participant groups, with diversified roles and pathways? |
| Depth and equity of participation | Are participants able to engage meaningfully across project phases, and are citizens and scientists positioned as mutually respected partners? |
| Capacity building and communication | Are training, facilitation, feedback, and communication practices sufficient to support learning, confidence, and sustained engagement? |
| Dimension 3: Societal impact and communication | |
| Outreach and dialogue | Does the project employ targeted, accessible, and two-way communication strategies to engage affected communities and broader audiences? |
| Amplification and uptake | Does the project connect with media, civil society, and policy-relevant actors to enhance trust, visibility, and the potential for social or policy impact? |