University of Nebraska - Lincoln University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Faculty Publications: Department of
Entomology
Entomology, Department of
2021
Transference of Citizen Science Program Impacts: A Theory Transference of Citizen Science Program Impacts: A Theory
Grounded in Public Participation in Scienti7c Research Grounded in Public Participation in Scienti7c Research
Louise I. Lynch-O’Brien
Wayne A. Babchuk
Jenny M. Dauer
Tiffany Heng-Moss
Doug Golick
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologyfacpub
Part of the Entomology Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Entomology, Department of at
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications:
Department of Entomology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
diversity
Article
Transference of Citizen Science Program Impacts: A Theory
Grounded in Public Participation in Scientific Research
Louise I. Lynch-O’Brien
1,
*, Wayne A. Babchuk
2
, Jenny M. Dauer
3
, Tiffany Heng-Moss
4
and Doug Golick
1
Citation: Lynch-O’Brien, L.I.;
Babchuk, W.A.; Dauer, J.M.;
Heng-Moss, T.; Golick, D.
Transference of Citizen Science
Program Impacts: A Theory
Grounded in Public Participation in
Scientific Research. Diversity 2021, 13,
339. https://doi.org/10.3390/
d13080339
Academic Editors: John A. Cigliano,
Tina Phillips, Elizabeth R. Ellwood,
Amanda E. Sorensen and Monica
Awasthy
Received: 15 April 2021
Accepted: 22 July 2021
Published: 25 July 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1
Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, ENTO 103B, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA;
2
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, TEAC 225, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA;
3
School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, HARH 502, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA;
jenny[email protected]
4
College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, AGH 103,
Lincoln, NE 68583, USA; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-402-327-1574
Abstract:
Citizen science is known for increasing the geographic, spatial, and temporal scale from
which scientists can gather data. It is championed for its potential to provide experiential learning
opportunities to the public. Documentation of educational outcomes and benefits for citizen scientists
continues to grow. This study proposes an added benefit of these collaborations: the transference of
program impacts to individuals outside of the program. The experiences of fifteen citizen scientists
in entomology citizen science programs were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory
methodology. We propose the substantive-level theory of transference to describe the social process
by which the educational and attitudinal impacts intended by program leaders for the program
participants are filtered by citizen scientists and transferred to others. This process involves individual
and external phases, each with associated actions. Transference occurred in participants who had
maintained a long-term interest in nature, joined a citizen science program, shared science knowledge
and experiences, acquired an expert role to others, and influenced change in others. Transference has
implications for how citizen scientists are perceived by professional communities, understanding of
the broader impacts and contributions of citizen science to wicked problems, program evaluation,
and the design of these programs as informal science education opportunities.
Keywords:
citizen science; transference; wicked problems; insect conservation; evaluation; program
impacts
1. Introduction
Citizen science is a research relationship between professional scientists and the gen-
eral public or non-credentialed individuals [
1
,
2
]. It bridges communication between the
scientific community and the general public about contemporary science topics and envi-
ronmental issues [
3
]. The combination of public participation, educational outreach, and
research is intended to generate educational and scientific benefits for all involved. Citizen
science-generated data have allowed researchers to publish in peer reviewed journals
on conservation issues in the fields of entomology [
4
–
12
], mammalogy [
13
,
14
], marine
studies [
15
,
16
], urban wildlife conservation [
17
], and ornithology [
18
,
19
]. At a global scale,
the potential of this volunteer-driven data has been recognized for tracking the progress
of the wicked problems reflected in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs), including biodiversity and conservation goals [
20
,
21
]. However, while data are
critical for understanding and protecting biodiversity, scientists cannot resolve wicked
problems associated with biodiversity conservation by themselves. Wicked problems bene-
fit from communication between various stakeholders [
22
], and the increased interaction
Diversity 2021, 13, 339. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13080339 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/diversity
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 2 of 20
between the public and researchers afforded by citizen science provides an educational and
experiential opportunity for multiple stakeholders to reflect upon and learn about wicked
problems [
23
]. Amidst this opportunity to cultivate a public understanding of science and
environmental issues, the popularity of citizen science has exploded due to its contributory
value to the research of scientists [
24
]. As practitioners continue to validate the contribu-
tions of citizen science as a field in its own right, researchers have increasingly sought to
substantiate the educational potential of these programs for volunteers, now present in
formal education at all levels [
25
–
32
]. The aim of this paper is to show how a pollinator
conservation citizen science program provided an educational and experiential opportunity
for volunteers to engage with a conservation issue and, perhaps more importantly, put
the volunteers themselves in a position to raise awareness of and influence behavioral
changes regarding pollinator conservation in their social spheres. This phenomenon may
be leveraged by citizen science program leaders and conservation practitioners as a means
of expanding awareness about conservation issues.
