Search

The text left me with a question that I actually often find frustrating in the process of research. On page 6, the authors take up the criticism of a Fukushima resident who says: “[W]hat you call research does not give benefits to local people” (Miyamoto and Ankei, 2008, cited in Ankei, 2013, p.24). The authors here suggest adopting or borrowing terms from the field that are used by citizens to create a more “socially robust science” (Bonhoure et al. 2019, Nowotny, 2003). From the authors' point of view, this can be achieved above all by paying closer and careful attention to the language of citizen organizations and the contexts these groups work in. After further elaboration, the authors call for citizen science terms and concepts developed by, for and with citizens to better reflect the values, priorities, and stakes of its main agents and of all concerned parties. But I am not sure that this approach alone would be sufficient to adequately address such expressed criticism. Perhaps one should ask about the expectations of people one is researching with/about in order to enter into a conversation and to be able to understand this criticism. Perhaps the authors will address this point again in further publications. I think to ask oneself how to deal with this criticism methodically and ethically could also be very fruitful for empirical research in general.

"Within this latter understanding of citizen social science, listening to the field becomes an important tool to accumulate not only concerns and issues expressed by citizens (Morris-Suzuki, 2014), but also to adopt and borrow terminologies used by citizens to generate a more “socially robust science” (Bonhoure et al. 2019, Nowotny, 2003)." (p. 6)

Concept of citizen science (top-down/ bottom-up), and also dealing with the question of the politicalness of data, I think that's quite interesting. As one of the members says: "We agreed that if we just measure accurately, the truth will shine through. If we start saying that we are against [the government], people will label us as against [the government]. So it becomes more difficult for everyone to join us. [...]" (p. 4) - so data is configured as something apolitical, neutral here, and so the citizen science groups also can be like this. I think this is interesting, that they have this concept of data.

I think the concept of citizen science and participation is interesting when we look at the participatory project of the Höchst Industriepark for the residents: They are invited to discuss about impacts of the Industriepark on the districts around. But in this context, the citizens they don't acquire data, but are invited to get informed about what Höchst Industriepark wants to do, what their plans are. I think the aspect of participation is a little hypocritical here: For me it seems to be a measure of making residents feel like they can participate, but there is no decision-making power with them.

Could we see the acquirement of data by citizen as unpaid work? Who gets the credit for this work? (In the context of top-down citizen sciences)

What about participation as a technology of governing?

I think the text is not very critical in terms of top-down citizen sciences.