A framework for assessing the commons qualities of citizen science: comparative analysis of five digital platforms

Citizen Science (CS) has expanded as a collaborative model of knowledge co-production, also outside traditional scientific institutions. However, CS potential to enable new forms of collective governance of scientific research remains largely unexplored. At least, two confronting standpoints dominate debates around CS: from crowdsourcing perspectives supported by debates over cost-effectiveness of massive data collection, to more participatory views, which understand CS as a means to challenge current academic structures. In particular, the discussion around CS governance mechanisms that go beyond crowdsourcing models is still unfolding. Understanding CS as contributing to constitute science as a commons requires specific conditions that must be met. This study provides a framework for exploring the commons-related dimensions that characterize CS initiatives, as already applied in the study of commons-based peer production. It considers openness at the governance level, open knowledge at technological and data levels, and also social responsibility and impact of CS projects. The framework is tested and informed empirically with the analysis of 5 digital mapping CS projects. Data was gathered through web collection, based on a netnographic method. The results show that, overall, the dimensions considered prove useful to shed light on the commons-like formations that characterize CS. The results further point to the interplay of several institutional, legal, and practical dimensions in constructing and governing openness in CS. This preliminary adaptation of the framework is intended to place in an analytical context the debate around current challenges of both participatory science governance and public involvement in research initiatives.