Community Science: Live from the Chesapeake Community Research Symposium

Denice Wardrop, Executive Director of CRC, and Patrick Neale, Principal Investigator at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, moderated the webinar with two speakers engaged with participatory science. Alison Cawood, Citizen Science Coordinator at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, and Julie Vastine, Director of the Alliance for Aquatic Resource Monitoring (ALLARM) at Dickinson College, discussed opportunities and challenges associated with participatory science.

Takeaways from the webinar

Alison Cawood (Smithsonian Environmental Research Center) coordinates volunteers, with various educational backgrounds, to assist with collecting data for original scientific research. During the webinar she debunked rumors of community science (e.g., voluntary methods are a cheaper, easier way to do science) while providing wonderful insight on formulating expectations and constructing effective programs for citizen science efforts (e.g., preparation and organization are required but can reap significant benefits).

• Historical cases of participatory science include citizens reporting meteor showers, in 1833, and lighthouse keepers investigating bird strikes, in the 1880’s. As a result of these studies, the United States had a meteor shower map, light towers became more damage resistant, and scientists gained knowledge about avian population movements and abundances.
• Citizen science programs gather data for various fields, including astronomy, public health, and earth science, by utilizing the several collection methods and protocols. Depending on the scientific need, projects can be geographically specific or world wide, remote or in-person. 
• Research can be low involvement or high involvement. Low involvement might entail volunteers taking pictures, swabbing, or installing sensors. High involvement requires sustained participation from previously trained experts or those willing to invest time and expertise to become experts. 
• For all science, not just projects that engage volunteers, quality control and assurance procedures are vital through a check and balance process. 

Julie Vastine (Alliance for Aquatic Resource Monitoring (ALLARM) at Dickinson College) works with Pennsylvania and New York residents to answer questions about stream health and water quality in their backyards. These issues include impacts of acid rain and shale gas development on baseline water quality. She provided insightful information regarding the proper participatory science data collection procedures and components of a successful program. 

• The 1987 amendment of the Clean Water Act opened the doors for data to be submitted from members of the public and academic institutions. Once this revision occured, the EPA and federal agencies developed standards to help guide and facilitate water quality monitoring programs. 
• Time, rigor, quality assurance, and expense of the research will increase as the scope of the project expands from education/awareness to assessment of impairment to legal & regulatory responses.
• To maximize data quality with cost effective equipment, there is a list of best practices including analyzing equipment sensitivity ranges, testing comparable methodologies for accuracy, checking reproducibility, verifying the ease of use, and aligning practices with standard methods.
• With the intent of increasing diversity in participatory science, providing support through funding like child care and scholarships could help increase access to the program. Not everyone has the ability to donate their time.