1.1. Capturing the Educational Outcomes of Citizen Science
The educational outcomes of citizen science have been aligned with experiential
education [
27
,
33
,
34
] and free-choice learning [
35
,
36
]. Experiential learning theory has been
conceptualized in a variety of ways and is deemed to be a prominent learning method in
adulthood [
37
,
38
]. Whether for students or senior citizens, the authenticity of citizen science
is believed to provide numerous benefits and influences upon participants, including
increased scientific literacy, understanding of the nature of science and scientific process,
increasing engagement in environmental policy decisions, pro-environmental behaviors,
community engagement, and increasing logical debate and decision-making skills for
handling scientific, social, and political issues [
1
,
3
,
28
,
39
–
46
]. Knowledge gains afforded by
citizen science efforts have been identified as a path to increase public engagement, inputs,
and decision-making for conservation, natural resource management, and environmental
protection efforts [
47
]. Educational and science literacy gains from citizen science have been
attributed to the experiential nature of programs, the collaborative interaction between
participants and credentialed experts, the provision of high-quality educational materials,
and legitimate contributions to research [
3
]. Studies have investigated the influences of
these programs on citizen scientists both in and outside of the classroom and with various
age groups. Trumbull et al. [
48
] concluded that citizen science provided a forum for
scientific thinking, though the authors could not claim that their ornithology program itself
caused scientific thinking. Alternatively, Jordan et al. [
49
] found no statistically significant
change in the participants’ understanding of the scientific process. The project-related
knowledge that citizen scientists have has been found to increase following participation
in some projects [
33
,
50
,
51
], while remaining the same after others [
52
,
53
]. Researchers have
suggested that to detect knowledge gains in already motivated and environmentally aware
citizen scientists, more sensitive and contextually appropriate instruments are required [
33
,
50
]. Program influences on attitudes and behaviors have also uncovered varied results.
The attitudes of citizen scientists towards science increased [
36
] or remained the same [
33
]
following participation in different projects. Evans et al. [
51
] found that a majority of their
participants made accommodations for birds in their landscape, and
Overdevest et al. [53]
linked participation in their stream monitoring program to a significant increase in political
participation. Alternatively, Druschke and Seltzer [
52
] reported that, despite their efforts,
participation in their pollinator citizen science project did not promote changes in behaviors
towards bees or inspire participants to learn more about bees.
While there may be mixed outcomes of the impact of citizen science programs on the
knowledge and attitudes of the participants, social and community-centered influences
have been detected. Researchers have found that participation in citizen science positively
influenced the personal networks of the volunteers involved, the perception of commu-
nity connectedness, project-related social interactions [
51
,
53
], and encouraged student
classroom participation and family engagement in learning [
29
]. A broader influence was
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 3 of 20
particularly evident in research on the outcomes of the Climate Change and Caterpillars
project [
25
], in which the authors qualitatively detected positive behavioral and attitudinal
shifts in the students of teachers who were participating in their project. Similarly, Forrester
et al. [
54
] discovered that the volunteers in their mammal conservation project shared
conservation information with their social networks.
