Evaluación del indice WBGT al puesto de trabajo en la actividad

PROGRAMMATIC VARIABLES THAT SHAPE THEM

Abstract

As public participation in scientific research (PPSR) initiatives have expanded rapidly among private, public, and non-profit science research communities over the past decade, program mangers and scholars regularly promote, evaluate, and manage such programs with a focus on the value and impact of PPSR efforts on the practice and relevancy of science. While many of these assessments rely on evaluation of individual participant knowledge and skill, they are driven by a broader interest in how such individual outcomes influence the form and function of science in society. Such a science-centered emphasis is neither surprising nor inappropriate. Nonetheless, such appraisals are generally not capable of interrogating the full range of program goals and outcomes. This article advocates for greater comprehensive examination of the effects of PPSR participation on program volunteers. A more integrated perspective is therefore assumed to report on research conducted with volunteers in the Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST) citizen science program to interrogate the inter- and intrapersonal outcomes of program engagement through narrative interviews and focus

4

102

groups. Findings highlight the various PPSR programmatic variables that shape volunteer experiences and how these variables may influence personal outcomes. These include the scope and scale of the project, program governance structure, the duration and frequency of volunteer activity, and processes involved in recruiting, training and motivating volunteers. Based on these findings, the article provides implications for advancing more intentional and meaningful PPSR efforts by focusing on the scale of engagement and interaction, cultivating community and connection, and developing tiered learning practices.

Introduction

The practice of public participation in scientific research (PPSR) has grown substantially within the natural science, informal science, and science education communities over the past several decades as a means of enhancing public understanding of basic science knowledge and skills (Dickinson et al. 2012; Shirk et al. 2012). Whereas the engagement of "amateurs" in scientific exploration and research is not a new occurrence, "citizen science" as it was traditionally performed as far back as the early 19th century, was often practiced informally by members of the public with a personal interest or ability to engage in such pursuits as a leisure activity (Silvertown 2009). Today, however, the engagement of non-expert citizens in scientific exploration has become a much more formalized process, involving structured collaborations between professional scientists and citizen volunteers who engage in some element or elements of the research process (Dickinson, Zuckerberg, and Bonter 2010).

Initially, the rise in popularity of PPSR initiatives was driven by professional science communities, who, motivated by a need for more efficient processes to collect

103

large-scale ecological data, seized on advancements in technology and geographic information systems to enroll citizens in research processes (Silvertown 2009; Miller- Rushing, Primack, and Bonney 2012). The continued growth of PPSR initiatives in recent history, however, is due in large part to the "twin goals" espoused by such initiatives to advance the scope and scale of scientific investigation and to enhance the understanding and relevancy of science in society (Brossard, Lewenstein, and Bonney 2005; Couvet et al. 2008). It is this latter goal of many PPSR initiatives that has helped facilitate a growing interest in the use of PPSR as a tool to enhance science literacy and broaden environmental awareness among participants. This objective is underscored by the belief that such outcomes will foster a more educated and informed public in which complex policies and decisions about environmental resources and ecosystems can be made. Thus, in recent years, research and assessment of PPSR program outcomes, both for science as a practice and society as a whole, have grown in number and thoroughness (Shirk et al. 2012).

What is the Value of PPSR? Significant Outcomes and Influences

The value of PPSR as an effective tool to advance complex natural science research and expand public involvement in research and policy processes has been widely documented (Dickinson et al. 2012; Haywood 2014; Shirk et al. 2012). So too, scholars note the advantages of PPSR for enhancing the role of science in society, underscoring benefits like increased science literacy, knowledge, and scientific thinking (Brewer 2002; Danielsen, Burgess, and Balmford 2005; Jordan et al. 2011; Kountoupes and Oberhauser 2008; Trumbull et al. 2000); a growth in ‘understanding’ and appreciation of science (Bonney 2004; Danielsen, Burgess, and Balmford 2005; Ellis and Waterton 2004; Jordan

104

et al. 2011; Sullivan et al. 2009; Trumbull, Bonney, and Grudens-Schuck 2005); and advancing the ways in which PPSR can make science research and practice more democratic and ‘legitimate’ (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995; Irwin and Wynne 1996; Lakshminarayanan 2007; Wooden 2006).

