Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Toogood, Mark (2013)
Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
Languages: English
Types: Article
This article addresses issues surrounding the role of public participation in expert-driven biodiversity\ud monitoring and research, reviewing a range of cross-disciplinary insights and critiques that are important\ud for recent debate in environmental geographies. The paper identifies normative, instrumental and\ud substantive motivations dimensions of such initiatives and examines the tensions within these. A key\ud focus concerns the ‘win–win’ model of public participation in scientific research (PPSR); claims of\ud multiple benefits from PPSR, such as increased knowledge of biodiversity issues and of participants’\ud local environments; claims that doing PPSR is a form of ‘social learning’; and suggestions that engagement\ud in science will change attitudes and environmental behaviour. The ‘win–win’ model is found to\ud veil important issues about the politics of knowledge. These include the framing of citizenship in\ud ‘citizen’ science, the production of certain kinds of scientific subjects within PPSR, the framing of\ud relationships between professional and non-professional parties, assumptions about the role of ‘data’\ud in the rational evidenced-based process and anxieties amongst professional scientists around relations\ud between data quality and the breadth of participation. Whilst the affective engagement with subject\ud and the non-human world in PPSR is rich and diverse and the expert, non-expert boundary a\ud mutable one (particularly in natural history), there is increasing contention that the win–win model\ud for PPSR only works if we overlook aspects of these knowledge politics.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Allen, D. E. (1976). The naturalist in Britain, a social history. London: Allen and Lane.
    • Bell, S., Marzano, M., Cent, J., Kobierska, H., Podjed, D., Deivida Vandzinskaite, D., Reinert, H., Armaitiene, A., Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., and Mursic, R. (2008) What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity. Biological Conservation 17, pp. 3443-3454.
    • Bogner, A. (2012). The paradox of participation experiments. Science, Technology and Human Values 37(5), pp. 506-527.
    • Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V. and Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding scientific knowledge and science literacy. Bioscience 59, pp. 977-984.
    • Bucchi, M. (2010) Beyond technocracy: science, politics and citizens. New York: Springer.
    • Bucchi, M., and Neresini, F. (2008). Science and public participation. In Hackett, E., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M. and Wajcman, J. (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 3rd edition, pp. 449-472.
    • Burgess, J., Clark, J., Davies, G., Eames, M., Mayer, S., Staley, K., Stirling, A., and Williamson, S. (2007). Deliberative mapping: exploring a new analytic-deliberative methodology. Public Understanding of Science 16 (3), pp. 299-322.
    • Caissie, L. T., and Halpenny, E. A. (2003). Volunteering for nature: motivations for participating in a biodiversity conservation program. World Leisure Journal 45(2), pp. 38-50.
    • Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology and Society 4(1), pp. 81-94.
    • Chilvers, J. (2008). Environmental risk, uncertainty, and participation: mapping an ergent epistemic community. Environment and Planning A 40, pp. 2990-3008.
    • Chilvers, J. (2009). Deliberative and participatory approaches in environmental geography. In: Castree, N., Demeritt, D., Livermann, D. and Rhoades, B., (eds), A companion to environmental geography. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 400-417.
    • Chilvers, J. (2010). Sustainable participation? Mapping out and reflecting on the field of public dialogue on science and technology. Harwell: ScienceWise Expert Resource Centre.
    • Cohn, J. P. (2008). Citizen science: can volunteers do real research? BioScience 58 (3), pp. 192-197.
    • Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: the new tyrrany? London: Zed Books.
    • Cornwell, M. L. and Campbell, L. M. (2011). Co-producing conservation and knowledge: citizen-based sea turtle monitoring in North Carolina, USA. Social Studies of Science 42(1), pp.101-120.
    • Davies, G. (2006). Mapping deliberation: calculation, articulation and intervention in the politics of organ transplantation. Economy and Society 33, pp. 232-258.
    • Davies, L., Bell, J. N. B., Bone, J., Head, M., Hill, L., Howard, C., Hobbs, S. J., Jones, D. T., Power, S. A., Rose, N., Ryder, C., Seed, L., Stevens, G., Toumi, R., Voulvoulis, N. and White, P. C. L. (2011). Open Air Laboratories (OPAL): a community-driven research programme. Environmental Pollution 159(8-9), pp. 2203-2210.
    • Davies, L., Gosling, L., Bachariou, C., Eastwood, J., Fradera, R., Manoumaiudom, N. and Robbins, S. (eds) (2013). OPAL community environment report. London: Imperial College.
    • DCLG (2011). Citizenship survey, 2011. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
    • Demeritt, D., Dyer, S. and Millington, J. D. A. (2009). PEST or Panacea? Science, Democracy, and the Promise of Public Participation, Environment, Politics and Development Working Paper Series number 10. London: Department of Geography, King's College, University of London.
    • Dickinson, J. L. and Bonney, R. (eds) (2012). Citizen science: public participation in environmental research. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    • Drouin, J.-M. and Bensaude-Vincent, B. (1996). Nature for the people. In Jardine, N., Secord, J. and Spary, E. (eds) Cultures of natural history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 408-425.
    • Durant, J., Evans, G. and Thomas, G. (1999). The public understanding of science. Nature 340, pp. 11-14.
    • Elam, M. and Bertilsson, M. (2003). Consuming, engaging and confronting science: the emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory 6, pp. 233-251.