1.2. Uncovering the Broader Impacts of Citizen Science through Qualitative Methods
Mixed research findings on the educational benefits of citizen science programs have
resulted in an unclear understanding of how citizen science influences its volunteers. These
studies further imply that social and educational phenomenon, outside the margins of
experiential learning theory and beyond volunteers themselves, are at play. Considering
that citizen science programs operate throughout a diversity of educational environments,
audiences, cultures, and fields of study, an exploratory question arises: if experiential
learning theory has not definitively explained citizen scientist participation, what educa-
tional experiences and activities are encountered by citizen scientists? The social nature of
citizen science and its motivated participants suggests the possibility of broader program
impacts, reaching beyond the citizen scientists themselves. These impacts are of particular
interest because they represent an unchartered area and a mutually beneficial outcome of
citizen science for program leaders and participants. The influence that citizen scientists
may have on their community may be the more enduring and decisive influence of these
programs. Qualitative research generates rich, descriptive data and is best employed to
explore a complex issue and identify variables that cannot be easily measured when statis-
tical methods do not fit the problem and when there is no theory to explain or describe a
phenomenon [
55
,
56
]. Studies that have employed purely qualitative data to explore citizen
science have focused on evidence of scientific thinking in participants [
48
], scientist experi-
ences with citizen science [
57
], and teacher perspectives on citizen science outcomes in the
classroom [
58
]. However, there is little research available to adequately explain the process
of participation by adult citizen scientists and whether their experiences are represented
by experiential learning theory. Grounded theory generates a theoretical explanation of
an action, interaction, or process shared by specific individuals. This research was guided
by the interpretive approach of constructivist grounded theory methodologies [
59
–
61
] to
investigate how adult citizen scientists participate in and are influenced by entomology
citizen science. This was primarily accomplished through collecting interview data, making
multiple field visits, developing and interrelating categories of information, and creating a
context-specific substantive theory [56,57,61].
2. Materials and Methods
In this study, we further explore the broader impacts of citizen science by focusing on
program influences through citizen scientists, rather than on them. We introduce grounded
theory methodology and provide a theoretical explanation of the broader outcomes of
citizen science based on the experiences of adult volunteers participating in Bumble Boost-
ers, an entomology citizen science program. Finally, we document and describe the social
interactions of citizen science programs that should be considered when assessing the value
of these programs.
2.1. Research Questions
This study explored the following questions to understand the broader impacts of
citizen science:
1. How do adults take on the role of a citizen scientist in entomology research?
2. How do adult citizen scientists participate in entomology research?
3. How do adult citizen scientists perceive their role in entomology research?
4. How do adult citizen scientists share their science experiences with others?
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 4 of 20
2.2. Bumble Boosters: An Entomology Citizen Science Experience
We focused on adult citizen scientists volunteering in the “Building a Better Bumble
Bee Domicile Project”, a contributory citizen science project within the Bumble Boosters
program run by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Department of Entomology. The
project was initiated by D. Golick with a Kickstarter funding campaign and coordinated in
collaboration with L. Lynch-O’Brien. Over the course of three years (2013–2016), citizen
scientists throughout North America worked with us to test the efficacy of an artificial
bumble bee domicile in attracting wild, nest-seeking bumble bee queens in the spring.
A successful bumble bee domicile has been long sought after to support agriculture and
conservation efforts, but most designs have had limited success [
62
–
66
]. This project
represents a long-term research problem, and we commenced research to develop a new
bumble bee domicile design based on entomological literature as well as the experiences of
citizen scientists who were actively testing their own designs.
Citizen scientists received a project kit consisting of an experimental bumble bee
domicile and pollinator conservation resources. Citizen scientists were encouraged to read
the kit’s written resources and to experiment with and modify their bumble bee domicile
per a list of suggestions taken from the literature. They were then asked to place the bumble
bee domicile on their property in the late winter and check for evidence of bumble bee
occupancies each spring over the course of the three years. Annual reports were requested
for information about the location and habitat surrounding the domicile, modifications they
made to it, the presence or absence of bumble bees or other creatures inside the domicile,
and a photograph of the domicile. Over the course of the project, participants engaged
with the research program leaders through email and Facebook.
2.3. Sampling Procedures and Interviews
Several sampling methods were used during this study, including criterion, conve-
nience, theoretical, and snowball (participant driven) sampling. Criterion (purposeful)
and convenience sampling methods [
56
,
67
] were used to collect detailed information from
individuals that was representative of entomology citizen science programs. Sampling
criteria targeted adults (age 19 years or older) that had turned in at least one year’s worth
of project data to the Building a Better Bumble Bee Domicile citizen science project. Of
167 Bumble
Boosters participants, a pool of 63 individuals met the inclusion criteria. Six in-
dividuals from this pool consented to an initial interview, three of whom also consented to
a follow up interview approximately 14 months later. Theoretical sampling was employed
to develop tentative conceptual categories [
60
,
61
,
68
] and compare the experiences of the en-
tomology citizen scientists outside of the Bumble Boosters program. During the theoretical
sampling phase, 9 citizen scientists were recruited for a parallel mixed methods study [
69
]
representing the following programs: the Asian Longhorned Beetle Swimming Pool Survey,
Backyard Bark Beetles, Firefly Watch, the Lost Ladybug Project, Milkweed Watch, and the
Pieris Project. Aggregated demographic data for the 15 citizen scientists are presented in
Table 1 below. A table with each participant’s unique demographic characteristics is not
included in order to avoid deductive disclosure [70].