These outcomes are indeed cause for celebration and help highlight the many benefits of the practice. Yet, the outcomes most frequently assessed and reported among PPSR communities of practice reflect an overarching emphasis on those things perceived to be of most apparent value to the enterprise of science. PPSR efforts are more commonly managed by teams of professionals within the scientific community, and thus efforts to document and highlight programmatic outcomes are aligned with the disciplinary and professional cultures from which they emerge. Such a science-centered perspective is also driven by the need to justify and demonstrate the value of these programs for external funding organizations, many of which are deeply rooted in institutions dedicated to the advancement of science and environmental policy and decision-making. The outcomes of interest then, and, by extension, those more frequently assessed, are focused on variables selected to demonstrate how such programs enhance scientific data and inquiry and support participant learning, understanding, and engagement with science.

But such a narrow emphasis on outcomes most immediate among PPSR practitioners does not adequately assess the full range of personal outcomes experienced by the volunteers on which such programs rely. Although PPSR programs often espouse broader goals focused on cultivating environmental stewardship and engagement, very few assess such outcomes or the programmatic elements that support them. Accordingly,

105

this article seeks to expand assessment of the individual effects of PPSR on volunteer participants by considering not just the value of participation for science research and literacy, but also the many other potential inter and intrapersonal benefits of participation that mediate larger program impacts.

To do so, not only does this research consider what participants learn (cognitive effects) via PPSR programs, but what they feel and experience in their engagement as well (affective effects). Attention to both cognitive and affective dimensions of volunteer experiences is essential to understand the full range of participant outcomes as it is the interaction among these components of experience that influence human attitudes and behavior (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). Research from environmental social science highlights that cultivating engagement in research, decision-making, and political processes associated with environmental concerns involves equal attention to the affective and cognitive components of human experience (Wilson 2008). Such an integrated lens is particularly relevant as scholars have demonstrated that long-term commitment to environmental volunteering efforts is driven equally by affective and normative allegiances (Asah and Blahna 2013). Within PPSR settings, the affective dimensions of participation critical to motivating deeper engagement and behavioral change may play a integral role in shaping broader personal and programmatic outcomes associated with participation. Therefore, a sufficient assessment of the effects of PPSR on participants from a more integrated vs. science-centered perspective requires attention to the multi-faceted experience of volunteers in such programs.

106

PPSR Significance and Meaning for Participants

Lawrence (2006) suggests that the overall body of scholarship and assessment of PPSR practices has lacked sufficient attention to the "internal" value and impact of PPSR on participants, defined as benefits of personal growth and development. In particular, the personal significance and meaning attached to PPSR participation for volunteers is often overlooked in PPSR assessment because it is hard to document and because there is little research as of yet to draw connections between these dimensions and larger program outcomes and impacts for science.

Despite the current dearth of research on the personal outcomes of PPSR participation, a growing interest in what drives individuals to engage in PPSR efforts and what factors motivate them to remain committed highlights the need for more exploration of these components of volunteer engagement (Asah and Blahna 2013; Bonney, Ballard, et al. 2009; Ryan, Kaplan, and Grese 2001). Although these personal outcomes may be considered ancillary, given that they are not generally part of the primary goals and objectives of such programs, recent research suggests that they may yield unrecognized influence on the broader outcomes of PPSR programs, including the science produced, how science as a whole is perceived and understood by those who participate, and broader attitudinal or behavioral outcomes (chapter four).

Where internal aspects of participation have been considered, a few notable inter- and intrapersonal benefits are highlighted. Among them, participation has been linked with feelings of empowerment and self-efficacy (Danielsen, Burgess, and Balmford 2005; Lawrence 2006; Wilderman, Barron, and Imgrund 2004), increases in social capital, interpersonal bonds, and trust (Fernandez-Gimenez, Ballard, and Sturtevant 2008;

107

Overdevest, Orr, and Stepenuck 2004; Roth and Lee 2002), and increased awareness and perceptions of place and feelings of attachment to that place (Evans et al. 2005, chapter six).