    • Ellis, R. (2011). Jizz and the joy of pattern recognition: virtuosity, discipline and the agency of insight in UK naturalists' arts of seeing. Social Studies of Science 41(6), pp. 769-790.
    • Ellis, R. and Waterton, C. (2004). Environmental citizenship in the making: the participation of volunteer naturalists in UK biological recording and biodiversity policy. Science and Public Policy 31(2), pp. 95-105.
    • Ellis, R. and Waterton, C. (2005). Caught between the cartographic and the ethnographic imagination: the whereabouts of amateurs, professionals and nature in knowing biodiversity, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23(5), pp. 673-693.
    • Evans, J. (2004). What is local about local environmental governance? Observations from the local biodiversity action planning process. Area 36(3), pp. 270-279.
    • Ezrahi, Y. (1990). The desecent of Icarus. Science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    • Felt, U. and Fochler, M. (2010). Machineries for making publics: inscribing and describing publics in public engagement. Minerva 48(3), pp. 219-238.
    • Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Science Technology and Human Values 15(2), pp. 226-243.
    • Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts and the environment. The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    • Greenwood, J. J. D. (2007). Citizens, science and bird conservation. Journal of Ornithology 148(Suppl. 1), pp. S77-S124.
    • Hopkins, G. W. and Freckleton, R. P. (2002). Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Animal Conservation 5: 245-249.
    • House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, (2008). Systematics and taxonomy: follow-up. 5th Report of Session 2007-2008, HL Paper 162. London: TSO.
    • Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: a study of people, expertise and sustainable development. Routledge: Routledge.
    • Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10, pp.1-18.
    • Irwin, A. and Michael, M. (2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press/ McGraw Hill.
    • Jasanoff, S. (2004). Science and citizenship: a new synergy. Science and Public Policy 31(2), pp. 90-94.
    • Keeney, E. (1992). The botanizers: amateur scientists in nineteenth-century America. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
    • Lane, S., Odoni, N., Landström, C., Whatmore, S., Ward, N., and Bradley, S. (2010). Doing flood risk differently: an experiment in radical scientific method. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36(1), pp. 15-36.
    • Lawrence, A. (2006). “No personal motive?” Volunteers, biodiversity and the false dichotomies of participation. Ethics, Place & Environment 9(3), pp. 279-298.
    • Lawrence, A. (2009) The first cuckoo in winter: phenology, recording, credibility and meaning in Britain. Global Environmental Change 19, pp. 173-179.
    • Lawrence, A. and Turnhout, E. (2010). Personal meaning in the public sphere: the standardisation and rationalisation of biodiversity data in the UK and the Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies 26, pp. 353-360.
    • Leach, M., Scoones, I., and Wynne, B. (2005). Science and citizens: globalisation and the challenge of engagement. London: Zed Books.
    • Leadbeater, C. and Miller, P. (2004). The pro-am revolution: how enthusiasts are changing our economy and society. London: Demos.
    • Lezaun, J. and Soneryd, L. (2007) Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science 16(3), pp. 279-297.
    • Lorimer, J. (2007). Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25(5), pp. 911-932.
    • Lorimer, J. (2008). Counting corncrakes: the affective science of the UK corncrake census. Social Studies of Science 38(3), pp. 377-405.
    • Lowe, P. (1976). Amateurs and professionals: the institutional emergence of British plant ecology. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 7, pp. 517-535.
    • Macdonald, H. (2002). What makes you a scientist is the way you look at things: ornithology and the observer, 1839-1955. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33, pp. 53-77.
    • Marren, P. (1995). The new naturalists. Collins: London.
    • Marris C. and Rose N. (2010). Open engagement: exploring public participation in the biosciences. PLoS Biology, 8(11): e1000549, November.
    • Michael, M. (2009). Publics performing publics: of PiGs, PiPs and politics. Public Understanding of Science 18, pp. 617-631.
    • Michael, M. (2012). What are we busy doing?” Engaging the idiot. Science, Technology and Human Values 37(5), pp. 528-554.
    • Phillips, L., Carvalho, A. and Doyle, J. (2012). Introduction. In Phillips, L., Carvalho, A. and Doyle, J. (eds). Citizen voices: performing public participation in science and environment communication. Bristol: Intellect, pp. 3-17.
    • Reed, M. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141, pp. 2417-2431.
    • Royal Society (1985). The public understanding of science. London: The Royal Society.
    • Secord, A. (1994). Science in the pub: artisan botanists in early nineteenth-century Lancashire. History of Science 32, pp. 269-315.
    • Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, (2010). Guide to the global taxonomy initiative. CBD Technical Series number 30. New York, NY: United Nations.
    • Shirk, J. L., Ballard, H. L., Wilderman, C. C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Minarchek, M., Lewenstein, B. V., Krasny, M. E. and Bonney R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society 17(2), p. 29 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04705-170229
    • Stebbins, R. A. (1992). Amateurs, professionals and serious leisure. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
    • Stebbins, R. A. (2008). Serious leisure. A perspective for our time. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
    • Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values 33(2), pp. 262-294.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

