Citizen Social Science in Germany—cooperation beyond invited and uninvited participation

This research investigates the characteristics of Citizen Social Science (CSS) in Germany, focusing on who contributes and how, within the context of participatory research in the humanities and social sciences. The field is marked by a diverse and evolving ecosystem of participation approaches, with Citizen Science (CS) adoption in these disciplines lagging behind the natural sciences. This study addresses this gap by providing an empirical analysis of CSS in Germany, offering a nuanced account of actors, activities, and interrelations often overlooked. The research aims to shift the focus from participation to cooperation, providing a modified perspective for research and practice. The existing literature on CSS reveals a dynamic growth, but much of the research remains programmatic, discussing potential benefits (interdisciplinarity, data mobilization, new methods, science mediation, impact increase) and challenges (managing diverse interests and motivations, ethics, researcher relations, evaluation, terminology). Empirical studies are scarce, often reviewing literature, sharing experiences from practice projects, or describing exemplary activities. This study aims to complement this programmatic work with empirical findings from Germany, using a framework that moves beyond the limitations of the 'invited' versus 'uninvited' participation model, exploring the diverse organizational features of CSS.

The literature on Citizen Social Science (CSS) is expanding, but two main bodies of work stand out: international discussions on CS, where CSS is increasingly recognized as CS in social sciences and humanities or CS with broader outcomes (e.g., public policy contributions or addressing civil society concerns); and national and regional discourses negotiating how CS and CSS relate to specific contexts. In Germany, CSS is mainly discussed in science policy agendas and position papers. Much of the existing research is programmatic, focusing on potential benefits (e.g., interdisciplinarity, data mobilization, new methods, mediating science and public, increased impact) and challenges (e.g., diverse interests, ethics, researcher relationships, evaluation). Empirical studies are limited, often reviewing literature, sharing practice experiences, or describing examples. The study uses the widely used model of invited and uninvited participation by Wynne (2007) as a starting point, acknowledging its limitations and the nuanced reality of CS practices, which often fall between these two extremes (e.g., collaborative and co-created projects). The authors propose incorporating an organizational perspective, drawing on literature on the interplay between organizations and knowledge generation, management, and learning, focusing on individual and collective actors as contributors and consortia as important contexts.

This exploratory study employed a mixed-methods approach. It began with a document analysis to identify major strands of participatory social science and humanities research in Germany. This analysis, examining scientific journals, books, practice-oriented publications, news articles, and websites of CS actors, informed the development of a working definition of CSS and guided subsequent data collection. The working definition of CSS was established as scientific research in humanities and social sciences carried out in cooperation between professional and non-professional researchers. Key aspects of this definition are scientific research, focus on humanities and social sciences, and the cooperation between professional and non-professional researchers. Following the document analysis, an online survey (April-May 2019) was conducted with 77 projects (response rate: 74%), gathering information on project duration, aims, funding, actors, research topics, and participants. This was supplemented by semi-structured interviews (September-November 2019) with 19 individuals (11 coordinators and 8 non-professional researchers) from 10 selected CSS activities (5 coordinated by academic institutions, 5 by non-academic groups). Thematic and methodological balance were considered for case selection, utilizing insights from participant observation in national-level CSS networking initiatives. Intermediate results were discussed with interviewees and CSS experts in a reflection workshop (January 2020).

The document analysis identified three main CSS approaches in Germany: pioneering CSS and Citizen Humanities (explicitly using the terms), longstanding traditions of research participation (with ambivalent CS use), and transdisciplinary sustainability research. The survey of 57 activities revealed that mobilizing citizen participation and knowledge acquisition were primary goals for many. The generation of innovations or practical benefits was also essential for a significant portion. Projects from the academic sector showed a greater focus on 'doing science and gaining knowledge' compared to those initiated outside academia. Most projects centered on 'politics and society' or 'history and culture', with education playing a significant role. The number of non-professional researchers involved varied widely (2-3061, average 35). The majority were employed or retired individuals, with lower participation from younger groups. Key motivations for participation were interest in the topic, alignment with personal values, learning opportunities, and influencing societal developments. Time constraints represented a major barrier, but most projects didn't offer varying participation intensities or incentives (financial or qualification-based). Co-researchers were most frequently involved in data acquisition (63%). Academic projects showcased more involvement in research design, data collection, and data generation, while non-academic projects exhibited greater participation in result formulation and publication. The terms 'co-researchers' and 'honorary researcher' were commonly used, whereas 'citizen scientist' was less frequently employed, reflecting varying perceptions and epistemological positions. CSS activities were largely publicly funded (75%), primarily at the federal level, with project-based financing dominating. Consortia typically involved 4 organizations, combining academic and non-academic partners (universities, non-university research institutions, CSOs, local authorities). Universities were frequently initiators (40%), followed by CSOs and local authorities. While universities often assumed leadership, CSOs led projects in one-third of cases. Universities played a central role, but CSOs were also vital, acting as mediators with co-researchers. In addition to knowledge production, three key activities were essential: science communication (diverse formats), project management (by various actors), and intermediation (establishing connections among all actors). These activities often involved both professional and non-professional researchers, blurring lines between paid and unpaid work. The study also identified 'invisible' or 'silent' partners (CSO staff, municipality staff, university students, teachers, schools, state agencies) crucial for project success.

The study's findings challenge the simplistic dichotomy of 'invited' and 'uninvited' participation. CSS activities are characterized by diverse organizational settings and traditions, often involving collaborations between academic and non-academic partners in heterogeneous consortia. The findings suggest that invited participation is not the dominant model and that uninvited participation plays an equally important role. The study highlights the limitations of existing typologies in capturing the complex dynamics of CSS. The concept of 'cooperation capacity' is proposed as a more appropriate analytical perspective, focusing on the ability of actors to establish connections and relationships to generate scientific knowledge through participatory research. This approach broadens the focus from participation capacity (how initiatives capacitate individuals) to the broader challenge of managing relations within heterogeneous consortia. This approach unveils additional actors and activities crucial for CSS success, thus offering a deeper understanding of the dynamics involved in such projects.

This study reveals the multifaceted nature of Citizen Social Science (CSS) in Germany, going beyond the simplistic 'invited' vs. 'uninvited' participation model. The authors propose 'cooperation capacity' as a valuable heuristic tool for understanding and supporting CSS, which focuses on the ability of actors to build and manage connections within diverse consortia. Further research should delve into ethnographic studies to illuminate power dynamics and ongoing negotiations, examine the specific features of CSS consortia in comparison to other collaborative fields, and explore the transferability of these findings to CS in general. For practitioners, the concept of 'cooperation capacity' offers a framework for reflection, highlighting challenges (e.g., adapting funding requirements) and potentials (e.g., leveraging CSOs in science communication).

The study's reliance on self-reporting data from surveys and interviews might introduce biases. While the response rate was relatively high (74%), this does not ensure a completely representative sample of all CSS initiatives in Germany. Further research employing ethnographic methodologies could provide richer insights into the power dynamics and less visible aspects of CSS collaborations. The analysis primarily focuses on German CSS initiatives, limiting the generalizability of findings to other national contexts. A more detailed analysis of the socio-demographic and economic backgrounds of participants would further enhance the understanding of participation patterns.