3 Defining Justice-Centered Community Science

3.2. Introduction

Over time, science has evolved to include new methods and approaches to research practices. Scientific practices can be categorized broadly as using traditional, participatory, and justice-centered approaches. The phrase “traditional science” (or “academic/scientific/institutional science”) refers to laboratory and field-based research. The focus on objectivity, reproducibility, and the advancement and discovery of knowledge for its own sake typifies this approach.

However, science is evolving to become more collaborative and participatory because as researchers are increasingly recognizing the complexity of the problems, they are setting out to solve and recognize the importance of science as solutions oriented as well as discovery centered. Community-engaged science reflects a spectrum of scientific methods that involve communities and the general public substantively in the research process; that spectrum is distinguished by who initiates the research, who leads the research, and the level of interaction or relationship with communities and the general public. For instance, citizen science is a form of research generally led by an institutionally based researcher but conducted with amateur scientists or the general public, enabling nonresearchers to be directly involved in the investigation by participating through data collection, triangulation, and confirmation of data or observed phenomena. This method offers to democratize science by bridging the gap between it and the public. Examples of participatory projects include everything from crowdsourcing data, such as biodiversity monitoring in which citizen scientists simply collect and send data to professional scientists, all the way to involvement in hypothesis formulation, design of experiments, and interpretation of results [Bonney et al., 2009]. When it comes to the latter, community science is a better description because participants are involved beyond the simple collection of data.

Justice-centered community science is an evolution from participatory science to also include social justice components. This methodology aims to socially liberate underserved vulnerable populations, giving them a say in how scientific research that immediately impacts their lives is conducted. This approach takes into account the needs of these communities, values their knowledge and work, and helps ensure that the public gets direct benefits of the research [Ottinger, 2013].

3.3. Defining Community Science on the Spectrum of Scientific Practices and Methods

From traditional institutional science at one end to more participatory, inclusive scientific practices on the other, there is a wide spectrum of scientific practices. Traditional science is invariably carried out in academic or institutional scientific establishments and is sometimes applied in government or industrial settings. It is concerned with the pursuit of knowledge in the form of objective understanding of phenomena and discovery-focused. Traditional science is hallmarked by controlled experiments (in the lab or the field) and typically results in peer-reviewed publication, adding to the body of scientific knowledge. Participatory science is a collaborative form of research based around scientific work undertaken jointly by professional scientists and the community at large; it is focused not only on the discovery of new knowledge but on providing solutions or understanding for the communities involved and impacted by the phenomena. It is equally as rigorous as traditional science and often results in peer-reviewed publications. Participatory science can range from data collection and analysis to codesign of the hypothesis, research questions, and study design. By definition, participatory science democratizes the research procedure so that it is more readily available to and comprehensible to nonprofessional researchers [Bonney et al., 2009]. It also brings science closer to society and makes it more beneficial to nonscientists.

Although justice-centered community science builds on the principles of participatory science, it focuses specifically on social justice principles. The intention of justice-centered community science is to engage and empower a community with research that corresponds to its interests, priorities, and needs [Ottinger, 2013]. Community-engaged science is a concept situated between traditional and justice-centered science approaches; it is unified by an engagement of the public at some level in scientific research. These “nontraditional” participatory scientific approaches can also be rigorous in terms of implementation. This approach acknowledges the importance of local knowledge and the role of “nonprofessional scientists” in answering complex scientific questions. Community science is broad and includes everything from massive global surveys to studies that help determine local environmental health issues. To ensure data quality, researchers often train participatory scientists and provide standardized protocols [Kosmala et al., 2016]. Community-engaged science, as a type of work, represents a distinct but crucial area of activity among this diverse constellation of scientific practices. It also connects traditional science with justice-centered community science, providing a model that is stylistically both open and systematic.

A main component of community science practice includes public participation, which actively involves members of the public in all stages of the research process, including the development of the research topics, methods, and purpose of the research being conducted. This participation could include developing research questions and methods, collecting data, and doing analysis. Community science is a way to recruit numerous eyes and minds to work collaboratively on big and broad scientific questions. This kind of collaborative format, between researchers and community members, is designed to make scientific research more relevant and applicable to real-world problems [Shirk et al., 2012]. Community science contributes to the scientific literacy and awareness of individuals and can serve the role of enhancing education. By participating in scientific research, individuals can develop a strong sense of the scientific process and methods, which can lead to a more scientifically literate society [Bonney et al., 2016]. It is important to note that the term “community science” has been used in public health and psychology fields for ~50 years and very specifically means codevelopment of research goals, training community members, and working with them as equals. If those components are not part of the research being carried out, it is called community-engaged science, rather than community science. The benefit of scalability is especially significant for wide geographic coverage or long-term monitoring studies [Conrad and Hilchey, 2011]. Community science is all about public participation, but it is also quite concerned with the quality and verification of the data.

