{"id":699,"date":"2013-09-01T14:13:00","date_gmt":"2013-09-01T18:13:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncseagrant.ncsu.edu\/coastwatch\/?page_id=699"},"modified":"2024-09-26T12:06:39","modified_gmt":"2024-09-26T16:06:39","slug":"sea-science-when-worlds-meet-relevant-results-when-citizens-scientists-collaborate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ncseagrant.ncsu.edu\/coastwatch\/sea-science-when-worlds-meet-relevant-results-when-citizens-scientists-collaborate\/","title":{"rendered":"SEA SCIENCE: When Worlds Meet: Relevant Results When Citizens, Scientists Collaborate"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n\n\n
EDITOR’S NOTE:<\/strong> This article was written by Amy Freitag. She completed this study as part of her doctoral dissertation at the Duke University Marine Lab. These results are published as a chapter of that work.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Her research focuses on local ecological knowledge within small-scale fisheries. She studies the most charismatic of organisms \u2014 humans \u2014 and the estuaries on which they depend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition to working on the lines between disciplines, Freitag appreciates and wants to foster discussion about the application of research and creative ways to develop outreach opportunities. She hopes that someday, scientific literacy will be high enough that the line between the expert scientist and average person will be sufficiently gray that people will become comfortable working across it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
She blogs at Southern Fried Science, www.southernfriedscience.com. Contact her at afreitag33@gmail.com.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Citizen science. Democratized science. Public participation in scientific research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Various terms describe citizen involvement in research. They involve members of the public assisting scientists in all stages of the research process by lending time, perspectives and manpower. Such programs are blossoming around the world as the public recognizes the expertise that lies within every person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While programs that include citizen scientists are taking off in leaps and bounds, the N.C. Fishery Resource Grant Program, or FRG, started such cooperative research efforts in 1994 before they were popular. FRG, administered by North Carolina Sea Grant, funds studies that pair scientists and fishermen in applied research for the benefit of the state’s fisheries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Participatory research \u2014 as I’ll call it from here on out \u2014 promises a better understanding of complex issues and already has proven especially helpful to environmental concerns. One of the best examples is in the climate-change arena, where citizen-collected precipitation and temperature data dating back to 1890 as part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Cooperative Observer Program informs our current understanding of the changing climate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the model of participation varies greatly and has shifted over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Beginning with a data-collecting focus, like that of the Cooperative Observer Program, citizen involvement has evolved to become more inclusive and egalitarian from the very first idea for research through the final analysis. A few researchers have attempted to classify the types of participatory research, largely by quantity and quality of participation using the scientific process. But so far, no one has looked at the internal project dynamics that determine that participation. That’s where my case study of FRG comes in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The FRG program directs scientists toward balanced cooperation with fishermen, yet largely leaves the nature of participation for each party to unfold naturally during the course of research. Because of this, I used the FRG program to investigate the specifics of participation and collaboration for applied research. More importantly, I wanted to uncover how such cooperation determines how well the research meets the lofty goals of participatory research: integrating expertise and innovating solutions to complex problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To remove the influence of hot-button political fishery issues and focus instead on common concerns, I narrowed my analysis to FRG projects directly related to water quality. It’s a small slice of the much larger participatory science world, but serves as a case study that might inform development of similar programs in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
LOCAL KNOWLEDGE, SCIENTIFIC LEARNING<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The law authorizing the FRG program states that “every proposal shall include substantial involvement of residents of North Carolina who are actively involved in a fishing-related industry. A proposal generated by a person not involved in a fishing-related industry may be eligible for funding only if the proposal includes written endorsements supporting the project from persons or organizations representing fishing-related industries.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The initial intent of the program was to solicit project ideas grounded in local knowledge from the fishing community to be explored with the help of scientists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although the program continually adapts to changing political and financial climates, it largely holds true to this mission. It requires preproposal workshops and diverse grant review panels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n