Thousands of examining eyes: credibility, authority and validity in biodiversity citizen science data production
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-10-2021-0292 |
| Published date | 21 March 2022 |
| Date | 21 March 2022 |
| Pages | 149-170 |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Information behaviour & retrieval,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management |
| Author | Björn Ekström |
Thousands of examining eyes:
credibility, authority and validity
in biodiversity citizen science
data production
Bj€
orn Ekstr€
om
The Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Bor
as,
Bor
as, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study is to contribute with knowledge about how valid research data in
biodiversity citizen science are produced through information practices and how notions of credibility and
authority emerge from these practices.
Design/methodology/approach –Data were collected through an empirical, interview-based study of the
information practices of 15 participants active in the vicinity of the Swedish biodiversity citizen science
information system Artportalen. Interview transcripts were analysed abductively and qualitatively through a
coding scheme by working back and forth between theory and data. Values of credibility, authority and
validity of research data were unfolded through a practice-oriented perspective to library and information
studies by utilising the theoretical lens of boundary objects.
Findings –Notions of credibility, authority and validity emerge through participant activities of transforming
species observations to data, supplementing reports with objects of trust, augmenting identification through
authority outreach and assessing credibility via peer monitoring. Credibility, authority and validity of research
data are shown to be co-constructed in a distributed fashion by the participants and the information system.
Originality/value –The article extends knowledge about information practices in emerging, heterogeneous
scholarly settings by focussing on the complex co-construction of credibility, authority and validity in relation
to data production.
Keywords Information practices, Citizen science, Boundary objects, Credibility, Authority, Validity
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The inclusionof laypersons in scholarlywork, commonly named citizenscience, has enabled a
growth of distributed, large-scale research projects where data production practices are
dispersedover the general public(cf. Haklay, 2018;Kullenbergand Kasperowski,2016;Strasser
et al., 2019;Wiggins and Crowston, 2011). This transfer has been reportedas implying a “[...]
stereotypicaltradeoffin citizen science projectdesign, pitting data qualityagainst engagement”
(Wiggins and He, 2016, p. 1,556). As the number of participants increases, difficulties can
emerge in establishing quality data. Biodiversity citizen science in particular originates in a
research field incorporating multiple scientific disciplines where “[...] each discipline has
grown up withits own information infrastructure and informationstandards”(Bowker,2000a,
Thousands of
examining
eyes
149
©Bj
€
orn Ekstr€
om. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and
create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://
creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
The author would like to thank the participants of the study for their time and effort and his
supervisors Professor Ola Pilerot and Senior Lecturer Veronica Johansson at the University of Bor
as,
Sweden, for valuable feedback. The author would also like to thank Senior Lecturer Rachel Pierce at the
University of Bor
as, Sweden, for proof-reading participant quotations.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2050-3806.htm
Received 8 October 2021
Revised 3 January 2022
11 February 2022
Accepted 26 February 2022
Aslib Journal of Information
Management
Vol. 75 No. 1, 2023
pp. 149-170
Emerald Publishing Limited
2050-3806
DOI 10.1108/AJIM-10-2021-0292
p. 695). Conforming epistemic interests poses further standardisation challenges following
public participation. This in turn provides discrepancies in seeking, sharing, annotating and
producing data in relation to shared information systems. While information practices of
adequately reporting observed species are standardised through a joint information system,
participationis multifaceted with a variationof information practices occurringin the vicinity
of these information systems (Ekstr€
om, 2022a). Considering that participation involves
numerousindividuals with a varietyof interests in severalspecies groups such as plants,birds,
amphibians and lichens, questions remain regarding how valid data are produced and how
authority and credibility emerge through the practices.
Credibility has previously been shown to emerge through various ways in citizen science.
Previous research illustrates that credibility in birdwatching is framed by reputationsarising from
peer evaluations of honesty and accuracy when reporting sighted birds (Lundquist, 2018).
Moreover, the biodiversity citizen science information system iNaturalist has been described as
supporting “[...] collaborative information stewardship interactions by providing mechanisms
that blend socializing with data verification, and displaying them on the records as a form of
provenance”(Wiggins and He, 2016, p. 1,551). Notions of credibility, authority and validity can
however shift in citizen science settings where multiple heterogeneous disciplinary interests are
united. A similar differentiation of how information is interacted with depending o n discipline is
traceable in contemporary library and information science studies. Previous research shows how
disciplinary and contextual aspects enable various information practices (cf. Pilerot, 2016;Talja
and Maula, 2003). The meeting of interests through a shared information system leads to a variety
of approaches to what entails good practices in collaborative data production. Adopting a
sociomaterial theoretical perspective focussing on interconnected material components following
situated activities to achieve shared objectives (cf. Gherardi, 2017;Orlikowski, 2010) to participants’
information practices can serve to yield new knowledge about epistemic interests in biodiversity
citizen science and how varying notions of what comprises valid research data as well as how
credibility and authority emerge through endeavours towards achieving such validity.
The purpose of this study is to contribute with knowledge about how valid research data
in biodiversity citizen science are produced through information practices and how notions of
credibility and authority arise from these practices. Focus is placed on exploring the
information practices of volunteer participants active in the vicinity of the Swedish
biodiversity citizen science platform Artportalen (literal translation: the species portal). This
is done by especially devoting attention to how biodiversity citizen science data are produced,
shared understandings of how species observations are reported and how validating routines
homogenise these reports. The study is guided by the following research questions.
RQ1. What is considered valid biodiversity citizen science data according to the study
participants?
RQ2. How do notions of credibility and authority on behalf of the data unfold through
collaborative data production?
The article is structured accordingly: first, a literature review is presented. Then, the research
context for the study is described. This is followed by a theory section and a subsequent
description of the method used for this study. Next, the results of the study are presented. The
article ends with a concluding discussion.
Literature review
The following literature reviewconsists of three major themes intended to frame and position this
study. Initially, previous information practices research on credibility, authority and validity is
accounted for. Next, previous research on boundary objects in library and information science is
AJIM
75,1
150
To continue reading
Request your trial