However, not all science lends itself to fully coproduced community science work, for example, studying exoplanets  through astronomical space observatories (space telescopes.) Although it is important to engage the broader public about topics such as funding for the space sciences and scientists should share the results of that research, communities are not typically involved in determining the questions asked about exoplanets or the methods and processes used to study them. In contrast, developing new farming techniques to reduce climate impacts is something that works more hand in hand with communities, specifically farmers. Such techniques can be codeveloped so that what is being researched and applied is useful, relevant, ethical, and approved by the farmers.

3.4. How Community Science Impacts Science Outcomes and Communities

Community science offers a number of advantages to scientific research, including improved data collection and even innovation. When projects involve many citizen scientists, crowdsourcing of comprehensive data from larger areas and over longer spans of time can occur. Ecologically, widespread involvement is beneficial for environmental monitoring, biodiversity research, and climate research [Conrad and Hilchey, 2011]. One of the more notable examples of citizen science is the Christmas Bird Count, a long-running project that provides volumes of quantitative data on the spatial and temporal distribution of bird populations in the Western Hemisphere that would be otherwise unattainable by professional scientists [Dickinson et al., 2012]. Citizen science allows for the organization of not only large studies that would be unattainable otherwise but also those that are impeded by financial limitations. Often, this type of science is less expensive because it relies on scores of people who are not compensated for their contributions. However, it does require a certain amount of privilege to be able to participate in these initiatives. Sometimes that leads to bad data (e.g., bias in maps of bird sightings).

Although data quality from these efforts is a valid concern, studies have demonstrated that untrained citizen scientists can be trained with standardized protocols to produce data of the same quality as professional scientists [Kosmala et al., 2016]. This training requires a strict process for validating data and technology-driven methods for collecting data in standardized formats. By incorporating citizen scientists, the research can gain diverse perspectives as well as local knowledge, which can contribute to new ways of thinking and research. Community science projects, which routinely include participants of all experience levels and disciplines, can do much to potentially foster creative problem-solving and to come up with novel research questions for those who are looking to dive deeper into the scientific process [Silvertown, 2009].

Community science has impacts on communities beyond the scientific outcome. It is called community science because it directly involves people in the scientific process. This participatory process cultivates ownership and agency and enables participants to contribute to the research that impacts their lives and environments [Bonney et al., 2009]. For instance, community-based environmental monitoring projects can engage residents in efforts to address local environmental concerns. Participating in community science projects provides people with exposure to important scientific principles and ways of doing science. This direct experience increases the scientific literacy of participants, potentially making them better-informed and more engaged citizens [Jordan et al., 2011]. This impact can be further expanded by incorporating educational programs in community science projects to deliver a more structured learning experience.

Community science projects frequently entail cooperation and teamwork, reinforcing social connections and community bonds. Such projects provide an avenue in which individuals might interact with fellow enthusiasts and professionals sharing similar interests and concerns, forming communities of interest and service [Brossard et al., 2005].

Community science projects are capable of providing data that can inform policy and decision-making at local, regional, and national scales. Community science can also provide robust locally relevant data and is a powerful tool that can be used to guide policy decisions and advocacy efforts, leading to positive social and environmental change [Hecker et al., 2018]. For example, data collected through community air quality monitoring projects have been used to lobby for more stringent pollution controls and better public health measures [Ottinger, 2010]. Involving the community in science helps build community capacity focused on the community’s specific issues. Understanding and addressing local issues, therefore, builds more effective, capable, and resilient communities through training and empowerment of the community [Newman et al., 2012].

3.5. Common Community Science Practices

Data collection and monitoring are some of the most common community science practices. These multivolunteer efforts, typically devoted to environmental and ecological studies, can generate rich datasets. Structured procedures and step-by-step instructions provided to participants not only improve the quality of science but also standardize the quality of volunteer efforts.

Community-based participatory research is an approach to research that involves communities in every phase of the process, beginning with the identification of a problem and including the formulation of research questions and participation in all aspects of the research process. This approach is common in public health and environmental justice research to address issues that are particularly important to the community [Israel et al., 2010]. The Healthy Neighborhoods Project, for instance, involves residents in the identification and prevention of local health inequities [Wallerstein and Duran, 2006]. Community-based participatory mapping projects, such as those led by the Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Science, engage community members to map environmental hazards at low cost with tools like balloons and kites. Such maps can serve as a tool for incentives in advocacy and policy change [Warren, 2010].

