I’ve been giving talks for years that boil down to, “Hey citizen science organizers, it’s up to you to design things so your volunteers can give you good data.” I genuinely believe that most data quality issues in citizen science are either 1) mismatched research question and methodology, or 2) design problems. In either case, the onus should fall on the researcher to know when citizen science is not the right approach or to design the project so that participants can succeed in contributing good data.
So it’s disheartening to see a headline like this in my Google alerts: Study: Citizen scientist data collection increases risk of error.
Well. I can only access the abstract for the article, but in my opinion, the framing of the results is all wrong. I think that the findings may contribute a useful summary-albeit veiled-of the improvements to data quality that can be achieved through successive refinements of the study design. If you looked at it that way, the paper would say what others have: “after tweaking things so that normal people could successfully follow procedures, we got good data.” But that’s not particularly sensational, is it?
Instead, the news report makes it sound like citizen science data is bad data. Not so, I say! Bad citizen science project design makes for bad citizen science data. Obviously. (So I was really excited to see this other headline recently: Designing a Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing Toolkit for the Federal Government!)
The framing suggests that the authors, like most scientists and by extension most reviewers, probably aren’t very familiar with how most citizen science actually works. This is also completely understandable. We don’t yet have much in the way of empirical literature warning of the perils, pitfalls, and sure-fire shortcuts to success in citizen science. I suspect a few specific issues probably led to the unfortunate framing of the findings.
The wrong demographic: an intrinsically-motivated volunteer base is typically more attentive and careful in their work. The authors saw this in better results from students in thematically aligned science classes than general science classes. The usual self-selection that occurs in most citizen science projects that draw upon volunteers from the general public might have yielded even better results. My take-away:
high school students are a special participant population. They are not intrinsically-motivated volunteers, so they must be managed differently.
The wrong trainers and/or training requirements: one of the results was that university researchers were the best trainers for data quality. That suggests that the bar was too high to begin with, because train-the-trainer works well in many citizen science projects. My take-away: if you can’t successfully train the trainer, your procedures are probably too complicated to succeed at any scale beyond a small closely-supervised group.
The wrong tasks: students struggled to find and mark the right plots; they also had lower accuracy in more biodiverse areas. There are at least four problems here.
- Geolocation and plot-making are special skills. No one should be surprised that students had a hard time with those tasks. As discussed in gory detail in my dissertation, marking plots is a much smarter approach; using distinctive landmarks like trail junctions is also reasonable.
- Species identification is hard. Some people are spectacularly good at it, but only because they have devoted substantial time and attention to a taxon of interest. Most people have limited skills and interest in species identification, and therefore probably won’t get enough practice to retain any details of what they learned.
- There was no mention of the information resources the students were provided, which would also be very important to successful task completion.
- To make this task even harder, it appears to be a landscape survey in which every species in the plot is recorded. That means that species identification is an extra-high-uncertainty task; the more uncertainty you allow, the more ways you’re enabling participants to screw up.
On top of species identification, the students took measurements, and there was naturally some variation in accuracy there too. There are a lot of ways the project could have supported data quality, but I didn’t see enough detail to assess how well they did. My take-away: citizen science project design usually requires piloting several iterations of the procedures. If there’s an existing protocol that you can adopt or adapt, don’t start from scratch!
To sum it up, the citizen science project described here looks like a pretty normal start-up, despite the slightly sensational framing of the news article. Although one of the authors inaccurately claims that no one is keeping an eye on data quality (pshah!), the results are not all that surprising given some project design issues, and most citizen science projects are explicitly structured to overcome such problems. For the sharp-eyed reader, the same old message shines through: when we design it right, we can generate good data.