A focus on the people-place relationships inherent in PPSR initiatives provides a particularly substantive opportunity to understand how program experiences shape broader impacts around environmental stewardship. A person's "sense of place" is noted as a prominent aspect of overall interest, attitudes, and actions related to ecological stewardship (Kudryavtsev, Krasny, and Stedman 2012). As a construct, sense of place is most often studied via the interrogation of two common sub-components, place meaning

and place attachment. Place attachment represents the level and intensity of connection to place, often influenced by the degree to which a person feels dependent on that place to meet a functional, psychological, emotional, or social need (Scannell and Gifford 2010). Place meaning, alternatively, represents the symbolic value or significance of a place. As Massey (2005) reminds us, place meaning and attachment are relational phenomena, products of co-constructed meanings. Meaning is therefore material-semiotic, forming at the intersection of the setting of a place and what a person or group of people bring to it (Steele 1981).

Both place attachment and various types of place meaning have been linked with pro-environmental intention, attitudes, and behaviors. This includes correlations between sense of place and support for the mitigation of threats to environmental resources (Vorkinn and Riese 2001), being a champion for environmental policies, conservation, or protection (Manzo and Perkins 2006; Ryan 2005; Warzecha and Lime 2001), and engagement in environmental volunteering and advocacy (Halpenny 2010; Kaltenborn

108

1998; Payton, Fulton, and Anderson 2005; Vaske and Kobrin 2001; Walker and Chapman 2003). Connection with specific places has also been associated with general support for environmental causes and organizations (Lee 2011). Furthermore, there is evidence that specific types of place meaning can influence both the degree and nature of general concern for the environment and support for environmental policy (Henwood and Pidgeon 2001; Scannell and Gifford 2010; Stedman 2003b).

As discussed in chapter four, findings from this research project suggest that the place meaning and attachment cultivated by PPSR are informed and enlivened by multiple socio-political, psycho-social, and biophysical dimensions of the places in which PPSR exploration occurs. But just how do PPSR programs themselves influence the many dimensions of participant experiences and what might this tell us about how PPSR could be enhanced or improved to support more meaningful, intentional, and influential participant and programmatic outcomes?

Following a brief overview of the research methods employed in this study, the personal outcomes shared by participants in an expansive PPSR program in the Pacific Northwest U.S. are reviewed to demonstrate the breadth of participant experiences, followed by a discussion of the ways in which programmatic variables and structure shape these outcomes. Ultimately, connections are drawn between a number of key programmatic dimensions and the participant outcomes discussed to provide guidance and helpful information for those designing and managing PPSR programs and scholars interested in future research.

109

Methodology & Methods5

In order to explore the depth of volunteer experiences in PPSR, this research focuses on participants in a long-running and highly effective PPSR program called the

Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST)

(http://depts.washington.edu/coasst/). Beginning with a handful of participants based at select beaches in Washington state, the program started in 1998 with the aim to document seabird population health and mortality using information obtained from beached bird carcasses collected at regular intervals. Based at the University of Washington, the program has expanded now to encompass four states (AK, CA, OR, WA) and involve nearly 800 volunteers who "adopt" a local beach to survey at least monthly for beached birds and marine debris. The information collected by volunteers is submitted to professional staff involved in the project, where it is reviewed and analyzed to document annual ecological trends and consider long-term change. COASST was selected for this study because of the opportunity to evaluate volunteer benefits across a wide range of participants, who, although having received consistent training and program management and conducting similar PPSR activities, hail from a diverse range of backgrounds, geographic areas, and life positions. As such, data collected from this study helps to capture some of the more significant inter- and intrapersonal aspects of participation shared among a heterogeneous group of PPSR volunteers.

