黑暗的公民科学。

IF 3.5 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-20 DOI:10.1177/09636625231203470
James Riley, Will Mason-Wilkes
{"title":"黑暗的公民科学。","authors":"James Riley, Will Mason-Wilkes","doi":"10.1177/09636625231203470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Citizen science is often celebrated. We interrogate this position through exploration of socio-technoscientific phenomena that mirror citizen science yet are disaligned with its ideals. We term this 'Dark Citizen Science'. We identify five conceptual dimensions of citizen science - <i>purpose, process, perceptibility, power</i> and <i>public effect</i>. Dark citizen science mirrors traditional citizen science in <i>purpose</i> and <i>process</i> but diverges in <i>perceptibility, power</i> and <i>public effect</i>. We compare two Internet-based categorisation processes, Citizen Science project Galaxy Zoo and Dark Citizen Science project Google's reCAPTCHA. We highlight that the reader has, likely unknowingly, provided unpaid technoscientific labour to Google. We apply insights from our analysis of dark citizen science to traditional citizen science. Linking citizen science as practice and normative democratic ideal ignores how some science-citizen configurations actively pit practice against ideal. Further, failure to fully consider the implications of citizen science for science and society allows exploitative elements of citizen science to evade the sociological gaze.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10832315/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dark citizen science.\",\"authors\":\"James Riley, Will Mason-Wilkes\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09636625231203470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Citizen science is often celebrated. We interrogate this position through exploration of socio-technoscientific phenomena that mirror citizen science yet are disaligned with its ideals. We term this 'Dark Citizen Science'. We identify five conceptual dimensions of citizen science - <i>purpose, process, perceptibility, power</i> and <i>public effect</i>. Dark citizen science mirrors traditional citizen science in <i>purpose</i> and <i>process</i> but diverges in <i>perceptibility, power</i> and <i>public effect</i>. We compare two Internet-based categorisation processes, Citizen Science project Galaxy Zoo and Dark Citizen Science project Google's reCAPTCHA. We highlight that the reader has, likely unknowingly, provided unpaid technoscientific labour to Google. We apply insights from our analysis of dark citizen science to traditional citizen science. Linking citizen science as practice and normative democratic ideal ignores how some science-citizen configurations actively pit practice against ideal. Further, failure to fully consider the implications of citizen science for science and society allows exploitative elements of citizen science to evade the sociological gaze.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10832315/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231203470\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Understanding of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231203470","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公民科学经常受到赞扬。我们通过探索反映公民科学但与其理想不一致的社会技术科学现象来质疑这一立场。我们称之为“黑暗公民科学”。我们确定了公民科学的五个概念维度——目的、过程、可感知性、权力和公共效果。黑暗公民科学在目的和过程上反映了传统公民科学,但在可感知性、权力和公共效果上存在分歧。我们比较了两个基于互联网的分类过程,公民科学项目银河动物园和黑暗公民科学项目谷歌的reCAPTCHA。我们强调,读者可能在不知不觉中向谷歌提供了无偿的技术科学劳动。我们将我们对黑暗公民科学的分析中的见解应用于传统公民科学。将公民科学作为实践与规范民主理想联系起来,忽略了一些科学公民配置是如何积极地将实践与理想对立起来的。此外,由于未能充分考虑公民科学对科学和社会的影响,公民科学的剥削性元素得以逃避社会学的关注。
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
Dark citizen science.

Citizen science is often celebrated. We interrogate this position through exploration of socio-technoscientific phenomena that mirror citizen science yet are disaligned with its ideals. We term this 'Dark Citizen Science'. We identify five conceptual dimensions of citizen science - purpose, process, perceptibility, power and public effect. Dark citizen science mirrors traditional citizen science in purpose and process but diverges in perceptibility, power and public effect. We compare two Internet-based categorisation processes, Citizen Science project Galaxy Zoo and Dark Citizen Science project Google's reCAPTCHA. We highlight that the reader has, likely unknowingly, provided unpaid technoscientific labour to Google. We apply insights from our analysis of dark citizen science to traditional citizen science. Linking citizen science as practice and normative democratic ideal ignores how some science-citizen configurations actively pit practice against ideal. Further, failure to fully consider the implications of citizen science for science and society allows exploitative elements of citizen science to evade the sociological gaze.

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
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
9.80%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Public Understanding of Science is a fully peer reviewed international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Public Understanding of Science is the only journal to cover all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Topics Covered Include... ·surveys of public understanding and attitudes towards science and technology ·perceptions of science ·popular representations of science ·scientific and para-scientific belief systems ·science in schools
期刊最新文献
The public you want, the public you get: Exploring the relationship between the public and science in the debate on xenotransplantation. Chinese scientists' mediated participation in public outreach: Multiple direct and personal norm-mediated predictors. Climate change by any other name: Social representations and language practices of coastal inhabitants on Mayotte Island in the Indian Ocean. "They Only Silence the Truth": COVID-19 retractions and the politicization of science. Motivation, self-determination, and reflexivity of researchers in comedic public engagement.
×
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