Extreme Citizen Science technologies: attempting to embed values in code
1 like1,431 views
The document discusses the concept of extreme citizen science, emphasizing the integration of participatory methodologies and technological solutions to foster deep democratization in projects. It outlines the evolution of participatory mapping and citizen science, while addressing the importance of inclusivity, ethical considerations, and the interplay of social practices with technology. The text highlights the challenges of digital divides and the need for sustained investment to ensure successful implementation and scaling of citizen science initiatives.
Extreme Citizen Science technologies: attempting to embed values in code
- 1. Extreme Citizen Science technologies: attempting to embed values in code Muki Haklay, Extreme Citizen Science group Department of Geography, UCL Twitter: @mhaklay / @ucl_excites
- 2. Acknowledgement This talk would not be possible without the generosity of the many people and communities that we have worked with over the years…
- 3. Acknowledgement … and the funders, project partners, and sponsors that we’ve worked with (and will work with in the future)
- 4. Can we create technologies that will deliver Deep Democratisation of technological projects? • Background – from participatory mapping to citizen science • Theoretical foundations: Feenberg’s Deep Democratisation) • Guidelines/practices • Values and technologies – 3 iterations Outline
- 5. FROM PARTICIPATORY MAPPING TO CITIZEN SCIENCE
- 6. 1980s • Participatory Rural Appraisal • Participatory Learning and Action 1990s • Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) • Participatory GIS (PGIS) 2000s • Volunteered / Crowdsourced Geographic information • Participatory Sensing 2010s • Citizen Science APB-CMX Harry Wood 2010
- 7. 40.1. In sustainable development, everyone is a user and provider of information considered in the broad sense. That includes data, information, appropriately packaged experience and knowledge. The need for information arises at all levels, from that of senior decision makers at the national and international levels to the grass-roots and individual levels. Agenda 21, Chapter 40: Information for Decision Making - 1992
- 8. GIS are hard to use, facilitation is hard, too Aurigi, A., Batty, S., Bloomfield, D., Boott, R., Clark, J., Haklay, M., Harrison, C., Heppell, K., Moreley, J. and Thornton, C. (1999), UCL Brownfield Research Network, University College London, London, UK, 42 pp 1998
- 10. • In 1969, based on her experience at the US department for Housing, Education and Welfare (HUD), Sherry Rubin Arnstein developed a typology of citizen participation – Arnstein’s ladder Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4), pp.216-224. Participatory Planning / decision making
- 11. The Arnstein ladder factory
- 12. Citizen Science – Irwin/Bonney versions Living Bird, 1996
- 13. Post-Normal Science • Identifying conditions for opening up science/society processes • Post-Normal Science: “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent.” • Use of “extended peer- communities” Funtowicz, S.O. & Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the post-normal age, Futures 25:7, 739-755.
- 14. Critical philosophy of technology: Andrew Feenberg / Albert Borgmann
- 15. Main positions in Philosophy of Technology Technology is: Autonomous Humanly Controlled Neutral (complete separation of means and ends) Determinism (traditional Marxism) Instrumentalism (liberal faith in progress) Value-laden (means form a way of life that includes ends) Substantivism (means and ends linked in a system) Critical Theory (choice of alternative means- ends systems) Source: Feenberg, A. (1999) Questioning Technology, Routledge, New York.
- 16. Feenberg’s Deep Democratisation • “Technical representation is not primarily about the selection of a trusted personnel, but involves the embodiment of social and political demands in technical codes.” (p. 142) • Technology can be also change from within, through an intervention by the users, but technology can be designed to enable it Source: Feenberg, A. (1999) Questioning Technology, Routledge, New York.
