The research explores the motivations and practices of individuals who engage in "personal science." This involves using empirical methods to answer personal questions, often extending beyond passive self-tracking to encompass self-research and self-experimentation. The study situates personal science within the broader contexts of personal informatics, patient-led research, and social studies of science. The study aims to understand the driving forces behind personal science engagement, examining both individual motivations and the shared goals and values that foster collaboration within self-research communities. This participatory form of knowledge generation offers new perspectives on quantified self, personal informatics, and citizen science.

The paper reviews existing literature on self-tracking, personal informatics, patient-led research, and social studies of science to provide a context for understanding personal science. Personal informatics research highlights the use of self-tracking for health and wellness, while recognizing limitations in supporting data interpretation and collaborative aspects. Patient-led research emphasizes the role of self-tracking in understanding chronic conditions and fostering community collaboration. Social studies of science analyses examine both the empowering potential and potential harms of self-tracking, including issues of surveillance and power dynamics. The literature also identifies the connection between self-research and the broader citizen science movement, highlighting the potential of personal science as a form of participatory and democratic science.

The study employed a qualitative approach using 22 semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited from the Keating Memorial Self-research initiative, a collaboration between the Quantified Self and Open Humans communities, and through snowball sampling. Two authors, unfamiliar with the practice of self-research, conducted the interviews using a semi-structured interview guide focused on participation and collaboration. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a conceptual framework integrating citizen science motivations, the scientific ethos (Mertonian norms), and peer production. A codebook with five main categories (improving personal conditions, enjoying data/tech/research, extrinsic motivations, contributing to self-knowledge, sharing goals/values) and 16 subcategories was developed for thematic analysis. Intercoder reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa, with consensus coding used for a category with low reliability.

The study's key findings are organized around five main categories and their corresponding subcategories, as defined in the codebook. Initial motivations often involve improving specific health conditions or general well-being, but these evolve over time. Participants frequently express enjoyment in data analysis, technology use, and the research process itself, reinforcing their engagement. Extrinsic motivations play a smaller role, with career advancement or business opportunities cited less frequently. The importance of community engagement is highlighted, with knowledge sharing, learning from peers, and a sense of collective self-improvement being significant drivers. Shared values align closely with Mertonian norms, especially communality and organized skepticism, while disinterestedness and universalism are less prominent, aligning with the open, collaborative nature of peer production.

The study's findings highlight the complexity and interconnectedness of motivations in personal science. Initial health-related goals often lead to sustained engagement through secondary motivations related to data enjoyment, technology, and community interaction. The importance of community underscores the social nature of personal science and its alignment with citizen science principles. The findings challenge the common focus on solely health motivations in personal informatics and patient-led research by adding in the importance of the research process and community. The integration of Mertonian norms, especially communality and organized skepticism, indicates a commitment to shared knowledge and critical assessment.

This study provides a nuanced understanding of motivations, goals, and values within personal science communities. The findings emphasize the intertwining of personal health goals with the enjoyment of the research process and the collaborative aspects of community engagement. Future research should explore methods to better support this community-based approach and address challenges related to data aggregation and academic dissemination. Recognizing personal science as a form of extreme citizen science can open new avenues for collaboration and knowledge production.

The study's qualitative nature limits the generalizability of findings. While the sample is considered representative of the studied communities, further research with larger and more diverse samples is needed. The framework itself, while valuable, may benefit from refinements to improve clarity and capture the nuances of learning and sharing practices more effectively. Data collection may have been biased by the recruitment strategy, which could have favored more active members of the self-research community.