Community science projects can weave together Indigenous Knowledges and scientific research, as outlined in Krupnik and Jolly’s [2002] edited volume The Earth Is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change. Projects focused on weather patterns, animal behaviors, and ecological shifts engage Indigenous populations to monitor the effects of climate change, linking Indigenous Ecological Knowledges with scientific data collection.

Community science is critical as an educational and public outreach tool to advance scientific literacy (learning by doing) and the science-society (real-world) connection.  A number of community science projects are designed for educational settings and get students involved in hands-on scientific research, enhancing their understanding and retention of scientific knowledge. For example, the GLOBE (Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment) program includes a majority of data collected and analyzed by students [Lawrence et al., 2006].

Workshops and training sessions to educate the public on scientific methods and research topics are often conducted by community science organizations. These activities develop capability and seek to produce a more nuanced appreciation of scientific matters among participants [Jordan et al., 2011]. Last, discussing the results of scientific observations with the general public and advocating for policy from an evidence-based perspective are common features of community science projects. For example, the Waterkeeper Alliance, a global network of grassroots environmental organizations, aids communities in monitoring local waterways and in lobbying for clean water regulations [Kennedy et al., 2017].

3.6. Decision-Making Framework for Selecting Research Methods and Engagement Strategies When Working with a Community

An effective framework will ensure that chosen approaches are consistent with project objectives, community needs, and ethical considerations. This section provides a methodological framework for making decisions about which research methods and community engagement strategies to use when working with communities in the context of community science.

Step 1. Get to Know the Community

Engage with the community to determine their needs and concerns. In community science, building trust and developing relationships is very important. Getting a good grasp of the context is key to the selection of adequate methods and strategies in the respective community. Beyond building relationships, also analyze community characteristics by examining the demographic, socioeconomic, and cultural features present in the society. Recognize the community’s base knowledge, resources, and challenges to participating [Wallerstein and Duran, 2006]. Consult with local residents. Surveys, interviews, focus groups, and community meetings can produce similar findings [Schulz et al., 2005].

Step 2. Define Research Objectives and Expected Outcomes

After getting to know the community, work in tandem with community members to establish research questions. Additionally, work with the community to determine how the project benefits the community—ask them. What are valuable data or actionable solutions? Involving community members in the identification of these benefits stands to ensure that the project remains meaningful and useful for the target population [Israel et al., 2010].

Step 3. Codevelop the Best Approach to the Question

Research approaches that will achieve a balance between rigor in science and community engagement while consulting the community during the process. For projects that require large-scale data collection combined with statistical analyses, explain how using methodologies like surveys, censuses, and environmental monitoring can be useful and appropriate. Make sure that the community participants can understand these methods and get their feedback on whether they are appropriate [Conrad and Hilchey, 2011]. Make community members aware of qualitative methods, that is, interviews, focus groups, and participant observation, that can provide richer insight into the experiences, perceptions, and behaviors of their members. Qualitative methods, such as interviews, focus groups, and observation, are best used when conducting exploratory research when you can obtain detailed information [Creswell, 2013]. Use mixed methods, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches, to take advantage of the best of both worlds [Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004].

Step 4. Determine Methods of Engagement

Engagement strategies that are effective help determine deeper levels of community involvement from the start of the research and throughout the research process. Share all the information about the project with as much clarity and simplicity as possible. This information should be communicated in three levels: the relevance to all, group relevance, and person relevance. Educational workshops and informational meetings can help increase awareness and thus increase trust [Jordan et al., 2011]. Ask community representatives to participate in the planning of the research project, which may involve developing research questions, methods, and data collection protocols together. Participation planning builds ownership for the project and supports the target audiences [Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995]. Strengthen the skills and knowledge of community participants through training and support through capacity building as well. This support can encompass training in data collection methods and methods of analysis and the use of technology [Newman et al., 2012].

Community-based research necessarily involves a host of ethical concerns. Thus, with go-ahead from the community to even start the research, it is important to obtain informed consent from all participants, disclosing the purpose of the project, methods, and potential risks and benefits. The consent process is an area to consider when researching culturally sensitive subjects [Israel et al., 2010]. Keep personal data (e.g., health) from participants confidential and private. Develop explicit standards to provide consistency in the management and transmission of data between staff [Wiles et al., 2008]. Sharing results with community members can aid in determining solutions based on study outcomes [Buchanan et al., 2007].

