Search

The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science was endorsed in November 2021 by all 193 member states of UNESCO after two years of preparation. Citizen science practitioners across the globe have extensive and diverse first-hand experience with the practice of engaging different groups of stakeholders in the scientific production and application of new knowledge. Under the umbrella of the Community of Practice on Citizen Science and Open Science (CS&OS CoP) of the Citizen Science Global Partnership (CSGP), a group of 63 citizen science practitioners from 24 countries contributed to the process of drafting the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. UNESCO has asked the CS&OS CoP and associates to provide guidance for country governments on how to embed the open engagement of societal actors in their (Open) Science policies to ensure that this pillar is suitably addressed and incorporated in the implementation of the Recommendation around the world. In response to this request, 35 people from 21 countries collaborated in a short and concentrated effort to gather and review relevant resources and case study examples, and present these along with the below guidance on successful approaches and mechanisms for embedding the open engagement of societal actors in (Open) Science policy.

Bringing Conversations on Diversity and Inclusion in Data Science to the Ecological and Environmental Sciences, was a 3-day conference hosted at the UCAR's Center Green in Boulder, Colorado, April 2-4, 2019.

This document provides supplementary material to the Characteristics of Citizen Science

This document attempts to represent a wide range of opinions in an inclusive way, to allow for different types of projects and programmes, where context-specific criteria can be set.The characteristics outlined below are based on views expressed by researchers, practitioners, public officials and the wider public. Our aim is to identify the characteristics that should be considered when setting such criteria (e.g. a funding scheme), and we call upon readers to determine which subset of these characteristics is relevant to their own specific context and aims. These characteristics build on (and refer to) the ECSA 10 principles of citizen science as a summary of best practie – and projects are expected to engage meaningfully with them. Where it is especially pertinent, we refer to them in the characteristics below. The rest of the document covers the characteristics of citizen science under five sections: (1) core concepts; (2) disciplinary aspects; (3) leadership and participation; (4) financial aspects; and (5) data and knowledge. Further explanation and background are provided in the ‘ECSA’s characteristics of citizen science: explanation notes’ document. The research article describing this work 'Contours of citizen science: a vignette study' can be found in the Royal Society Open Science journal athttps://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.202108.

This explanation document provides an interpretation of and explanation for the characteristics document, which was kept short to make it useful to different stakeholders. In this document, the characteristics document is represented, with the original text in blue and an explanation in black. The research article describing this work 'Contours of citizen science: a vignette study' can be found in the Royal Society Open Science journal athttps://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.202108. &nbsp

As the first webinar in our series, “The Socioeconomic Value of Earth Science Data, Information, and Applications”, we explore the value and benefits that Earth Science data brings to society, including its contributions to economics and quality of life. The challenges and opportunities for enhancing Earth Science’s societal benefits are also broadly addressed. To offer a balanced perspective behind the meaning of “value”, our panel represents expertise from economics, earth science, data and informatics, engineering, social sciences, and policy. Panelists provide examples of different techniques and approaches that can be used to enhance socioeconomic value, such as citizen science, and highlight some communities of practice that are currently addressing these issues, such as GEOValue.

A growing number of individuals who are not professional scientists are working with professional scientists to contribute to scientific research through a broad spectrum of volunteer activities and roles. To guide the regulatory oversight of scientists carrying out citizen science projects, we draw distinctions among five categories of projects in which volunteer activities and roles vary based on the combination of setting (institutional or not), subject matter (human or not), and the norms and expectations of handling volunteers’ personally identifiable information. Each category has potentially different ethical considerations and forms of institutional (or regulatory) oversight. We identify and assign numeric labels to these categories rather than names to avoid confusion and value-laden connotations regarding terminology. We hope the absence of terminology will initiate conversations and encourage rapid evolution of necessary vocabulary in this area. We focus on Type 4 research, projects led in academia and in which volunteers are not the subject of the research, but provide personally identifiable information with expectations of non-confidentiality. Our preliminary data show that current Type 4 projects generally lack informed consent, and most do not provide details about their handling of personally identifiable data. We identify areas where federal guidelines, as well as existing institutional ethics review protocols for protection of human subjects in research, might be applied to some forms of citizen science in ways that could either support, or inadvertently undermine, the Common Rule (the US regulation regarding protection of human subjects). We illustrate these areas with examples of projects from Cooper’s lab. By highlighting the complex and distinct challenges of responsible conduct with each project type, we urge professional scientists, citizen scientists, regulators, and other stakeholders to jointly determine the type of institutional oversight that will best mitigate risks without stymying innovation and benefits. We hope that this essay will spark a lively discussion and refinement of concepts, research, and improved practices., Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4 (1)

As the first webinar in our series, “The Socioeconomic Value of Earth Science Data, Information, and Applications”, we explore the value and benefits that Earth Science data brings to society, including its contributions to economics and quality of life. The challenges and opportunities for enhancing Earth Science’s societal benefits are also broadly addressed. To offer a balanced perspective behind the meaning of “value”, our panel represents expertise from economics, earth science, data and informatics, engineering, social sciences, and policy. Panelists provide examples of different techniques and approaches that can be used to enhance socioeconomic value, such as citizen science, and highlight some communities of practice that are currently addressing these issues, such as GEOValue.

Ownership, control of and access to tribal spatial data are long-standing issues for American Indian tribes in the United States. Federal and state court decisions resulting in the disclosure of tribal information under freedom of information laws, the sophisticated data integration and analysis capacity of GIS, and advances in satellite remote sensing heighten concerns. Fundamental issues are at stake, including tribes’ rights and interests in their knowledge and resources, federal agencies’ authority and decision-making that affect those resources, and the public’s right to know. Within the context of the federal-tribal relationship, this research investigates tribes’ concerns regarding unwanted disclosure of tribal spatial data and the circumstances under which disclosure may occur. This study also evaluated mechanisms to mitigate these risks. Sensitive tribal spatial data include sacred sites and cultural resources, information about land parcel status, water rights, resource leases, and more. Tribes are concerned about the potential for misuse of their spatial data for several reasons: infringement on individual and group privacy; misappropriation of intellectual property and its use for commercial gain; misinterpretation or discrediting of cultural practices; abrogation of treaty rights; and the impact on the federal Trust relationship. Spatial data about tribes potentially may be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act if the federal government creates or maintains the data, or if tribes share their data with the federal government in response to consultation, litigation, or federal funding requirements. Tribes may strengthen their sovereignty by building the internal capacity to understand and use spatial technologies to their advantage, and by keeping abreast of new spatial technologies and their potential implications. Tribes could develop criteria to assess the sensitivity of spatial data, regardless of the technology; use that criteria to identify the most sensitive and valuable information; and enact tribal freedom of information and privacy statutes that balance the need for disclosure with the need to keep some data confidential. Ultimately, controlling access to sensitive spatial data of tribes’ land and resources will require a creative combination of legal, policy, and technical solutions. Cite as: Shanley, L. A. (2015). Spatial Data Sovereignty and Privacy in Indian Country. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Madison. UMI Number 3707906. DOI: 10.5281/Zenodo.4085173 Available at: https://zenodo.org/record/4085173#.X4XBaC2ZPxo Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3710844, My heartfelt appreciation is extended to: • All those who were interviewed for and contributed to this dissertation research for generously offering their expertise, experience, and time. • My advisor, Steve Ventura, and faculty mentors, including Harlan Onsrud, Gary Sandefur, Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, Larry Nesper, Kristin Eschenfelder, Tom Lillesand, and Frank Scarpace, for their expertise, encouragement, and patience. • Merv Tano and Renee M. Pulani, whose breadth of knowledge, wisdom, friendship, and thoughtful critique guided my research. • Crystal Bond, Celine Elm, Chris English, Jhon Goes In Center, Stan Lalio, Bryan Marozas, Rosemarie McKeon, Tracy Mofle, Richard Monette, James Rattling Leaf, CloAnn Villegas, Alvin Warren, William Whatley, Holly Youngbear-Tibbits, and many others who generously offered their expertise, guidance, gentle tactfulness, friendship, and time. • Bill Northover, who kindly welcomed me into the Inter-Tribal GIS Council; he is greatly missed. • Jason Kessler, whose empathetic leadership inspires me and who created the space for me to finish this journey.