Abstract
Participatory research keeps expanding to connect science and society through engaging projects using a multi-stakeholder strategy, including citizens. However, each participatory project follows different evaluation formats and strategies. This results in limiting evidences on best practices, hindering the scaling up of Participatory Research. Through the H2020-funded InSPIRES project, an innovative and online-based evaluation strategy was developed which is valid for Participatory Research initiatives labelled as Science Shops or Citizen Science. This strategy challenges those teams that want to undergo a self-reflection process during and after their project is active. An online-tool gathers and automatically analyses data in a harmonized way among projects. The tool delivers back a set of pieces of information through different visualizations which analyze each project’s process in five dimensions, selected-constructed after a careful revision of public engagement and impact evaluation criteria proposed by different projects and researchers. The dimensions evaluated by this online instrument are: (i) Knowledge Democracy, (ii) Citizen-led Research, (iii) Participatory Dynamics, (iv) Integrity, and (v) Transformative Change. Online-based self-evaluation questionnaires were designed and personalized according to the profile of the respondents and are sent out by email in four different stages to capture the momentum of the project, as well as its short-term and mid-term impacts. The quantitative and qualitative evaluation instrument is featured within the InSPIRES Open Platform (OP) which becomes an open repository that allows comparison among participatory projects.
InSPIRES Consortium—Members listed at the end of the paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Fisher, C., Leydesdorff, L., Schophaus, M.: Science shops in Europe: the public as stakeholder. Sci. Public Policy 31, 199–211 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/35108157
Heigl, F., Kieslinger, B., Paul, K.T., Uhlik, J., Dörler, D.: Opinion: toward an international definition of citizen science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116(17), 8089–8092 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903393116
Auerbach, J., et al.: The problem with delineating narrow criteria for citizen science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116(31), 15336–15337 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1909278116
Irwin, A.: No PhDs needed: how citizen science is transforming research. Nature 562, 480–482 (2018)
Newman, G., Wiggins, A., Crall, A., Graham, E., Newman, S., Crowston, K.: The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10(6), 298–304 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1890/110294
Strasser, B.J., Baudry, J., Mahr, D., Sanchez, G., Tancoigne, E.: “Citizen Science”? Rethinking science and public participation. Sci. Technol. Stud. 32, 52–76 (2019). https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.60425
Zaal, R., Leydesdorff, L.: Amsterdam science shop and its influence on university research: the effects of ten year of dealing with non-academic questions. Sci. Public Policy 14(6), 310–316 (1946). https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/14.6.310
PERARES Final report D9.2. Evaluating Projects of Public Engagement with Research and Research Engagement with Society (2014). https://www.livingknowledge.org/fileadmin/Dateien-Living-Knowledge/Library/Project_reports/PERARES_Evaluating_Projects_of_PER_Final_report__WP9_Monitoring_and_Evaluation_2014.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2019
Esmail, L., Moore, E., Rein, A.: Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 4(2), 133–145 (2015). https://doi.org/10.2217/cer.14.79
Kieslinger, B., Schäfer, T., Heigl, F., Dörler, F., Richter, A., Bonn, A.: The Challenge of Evaluation: An Open Framework for Evaluating Citizen Science Activities (2018). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ENZC9
Saris 2020: “Avaluació Responsable Avaluació per Millorar.” Agència de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya. Departament de Salut. Generalitat de Catalunya (2018)
Von Schomberg, R.: A vision of responsible innovation. In: Owen, R., Heintz, M., Bessant, J. (eds.) Responsible Innovation, pp. 1–35 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424.ch3
Fecher, B., Friesike, S.: Open science: one term, five schools of thought. In: Bartling, S., Friesike, S. (eds.) Opening Science, pp. 17–47. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
Milat, et al.: Health Res. Policy Syst. 13, 18 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0003-1
Espeland, W., Sauder, M.: Rankings and reactivity: how public measures recreate social worlds. Am. J. Sociol. 113(1), 1–40 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1086/517897
Lewin, K.: Action research and minority problems. J. Soc. Issues 2(4), 34–46 (1946). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x
Kolb, D.: Experiential Learning: Experience at the Source of Learning and Development. Kogan Page, London (1984)
MORRI Progress report D3.2. Metrics and indicators of Responsible Research and Innovation. Monitoring the Evolution and Benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation (2015). https://www.rri-tools.eu/documents/10184/47609/MORRI-D3.2/aa871252-6b2c-42ae-a8d8-a8c442d1d557. Accessed 23 July 2019
Whyte, W.F.: Participatory Action Research. Sage, Newbury Park (1991). https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412985383
Chevalier, J.M., Buckles, D.J.: Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry. Routledge, London (2019). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203107386
Feuerstein, M.T.: Partners in Evaluation: Evaluating Development and Community Programmes with Participants. Macmillan Publishers, London (1986)
McAllister, K.: Understanding participation: monitoring and evaluating process, outputs and outcomes in rural poverty and environment. Working paper series, 2. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa (1999)
Cockburn, A.: Agile Software Development, Addison Wesley, Boston (2002)
Kenneth, R.: Essential Scrum: A Practical Guide to the Most Popular Agile Process (2012). ISBN 978-0137043293
Few, S.: Bullet Chart Design Specification (2013). https://www.perceptualedge.com/articles/misc/Bullet_Graph_Design_Spec.pdf
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the members of the InSPIRES Consortium, and especially the VU and IRSICaixa Team, and all the external partners that have participated in the several iterations, whose suggestions helped in the creation and development of the tool. The InSPIRES consortium also acknowledges the support of the European Union grant number 741677.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
We declare no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gresle, AS. et al. (2019). An Innovative Online Tool to Self-evaluate and Compare Participatory Research Projects Labelled as Science Shops or Citizen Science. In: El Yacoubi, S., Bagnoli, F., Pacini, G. (eds) Internet Science. INSCI 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11938. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34770-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34770-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34769-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34770-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)