Step 5. Evaluate and Adapt

Continual assessment and refinement are essential to the success of community science endeavors. Monitor project status related to the objective, goals, deliverables, and quality of community engagement. Implement research methods and engagement strategies and evaluate their effectiveness through feedback from community members [Patton, 2008]. As challenges arise and feedback is shared, refine your research and engagement strategies. To maintain credibility within a community and to ensure success in many programs, the more adaptable and responsive an organization can be, the more trust they will be able to build [Fetterman et al., 2017]. This means reflecting on and learning from the project successes and challenges. Turn this reflection into insights that feed further questions and improvements [Bryson et al., 2011]. Finally, if appropriate, publish the findings in peer-reviewed and/or open-access journals to disseminate the findings to the broader scientific community.

3.7. Community Science as Justice-Centered Science

Justice-centered community science refers to doing research in the same way that scientists have always done research, but with one important change: active participation of community members, especially marginalized groups. Their involvement ensures that the research addresses issues that are relevant to the community. It gives communities the knowledge and tools they need to make a difference. Last, it aims for more equitable distribution of the fruits of scientific labor and to balance power gradients between researchers and community members [Ottinger, 2013].

Many community science projects start by incorporating input from the community to determine what research needs it has. In the case of the Flint water study, a community member initially requested help from a scientist after observing discoloration and taste in tap water. Eventually, this request grew into a larger sampling effort that enlisted residents of Flint, Michigan, to sample water from their homes and submit it for testing for lead. In addition to engaging community members in data gathering, this effort also brought attention to the public health crisis and gave the community agency and resources to address, respond to, and bring attention to an environmental injustice that the community was facing [Roy et al., 2019].

Justice-centered community science focuses on the needs of a community and ensures research outcomes directly impact the community. Across multiple cities, for example, air quality monitoring projects employ local residents to measure pollution levels in their neighborhoods. This information helps communities push for policy changes that would result in cleaner air and, by extension, better public health. Such projects help to make science accessible and relevant by focusing on day-to-day health issues of residents [Corburn, 2005]. As another example, the Citizen Science Soil Collection Program teaches residents how to collect and analyze soil samples for contaminants. This program not only creates local skills for environmental monitoring but also involves communities in the scientific process. Moreover, communities are even further empowered with data that can be transformational to action for the purpose of remediation and regulation changes [Ramirez-Andreotta et al., 2015].

Community science equity is the fair access to participating in science, regardless of who you are or where you live, as well as the benefits of that science, e.g., access to clean water. It also includes access to information, resources, and/or decision-making. One example is the Harlem Children’s Zone Asthma Initiative, in which researchers teamed up with local organizations to research and reduce asthma triggers in Harlem, New York. This project successfully addressed health disparities through this method of promoting environmental justice in a community that is mostly African American by responding to the health concerns of that population [Nicholas et al., 2005].

3.8. Conclusions

Over time, methodologies have evolved to include justice-centered community science, a practice that integrates social justice and research. Traditional science focuses on objectivity and knowledge advancement, often conducted in controlled environments, whereas participatory science involves collaboration between professional scientists and the public, democratizing the research process. Justice-centered community science extends participatory methods by emphasizing social justice, empowering underserved communities to actively participate in research that directly impacts them. This approach values local knowledge, ensures equitable distribution of research benefits, and addresses the specific needs of communities, thereby bridging the gap between science and societal well-being.

References

Bonney, R., J. L. Shirk, T. B. Phillips, A. Wiggins, H. L. Ballard, A. J. Miller-Rushing, and J. K. Parrish (2009), Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy, BioScience, 59(11), 977–984, https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9.

Bonney, R., T. B. Phillips, H. L. Ballard, and J. W. Enck (2016), Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?, Public Understand. Sci., 25(1), 2–16, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406.

Brossard, D., B. Lewenstein, and R. Bonney (2005), Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 27(9), 1099–1121, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500069483.

Bryson, J. M., M. Q. Patton, and R. A. Bowman (2011), Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit, Eval. Program Plann., 34(1), 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.07.001.

Buchanan, D. R., F. G. Miller, and N. Wallerstein (2007), Ethical issues in community-based participatory research: Balancing rigorous research with community participation in community intervention studies, Prog. Community Health Partnerships Res. Educ. Action, 1(2), 153–160, https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2007.0006.