Beginning in April of 2013, a purposive sample of COASST volunteers was contacted to participate in this study, primarily targeted based on proximity to six distinct

5

To include the note: Portions of the methodology and methods section were first published in Haywood, B. Birds and Beaches: The Affective Geographies and Sense of Place of Participants in the COASST Citizen Science Program. The University of South Carolina

110

geographic "hubs". Selected because of both the density of program volunteers and geographic and participant diversity, these hubs included three areas in Washington state, two in Oregon and one in California. Recruitment, coordinated by COASST program staff, involved invitation emails and phone calls, with instruction for accessing further project material online. Those participants that opted in to the study were contacted personally by the author and asked to participate in either a focus group or guided tour narrative interview.

Guided tours, which involve participants guiding the researcher through a place of interest (in this case beach sites) while sharing narratives about the place or related activities, are particularly effective at uncovering knowledge, concepts, ideas, and attitudes associated with significant places (Everett and Barrett 2012). As a supplement, focus groups were included in this study to allow participants to compare and contrast experiences and to help identify the socially negotiated dimensions of program participation and meaning (e.g. local customs, cultures, beliefs). These qualitative methods were collectively employed to honor the subjective and context-specific experiences of study participants, and to encourage participants to tell stories and engage in dialog that might reveal the multi-faceted dimensions of participation.

Study participants were asked a series of questions in order to determine what personal outcomes they attribute to program participation. In both focus groups and guided tour interviews, a semi-structured open-ended question protocol was utilized to prompt conversation but not bridle responses (see chapter three for more detail). Personal outcomes here are interpreted broadly, not as measurable or tangible products like levels of literacy or skill. Such skill and literacy outcomes are usually assessed with quantified

111

metrics that track changes in the variables of interest and confine responses to a pre- established scale or list (Kudryavtsev, Stedman, and Krasny 2012). In this case, study participants were asked open-ended questions in an effort to draw out the many ways in which participants feel program participation has lead to a personal outcome. These questions allowed participants to define outcomes on their own terms and consider the full range of influences of program participation. Four questions in particular prompted discussion on outcomes.

 Why is participation in COASST important to you and what do you gain from the experience?

 For you personally, what is the value of what you are doing as a COASST volunteer?

 Do you feel like you have changed in any way since you started volunteering with COASST?

 What would you say are some of the greatest benefits of participation? What personal outcomes do you most appreciate?

Over the summer of 2013, the author conducted all focus groups and interviews while traveling to each of the six study "hubs". While a total of one hundred and eighty individuals were invited to participate in the study, seventy-eight volunteers participated, for a forty-three percent participation rate. Three focus group events were held when sufficient participants were available with fourteen COASST volunteers electing to join these conversations. Seventy-one COASST volunteers agreed to participate in a guided tour narrative interview, while seven did both. Of the seventy-one narrative interviews conducted, twenty-one were conducted over the phone due to logistical constraints (e.g. weather, scheduling, etc.). All interviews were audio recorded.

112

Analysis

The author employed a general inductive approach to data analysis (Thomas 2006), following a thorough and detailed process to engage with and analyze study data (outlined in chapter three). All study materials, including interviews and focus groups and the personal notes and observations of the author were transcribed verbatim, allowing for rich immersion in the data. To protect the confidentiality of participants, all participant names were replaced with pseudonyms. Previous research on the personal outcomes of PPSR engagement (highlighted earlier) provided an initial framework through which to consider potential outcome themes and served as a template against which to consider outcomes expressed by participants more frequently overlooked in traditional assessment practices.

Based on the major outcome themes present among participant responses, data were segmented within categories for further analysis, including a large segment related to the personal outcomes expressed by study participants. Categories included those for motivation to engage in the program, perspectives on science and research, participant outcomes, and place meaning and attachment (see chapter three for more detail). QSR N'Vivo software (version 2.10) was utilized to partition data among these categories, to prepare the data for the next phase of analysis - textual coding. Using a grounded theory approach, text was coded by rereading each segment of text and assigning that text to a series of codes or themes that emerge from the data based on areas of similarity and difference. For example, the following three segments of text were coded within a category called "social connections and community," which includes the many ways in which participants noted this aspect of program engagement as a valued benefit.

113

I think to jump back on what we were talking about a while back, one of the things that I think for all of us, because we have this COASST