Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27460040›Full record

ArticleBMC ecology2016

To have your citizen science cake and eat it? Delivering research and outreach through Open Air Laboratories (OPAL).

Poppy Lakeman-Fraser, Laura Gosling, Andy J Moffat, Sarah E West, Roger Fradera, Linda Davies, Maxwell A Ayamba, René van der Wal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ecology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. An Effective Model for Engaging Faculty and Undergraduate Students in Neuroscience Outreach with Middle Schoolers.Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Poppy Lakeman-FraserCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, South Kensington, London, SW7 1NA, UK. p.lakeman-fraser@imperial.ac.uk.
Laura GoslingCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, South Kensington, London, SW7 1NA, UK.
Andy J MoffatForest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey, GU10 4LH, UK.
Sarah E WestStockholm Environment Institute, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Roger FraderaCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, South Kensington, London, SW7 1NA, UK.
Linda DaviesCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, South Kensington, London, SW7 1NA, UK.
Maxwell A AyambaDepartment for the Natural and Built Environment, Faculty of Development and Society, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK.
René van der WalAberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability, School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe vast array of citizen science projects which have blossomed over the last decade span a spectrum of objectives from research to outreach. While some focus primarily on the collection of rigorous scientific data and others are positioned towards the public engagement end of the gradient, the majority of initiatives attempt to balance the two. Although meeting multiple aims can be seen as a 'win-win' situation, it can also yield significant challenges as allocating resources to one element means that they may be diverted away from the other. Here we analyse one such programme which set out to find an effective equilibrium between these arguably polarised goals. Through the lens of the Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) programme we explore the inherent trade-offs encountered under four indicators derived from an independent citizen science evaluation framework. Assimilating experience from the OPAL network we investigate practical approaches taken to tackle arising tensions.

resultsWorking backwards from project delivery to design, we found the following elements to be important: ensuring outputs are fit for purpose, developing strong internal and external collaborations, building a sufficiently diverse partnership and considering target audiences. We combine these 'operational indicators' with four pre-existing 'outcome indicators' to create a model which can be used to shape the planning and delivery of a citizen science project.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that whether the proverb in the title rings true will largely depend on the identification of challenges along the way and the ability to address these conflicts throughout the citizen science project.

Indexed as

VolunteersData CollectionModels, TheoreticalResearch DesignUnited KingdomCitizen scienceEvaluation frameworkLessons learnedOPALOutputsOutreachPublic participation in scientific researchResearchTrade-offVolunteers

Identifiers

PMID27460040
PMCPMC4965728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.