Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen science projects Dana Rotman, Jennifer Preece, Jennifer Hammock, Kezee Procita, Derek Hansen, Cynthia Parr, Darcy Lewis, David Jacobs CSCW ‘12, February 13, 2012, Seattle WA
Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen science projects
May 15, 2015
Online citizen science projects engage volunteers in collecting, analyzing, and curating scientific data. Existing projects have demonstrated the value of using volunteers to collect data, but few projects have reached the full collaborative potential of scientists and volunteers. Understanding the shared and unique motivations of these two groups can help designers establish the technical and social infrastructures needed to promote effective partnerships. We present findings from a study of the motivational factors affecting participation in ecological citizen science projects. We show that volunteers are motivated by a complex framework of factors that dynamically change throughout their cycle of work on scientific projects; this motivational framework is strongly affected by personal interests as well as external factors such as attribution and acknowledgment. Identifying the pivotal points of motivational shift and addressing them in the design of citizen-science systems will facilitate improved collaboration between scientists and volunteers.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen science projects
Dana Rotman, Jennifer Preece, Jennifer Hammock, Kezee Procita, Derek Hansen, Cynthia Parr, Darcy Lewis, David Jacobs
CSCW ‘12, February 13, 2012, Seattle WA
Crowdsourcing is needed to accomplish scientific work
Research Questions
What are the major motivational factors affecting volunteers and scientists’ engagement in citizen science projects?
1
What are the major motivational barriers to such collaboration?
2
Methods
Participants
Scientists n = 62 (44%)
Volunteers n = 80 (56%)
Experience
Less than a year ScientistsVolunteers
n = 16n = 35
(25%)(44%)
More than a year ScientistsVolunteers
n = 46n = 45
(75%)(56%)
Gender
MaleScientistsVolunteers
n = 38 n = 46
(60%)(57%)
FemaleScientistsVolunteers
n = 24n = 34
(40%)(43%)
N = 142
Magnusfrankkun @ Flickr
Survey
18 interviewsScientists (44%)
Volunteers (56%)
Most participants had more than 1 year of
experience
Principles of social participation
Buckeye98 @Flickr
Liam Q @ FlickrXXTeresaXX@Flickr
Egoism
PrincipalismCollectivism
Altruism
Batson, Ahmed and Chang, 2002
yarotman
Motivations for collaboration
Motivations for collaboration - scientists
Education and outreach
“I don’t think people can make good decisions, be it policy or environmental or anything else, unless they understand how things work. This provides the opportunity to educate people through a valid citizen science program”
Data needs
“I see [volunteers] as most helpful in making accurate observations… they are basically the field component”
Motivations for collaboration - volunteers
Primary motivation - personal interest
“I think personal interest comes first. Personal interest and personal gain”.
“I would be less inclined to participate in something I had little interest in, even if it was a worthy endeavor”
Motivations for collaboration - volunteers
Secondary motivations - recognition and attribution
“I’m not really, obviously, objected to glory. I do expect attribution… I would always like to be the first one to put a photo up there, it’s got to count somehow” “It’s not about spending time or money. It’s more about the constant feedback to the volunteers that what we’re doing is useful and being used”
“people going through the thorough training feel like they’re contributing a lot more”
Motivations for collaboration - volunteers
Feedback
“It’s the combination of being an affective citizen scientist and seeing the community thrive… people really care about their natural resources here”
“It’s a perfect opportunity to help people understand their environment. I hope that something that you say will make a dent and make them more curious and they’ll go home and pick a book or they’ll call you back”
Secondary motivations - community involvement and advocacy
De-motivating factors
“Scientists are intimidating”“Scientists speak a different jargon”“they are just so unfriendly!”
Volunteers Scientists
“they may potentially contaminate the data”“we need quality control!”
“people won’t come back if there isn’t a loop of credibility and trust and things that they can see that are being accomplished as a result of the data they are collecting”
Without scientists’
recognition = loss of
motivation
Personal interest
initial or ongoing
Initial involvement Interaction with
scientists
RecognitionTraining, attribution,
feedback
Continued involvement
Ongoing attribution, inclusion in scientific work, community involvement ,
advocacy
egoism
egoismEgoism,
collectivism, altruism
Without scientists’ continued
recognition = loss of
motivation
Scientists’ need for data
Scientists’ altruistic support
for public education
Process model of scientists’ and volunteers’ collaboration
Designing for continuous collaboration
Timing is everything
toniVC @ Flickr
Designing for continuous collaboration
Highlighting data use and reuse
http://www.divematrix.com/showthread.php?9520-hehehehe-Hermit-Crab-movin-on-up!
Designing for continuous collaboration
Emphasize locality
toniVC @ Flickr
Yarotman
Designing for continuous collaboration
Break tasks into smaller building blocks; support synergy
Ksgr @ Flickr
Designing for continuous collaboration
Match scientists, volunteers and tasks
muhawi001@ Flickr
Jessi.bryan @ Flickr
Future work
Examine the process model across cultures and disciplines
1
2 Facilitate better ways to get volunteers to come back and continuously engage in citizen science collaborations
Related Documents