Charles, A., L. Loucks, F. Berkes, and D. Armitage (2020), Community science: A typology and its implications for governance of social-ecological systems, Environ. Sci. Policy, 106, 77–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.019.

Conrad, C. C., and K. G. Hilchey (2011), A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: Issues and opportunities, Environ. Monit. Assess., 176(1), 273–291, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5.

Corburn, J. (2005), Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6494.001.0001.

Cornwall, A., and R. Jewkes (1995), What is participatory research?, Soc. Sci. Med., 41(12), 1667–1676, https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-S.

Creswell, J. W. (2013), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Dickinson, J. L., B. Zuckerberg, and D. N. Bonter (2012), Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 44(1), 149–172, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636.

Fetterman, D. M., S. J. Kaftarian, and A. Wandersman (2017), Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment, Evaluation Capacity Building, and Accountability, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Hecker, S., M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, and A. Bonn (2018), Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy, UCL Press, London, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv550cf2.

Israel, B. A., E. Eng, A. J. Schulz, and E. A. Parker (2010), Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif.

Johnson, R. B., and A. J. Onwuegbuzie (2004), Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come, Educ. Res., 33(7), 14–26, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014.

Jordan, R. C., H. L. Ballard, and T. B. Phillips (2011), Key issues and new approaches for evaluating citizen-science learning outcomes, Front. Ecol. Environ., 9(10), 307–309, https://doi.org/10.1890/110280.

Kennedy, E. B., E. A. Jensen, and M. Verbeke (2017), Science communication in participatory research projects, Sci. Commun., 39(6), 748–776.

Kosmala, M., A. Wiggins, A. Swanson, and B. Simmons (2016), Assessing data quality in citizen science, Front. Ecol. Environ., 14(10), 551–560, https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1436.

Krupnik, I., and D. Jolly (2002), The Earth Is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change, Arctic Res. Consortium of the U. S., Fairbanks, Alaska, https://www.arcus.org/files/publication/24446/earth_faster_front.pdf.

Lawrence, R. J., C. Després, and A. Bryant (2006), Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE), Environ. Educ. Res., 12(3–4), 371–385.

Lintott, C. J., et al. (2008), Galaxy Zoo: Morphologies derived from visual inspection of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 389(3), 1179–1189, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13689.x.

Newman, G., A. Wiggins, A. Crall, E. Graham, S. Newman, and K. Crowston (2012), The future of citizen science: Emerging technologies and shifting paradigms, Front. Ecol. Environ., 10(6), 298–304, https://doi.org/10.1890/110294.

Nicholas, S. W., B. Jean-Louis, B. Ortiz, M. Northridge, K. Shoemaker, R. Vaughn, and M. Rome (2005), Addressing the childhood asthma crisis in Harlem: The Harlem Children’s Zone Asthma Initiative, Am. J. Public Health, 95(2), 245–249, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.042705.

Ottinger, G. (2013), Refining Expertise: How Responsible Engineers Subvert Environmental Justice Challenges, New York Univ. Press, New York.

Patton, M. Q. (2008), Utilization-Focused Evaluation, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Ramirez-Andreotta, M. D., M. L. Brusseau, J. F. Artiola, R. M. Maier, and A. J. Gandolfi (2015), Building a co-created citizen science program with gardeners neighboring a superfund site: The Gardenroots case study, Int. Public Health J., 7(1), 13.

Roy, S., N, Tang, and M. A. Edwards, (2019), Lead release to potable water during the Flint, Michigan water crisis as revealed by routine biosolids monitoring data, Water Res. 2019(1), 160-483, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.05.091.

Schulz, A. J., B. A. Israel, S. M. Selig, and I. S. Bayer (2005), Development and implementation of principles for community-based research in public health, in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, pp. 53–76, Routledge, New York, N.Y.

Shirk, J. L., H. L. Ballard, C. C. Wilderman, T. Phillips, A. Wiggins, R. Jordan, and R. Bonney (2012), Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design, Ecol. Soc., 17(2), 29, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04705-170229.

Silvertown, J. (2009), A new dawn for citizen science, Trends Ecol. Evol., 24(9), 467–471, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017.

Wallerstein, N., and B. Duran (2006), Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities, Health Promot. Pract., 7(3), 312–323, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376.

Warren, S. D. (2010), Balloon mapping for participatory environmental monitoring, Public Lab. for Open Technol. and Sci., New Orleans, La.

Wiles, R., G. Crow, S. Heath, and V. Charles (2008), The management of confidentiality and anonymity in social research, Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol., 11(5), 417–428, https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701622231.