Citizen science in the social sciences and humanities: the power of interdisciplinarity

Citizen science (CS) projects, involving lay people in various data-related tasks, have seen a surge in popularity. While predominantly rooted in natural sciences, CS's potential extends to the social sciences and humanities (SSH). However, SSH's representation in CS remains limited, with surveys revealing that over 80% of CS projects focus on life and natural sciences, leaving only 11% for SSH. This underrepresentation stems from several factors: the historical association of CS with natural sciences and positivistic methods, ongoing debates surrounding SSH's academic legitimacy, and a research funding landscape favoring technocratic approaches. Furthermore, methodological and ethical concerns arise when tackling sensitive SSH topics. The neoliberal transformation of universities has also marginalized SSH, contributing to their underrepresentation in CS. While SSH possess significant experience in collaborations between lay people and scientists (e.g., participatory action research), the very definition of "science" varies across languages, causing confusion around the term "citizen science." This study aims to investigate the current and potential roles of SSH in CS. Specifically, it explores how SSH can provide methodological frameworks for CS and how the potential contributions of SSH can be better leveraged. The study utilizes a meta-synthesis of selected publications to compare the involvement of SSH with other scientific fields in CS projects, aiming to identify whether mutually beneficial interdisciplinary collaborations can be established for scientific and societal advancement.

The paper draws on a wide range of existing literature to establish the context of citizen science within the social sciences and humanities. It cites studies that highlight the underrepresentation of SSH in citizen science projects and explores various reasons for this imbalance. The literature review examines different methodological and epistemological approaches used in citizen science and discusses the role of participatory action research and other collaborative methods. It delves into the ongoing debate about the definition and scope of citizen science, particularly the challenges of translating the term across different languages and cultural contexts. The review also considers existing debates within the broader context of social science, exploring issues such as the legitimacy of SSH research and its funding landscape. This review serves as a foundation for understanding the motivations and challenges related to the integration of SSH into citizen science projects.

The study employed a meta-synthesis methodology to analyze existing research on the role of SSH in citizen science. This qualitative approach involved a systematic search and retrieval of relevant papers from two major databases: Clarivate Analytics Core Collection and EBSCOhost. Initially, 2763 records were retrieved using keyword combinations such as "citizen science AND social sciences." The selection process involved multiple steps. First, only full-text papers available to the researchers were retained, resulting in 1244 papers. Then, a manual perusal of titles, abstracts, and keywords was conducted to ensure relevance to the research questions. This resulted in 344 full-text papers in English, Spanish, and French, which were subjected to a preliminary meta-synthesis. Further refinement reduced the sample to 62 papers providing sufficient data. These papers were categorized based on the fields of science they represented: social sciences (39 papers), humanities (5 papers), biomedical sciences (2 papers), and natural sciences (16 papers). Some papers fell under multiple categories. The analysis involved a team of researchers with expertise in various fields, each reviewing papers related to their specialization and inputting findings into a standardized spreadsheet. Regular meetings ensured collaborative data interpretation and the resolution of any disagreements. The meta-synthesis analyzed various aspects of the selected papers, including research questions, methods used to involve citizens, citizen roles in the research cycle, disciplinary fields, aims of CS involvement, benefits of citizen-generated data, and data accessibility and publication strategies.

The analysis revealed several key findings. In citizen social science projects, methodological approaches ranged from conventional techniques (surveys, interviews) to more innovative ones (digital storytelling, action research). Citizen roles were primarily contributory, mainly focusing on data collection, although some projects allowed for broader involvement in the research process. Social sciences featured prominently in interdisciplinary projects, addressing societal needs through various sub-fields (anthropology, sociology, education). The analysis revealed diverse purposes for incorporating SSH in CS projects, including addressing methodological challenges, managerial issues, policy development, tackling social and environmental challenges, and studying the social life of citizens. Citizen-generated data encompassed a wide variety of personal and social information. Data accessibility varied, with some projects providing open access while others offered personalized reports. Publicising of data was largely through scientific publications and digital media. Citizens reported gaining valuable experience, knowledge, and a sense of empowerment from their participation. In the humanities, the findings demonstrated the value of CS in enhancing access to primary sources, accelerating data capture, and improving knowledge dissemination. Citizen roles included compilation, analysis, and sharing of sources, and benefits included strengthening the symbolic link with heritage, community building, and enhancing public understanding of science. The review of biomedical papers offered a limited perspective, highlighting the involvement of citizens as data providers rather than partners in the research process. The natural science studies indicated a stronger focus on scientific outcomes with citizen roles predominantly limited to data collection. However, interdisciplinary projects integrating social science methods were observed, emphasizing the social dimension of scientific endeavors.

The findings demonstrate the substantial interdisciplinary nature of SSH in CS projects. Social sciences, particularly, appear frequently alongside environmental or natural sciences, often addressing complex issues, such as sustainable development. However, they often lack explicit recognition within interdisciplinary projects. While CS projects provide opportunities for integrating SSH to enrich data collection and expand knowledge, there's a significant gap in the utilization of SSH's full potential. Some social science subfields show greater receptiveness than others, while humanities' presence remains limited. Social sciences play a double role – conducting research on CS practices and creating their own projects. This study reveals a need to strengthen the role of SSH in CS by focusing on better understanding the socio-technical aspects of sustainability challenges and the motivations and learning processes of participants. Furthermore, the study identifies the need for better communication strategies to inform citizens about the use of their data and the overall impact of their participation.

This study highlights the considerable potential for integrating SSH within CS initiatives. While social sciences are increasingly involved, particularly in addressing complex social issues, the participation of humanities remains underutilized. Future research should focus on developing more robust methodological frameworks that leverage SSH perspectives to enhance the design, implementation, and impact of CS projects. This includes better understanding citizen motivations, improving communication strategies, and maximizing data accessibility and utilization. A more balanced interdisciplinary approach in CS can improve sustainability outcomes and public engagement with science.

The study's limitations include a relatively small sample size in certain fields (humanities, biomedical sciences), particularly for interdisciplinary collaborations involving these fields. The reliance on two major databases may have resulted in an incomplete capture of all relevant papers, especially those published in less mainstream venues or outside of the English, Spanish and French languages. The inherent ambiguity surrounding the term "citizen science" and its various interpretations across disciplines may have influenced the selection and analysis of papers. Additionally, the potential for bias in the manual selection process should be acknowledged.