- 17. • Let’s say that we can engage people, as “extended peer-communities”/“citizen control”, in developing technologies – will we get Deep Democratisation? • What are the possibilities and where are the limits? Core questions
- 19. • Use of Participatory Action Research (PAR) • Integrating technological/quantitative research and ethnographic/qualitative research approaches • Integrating technology development with science, technology, and society research. Encouraging explicit inputs from social theory A Set of guiding principles
- 20. • Work with community and place, beyond ‘methodological individualism’ There is such thing as society
- 21. • Integrate technology with a social process, and take account of the context Context: society, technology, politics Wider context Social context Mapping • Politics • Economics • Local inclusiveness • Technical ability • Views / Perceptions • Facts / Evidence
- 22. • Directed process, with deliberate open elements to ensure co-design and local control Directed, but open, process
- 23. • Work with people where they are, don’t expect them to come to you (physically, and digitally) Go where people are
- 24. • Keep it simple, in order to make it inclusive (no cutting edge technology, unless there is a very good reason for it) Keep it very simple
- 25. Aiming for assertive inclusiveness • Passive inclusiveness – “we’ll build it and they’ll come”. Websites, events, and processes that do not intentionally put obstacles to the participation of under-represented groups (most contributory citizen science) • Assertive inclusiveness – reaching out to under- represented groups, considering what obstacles they will face and taking them into account in the design and implementation of a project
- 26. Extreme Citizen Science (ExCiteS) is a situated, bottom-up practice that takes into account local needs, practices and culture and works with broad networks of people to design and build new devices and knowledge creation processes that can transform the world. Extreme Citizen Science
- 27. Participation in citizen science • Collaborative science – problem definition, data collection and analysisLevel 4 ‘Extreme’ • Participation in problem definition and data collection Level 3 ‘Participatory science’ • Citizens as basic interpreters Level 2 ‘Distributed intelligence’ • Citizens as sensors Level 1 ‘Crowdsourcing’ Haklay. 2013. Citizen Science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation, Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge
- 28. TECHNOLOGY & PROCESS: ITERATION I ExCiteS & Mapping for Change
- 29. Mapping for Change Process Introduction to existing public information General perception mapping Discussion & initial priorities setting Digitisation, visualisation and discussion Website and online map Citizen Science and data gathering
- 30. Positive Youth or ASB Litter/Rubbish/Graffiti General Maintenance Safety Traffic/Transport/Parking Other Facility Improvements 2008
- 32. Ellul, C., Haklay, M. Francis, L. And Rahemtulla, H., 2009, A Mechanism to Create Community Maps for Non-Technical users, The International Conference on Advanced Geographic Information Systems & Web Services – GEOWS 2009 2009
- 33. Insights from Iteration I • With a limited effort, the first generation of web mapping Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) supported development of accessible web apps. Community maps started to be created. • Digital divides (and background familiarity with Ordnance Survey/A-Z mapping) mean that paper maps are central to the process.
- 34. Insights from Iteration I • Technical development is embedded with the participatory team – working in the same space, participating in events. • Deep Democratisation = Digital + Paper + Easy to use sensors + Structured, but open, process
- 35. TECHNOLOGY & PROCESS: ITERATION II ExCiteS & Mapping for Change
- 36. Problem definition Data collection Visualisation & analysis Action Classification & basic analysis Basic School High School University/ College Postgraduate PhD Literacy
- 37. Engagement: Free, Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)
- 38. Lewis, J., 2012. How to implement free, prior informed consent (FPIC). PL&A
- 45. Insights from Iteration II • When trying to implement assertive inclusiveness, ethics, culture, power, and technology collide • Local politics and abilities of intermediaries are critical • Deep Democratisation = Anthropology & Computer Science close collaboration + affordable smartphone + much consideration of context and culture
- 46. TECHNOLOGY & PROCESS: ITERATION III ExCiteS & Mapping for Change
- 53. Gbiné, Cameroon
- 54. THE POSSIBILITY OF DEEP DEMOCRATISATION ExCiteS & Mapping for Change
- 55. Potentials • Evolving principles from HCI, development, and social theory are starting to become “the ExCiteS cookbook” • Reusing and adapting existing technologies provides an accessible, and potentially extensible solutions • Integrating values into codes is actually embedding technology in social practices
- 56. Potentials • Mix teams, with technologists going to the field (generally, they don’t) and discussing solutions in context is critical to the process • We’ve seen people taking the technologies, and the guidance, and use them in a similar way (e.g. in Malta or D-NOSES project), so values and processes can travel
- 57. Limitations • Technology requires a very significant investment in creating and maintaining (Sappelli, GeoKey, Community Maps) in cycles of 5 years • Assertive inclusiveness is expensive – even when standard technologies are used • The scope for technological intervention is set by wider systems – and this has gone down over the last decade (e.g. Android or the wider Web)
- 58. Limitations • Persistence Digital divides – access to technology (built in obsolescence), knowledge (e.g. illiteracy), costs or connectivity, etc. • Scaling require attention and investment of time and effort, and quicker and shallower solutions are sometime attractive.
- 59. • ExCiteS works across a range of topics, focusing on participatory methodologies • Drawing on theories and knowledge from multiple fields of research • Merging quantitative and qualitative methodologies • Exploring the tools, techniques, methodologies, and theories of citizen science and participatory mapping Summary
- 60. Follow us: – http://www.ucl.ac.uk/excites – Twitter: @UCL_ExCiteS – Blog: http://uclexcites.wordpress.com The work of ExCiteS is supported by EPSRC, ERC, EU FP7, EU H2020, RGS, Esri, Forest People Program, Forests Monitor, WRI and all the people in communities that we’ve worked with over the years