背景-目标-方法-结果:公民科学项目设计的一致性及其与支持联合国可持续发展目标的关系

Q1 Multidisciplinary Citizen Science Theory and Practice Pub Date : 2023-06-27 DOI:10.5334/cstp.570
Alba De Agustin Camacho, W. Van Petegem, Mieke De Droog, Lies Jacobs
{"title":"背景-目标-方法-结果:公民科学项目设计的一致性及其与支持联合国可持续发展目标的关系","authors":"Alba De Agustin Camacho, W. Van Petegem, Mieke De Droog, Lies Jacobs","doi":"10.5334/cstp.570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Citizen science (CS) is a diverse practice, with projects emphasizing scientific and/or democratization goals. While the integration of both goals is advocated for sustainability transitions, this implies contextualized methodological choices.\nThis contribution presents an instrument to explore methodological choices in relation to project goals and context, linking these patterns to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By way of a PRISMA scoping review, case studies implemented in the Global North (GN) or Global South (GS) were selected and categorized using the instrument to identify notable patterns. GN projects are generally published by GN authors and can predominantly be linked to productivity goals relating to SDGs on biodiversity (SDGs 14, 15). In contrast, GS projects are commonly associated with diverse co-author groups that focus on democratization and/or productivity, and prioritize SDGs on agriculture, health, sustainable communities, and climate change (SDGs 2, 3, 11, 13). The analyzed case studies could contribute directly to three SDG indicators and indirectly to 22.\nMethodological choices regarding project goals and themes translate into variations in participant selection and recruitment, contribution types, and project outcomes. Further, project design and outcomes can be linked to co-authorships, with larger teams typically associated with co-created projects which in turn focus on democratization or democratization and productivity goals, and produce a wide diversity of outcomes.\nQualitative information extracted from the investigated papers was used to contextualize the relevance of combining productivity and democratization goals as well as the related challenges of harmonizing different interests and of resource limitations as well as other project constraints.","PeriodicalId":32270,"journal":{"name":"Citizen Science Theory and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Context – Goal – Method – Outcome: Alignment in Citizen Science Project Design and its Relation to Supporting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals\",\"authors\":\"Alba De Agustin Camacho, W. Van Petegem, Mieke De Droog, Lies Jacobs\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/cstp.570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Citizen science (CS) is a diverse practice, with projects emphasizing scientific and/or democratization goals. While the integration of both goals is advocated for sustainability transitions, this implies contextualized methodological choices.\\nThis contribution presents an instrument to explore methodological choices in relation to project goals and context, linking these patterns to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By way of a PRISMA scoping review, case studies implemented in the Global North (GN) or Global South (GS) were selected and categorized using the instrument to identify notable patterns. GN projects are generally published by GN authors and can predominantly be linked to productivity goals relating to SDGs on biodiversity (SDGs 14, 15). In contrast, GS projects are commonly associated with diverse co-author groups that focus on democratization and/or productivity, and prioritize SDGs on agriculture, health, sustainable communities, and climate change (SDGs 2, 3, 11, 13). The analyzed case studies could contribute directly to three SDG indicators and indirectly to 22.\\nMethodological choices regarding project goals and themes translate into variations in participant selection and recruitment, contribution types, and project outcomes. Further, project design and outcomes can be linked to co-authorships, with larger teams typically associated with co-created projects which in turn focus on democratization or democratization and productivity goals, and produce a wide diversity of outcomes.\\nQualitative information extracted from the investigated papers was used to contextualize the relevance of combining productivity and democratization goals as well as the related challenges of harmonizing different interests and of resource limitations as well as other project constraints.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Citizen Science Theory and Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Citizen Science Theory and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.570\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Multidisciplinary\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Citizen Science Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.570","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Multidisciplinary","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公民科学(CS)是一种多样化的实践,其项目强调科学和/或民主化目标。虽然提倡将这两个目标结合起来以实现可持续性过渡,但这意味着要根据具体情况选择方法。本文提供了一种工具,用于探索与项目目标和背景相关的方法选择,并将这些模式与联合国可持续发展目标(sdg)联系起来。通过PRISMA范围审查,选择了在全球北方(GN)或全球南方(GS)实施的案例研究,并使用该工具对其进行分类,以确定值得注意的模式。全球生态网络项目通常由全球生态网络作者发布,主要可与与可持续发展目标有关的生物多样性生产力目标联系起来(可持续发展目标14,15)。相比之下,GS项目通常与关注民主化和/或生产力的不同共同作者团体有关,并优先考虑农业、健康、可持续社区和气候变化方面的可持续发展目标(可持续发展目标2、3、11、13)。经分析的案例研究可直接促进可持续发展目标的三项指标,间接促进22项指标。关于项目目标和主题的方法选择转化为参与者选择和招募、贡献类型和项目结果的变化。此外,项目设计和结果可以与共同创作联系起来,更大的团队通常与共同创建的项目联系在一起,这些项目反过来关注民主化或民主化和生产力目标,并产生广泛的结果多样性。从调查文件中提取的定性信息被用来说明将生产力和民主化目标结合起来的相关性,以及协调不同利益和资源限制以及其他项目限制的相关挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Context – Goal – Method – Outcome: Alignment in Citizen Science Project Design and its Relation to Supporting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
Citizen science (CS) is a diverse practice, with projects emphasizing scientific and/or democratization goals. While the integration of both goals is advocated for sustainability transitions, this implies contextualized methodological choices. This contribution presents an instrument to explore methodological choices in relation to project goals and context, linking these patterns to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By way of a PRISMA scoping review, case studies implemented in the Global North (GN) or Global South (GS) were selected and categorized using the instrument to identify notable patterns. GN projects are generally published by GN authors and can predominantly be linked to productivity goals relating to SDGs on biodiversity (SDGs 14, 15). In contrast, GS projects are commonly associated with diverse co-author groups that focus on democratization and/or productivity, and prioritize SDGs on agriculture, health, sustainable communities, and climate change (SDGs 2, 3, 11, 13). The analyzed case studies could contribute directly to three SDG indicators and indirectly to 22. Methodological choices regarding project goals and themes translate into variations in participant selection and recruitment, contribution types, and project outcomes. Further, project design and outcomes can be linked to co-authorships, with larger teams typically associated with co-created projects which in turn focus on democratization or democratization and productivity goals, and produce a wide diversity of outcomes. Qualitative information extracted from the investigated papers was used to contextualize the relevance of combining productivity and democratization goals as well as the related challenges of harmonizing different interests and of resource limitations as well as other project constraints.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Citizen Science Theory and Practice
Citizen Science Theory and Practice Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊最新文献
Snap Decisions: Assessing Participation and Data Quality in a Citizen Science Program Using Repeat Photography Diversifying Large-Scale Participatory Science: The Efficacy of Engagement through Facilitator Organizations “Every Small Action Helps Towards the Greater Cause:” Online Communities Scaling Up Online Community-Led Citizen Science in Addressing Litter Challenges in Scotland Cross-Project Analysis of Volunteers’ Scientific Observation Skills Citizen Scientist Participation in Research on Private Lands Positively Impacts Multiple Conservation Behaviors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1