    Title Year Similarity

    Modeling the Light- and Redox-Dependent Interaction of PpsR/AppA in Rhodobacter sphaeroides


    Evidence that Altered Cis Element Spacing Affects PpsR Mediated Redox Control of Photosynthesis Gene Expression in Rubrivivax gelatinosus.


    An Exploratory Assessment of a Smartphone Application for Public Participation in Forest Fuels Measurement in the Wildland-Urban Interface


    The Solution Structure of the AppA BLUF Domain: Insight into the Mechanism of Light-Induced Signaling


    Transcriptome Analysis of the Rhodobacter sphaeroides PpsR Regulon: PpsR as a Master Regulator of Photosystem Development†


    The Use of Chromatin Immunoprecipitation to Define PpsR Binding Activity in Rhodobacter sphaeroides 2.4.1▿ †


    Predator–prey body size relationships when predators can consume prey larger than themselves


    Sequencing, chromosomal inactivation, and functional expression in Escherichia coli of ppsR, a gene which represses carotenoid and bacteriochlorophyll synthesis in Rhodobacter sphaeroides.


    PpsR, a Regulator of Heme and Bacteriochlorophyll Biosynthesis, Is a Heme-sensing Protein*


    Redox properties of the Rhodobacter sphaeroides transcriptional regulatory proteins PpsR and AppA


    Molecular genetic analysis suggesting interactions between AppA and PpsR in regulation of photosynthesis gene expression in Rhodobacter sphaeroides 2.4.1.


    Genetic evidence that PpsR from Rhodobacter sphaeroides 2.4.1 functions as a repressor of puc and bchF expression.


Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok