Does Citizen Science Conceal an Important Dichotomy between Crowd-sourced and Place-based Science? – An Outlook from Three Decades of Raptor Research at the Golden Gate

The Golden Gate Raptor Observatory was founded in 1984 as a cooperative program of the National Park Service, to monitor the largest raptor migration site in California. Today, GGRO has 300 volunteers and three paid staff. We... [ view full abstract ]

The Golden Gate Raptor Observatory was founded in 1984 as a cooperative program of the National Park Service, to monitor the largest raptor migration site in California. Today, GGRO has 300 volunteers and three paid staff. We use counting, banding, radio-tracking, and GSM satellites to track raptor flights and numbers. We have produced over 100 articles and presentations for scientific audiences, and have conducted cooperative research with eight local universities. Among lessons learned at GGRO: citizen scientists are not cheap labor; they are expensive. They require interviewing, training, and clear position descriptions. They must follow methodologies, be evaluated, and can be fired. Given the work, why engage volunteers to do field research? For at least two reasons -- both of which support conservation biology: they bring creativity to the scientific process, and they create outcomes that deeper embed our research into local communities.

In a 2012 textbook on citizen science, one author asserts “Had a book like this been attempted before widespread use of the internet, it would have been at best, bland. It is no coincidence that the first appearances of the phrase ‘citizen science’ in the 1990s coincided with the internet’s ascendance.” However flawed, this statement points to a natural schism in citizen science, a split between (1) crowd-sourced, internet-based data collection, and (2) a more localized research wherein volunteers work closely with each other and with scientists to collect data, and to organize and present results. This latter, more place-based model of citizen science offers different benefits and challenges than the crowd-sourcing internet model. Among them: (1) regular and personal dialogue between scientists and data collectors about the research process; (2) a local tradition of research that can support neighborhood conservation, education, and sociopolitical issues; and (3) a sense of ownership of the research among the volunteers.