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 5 of 20
Table 1. Aggregated demographic data of research participants (n = 15).
Category Characteristics
Number of citizen science projects in which
individual participates
1 project (10)
2 projects (3)
3 projects (1)
6 projects (1)
Age (Years)
33–67
Ave 52.7 years
Sex
Female (11)
Male (4)
Highest level of formal
education
Some college (2)
Bachelor’s Degree (6)
Master’s Degree (5)
Doctoral Degree (2)
Previous employment as
scientist, researcher or
science educator
Yes (3)
No (12)
Ethnic background White/European American (15)
Aliases
Anne
1,12
, Barbara
5
, Bethany
4
, Carolyn
1,5,8,9,10,11
, Carlton
1
, Charlie
4
, Constance
6,13
,
Ellen
1
, Joann
6
, Katherine
1
, Lois
1
, Nance
6,10
,
Sean
3,5,7
, Tom
2
, Vicki
4
Interview Duration (h:min:s)
00:14:26–00:58:49
Ave 00:31:07
1
Bumble Boosters participant,
2
Asian Longhorned Beetle Swimming Pool Survey participant,
3
Backyard Bark
Beetles participant,
4
Firefly Watch participant,
5
Lost Ladybug Project participant,
6
Milkweed Watch participant,
7
Pieris Project participant,
8
Aphid and Ladybug study participant,
9
State bumble bee survey participant,
10
Monarch
Watch participant,
11
Journey North participant,
12
Project FeederWatch participant,
13
Tiger Beetle
Project participant.
Snowball, or participant driven, sampling focused on the experiences of the individu-
als who had been influenced by Bumble Boosters citizen scientists. Bumble Boosters citizen
scientists referred us to 4 non-citizen scientists with whom they had interacted. Interviews
with these referrals allowed us to validate and further explore their interactions with the
citizen scientists and their impacts on the people around them.
One-on-one structured interviews were conducted over the telephone, and audio
responses were recorded with a digital voice recorder. Interview questions were developed
to explore the experiences of the research participants in the Bumble Boosters program
and focused broadly on an individual’s decision to join, their role in the project, how they
felt they benefitted from the program, and whether and how they shared the project with
others. The interview protocol, including the interview questions, demographic survey,
and consent forms for both the citizen scientists and the individuals within their social
circles are available in the Supplementary Materials.
2.4. Triangulation and Theoretical Saturation
We verified the validity of interview statements regarding events, places, and activities
by cross-referencing the information online or requesting documentation where applicable.
We cross-checked earlier interview statements with those made in follow-up interviews
or participant driven interviews. Interviews and triangulation generated additional data
and extant documents that illustrated the actions of the research participants, and in some
cases, also generated new codes (Table 2). A total of 170 artifacts were gathered, includ-
ing websites, lesson plans, Facebook posts, photographs, physical artifacts (domiciles),
entomology data submitted to citizen science programs, education awards and grants,
publications by the research participants, outreach events, newspaper articles, documents
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 6 of 20
from other citizen science programs, and blog posts. A graphic illustrating the phases of
data collection and sources for an interviewee is provided in the Supplementary Files.
Table 2. Sampling types, methods and data sources utilized to generate codes.
Sampling/Method Data Source Data Generated
Criterion and purposeful
sampling
Bumble Boosters participants that
submitted year one data and were 19+
years of age
6 interviews
Follow-up interviews
Initial interviewees that submitted
year two data
3 interviews
Snowball sampling
Individuals mentioned in Bumble
Boosters interviews
4 interviews
Theoretical sampling
Citizen scientists from non-Bumble
Boosters entomology projects
1
9 interviews
Demographic survey
Citizen scientist interviews above
(excludes Snowball participants)
15 surveys
Artifacts
Submitted citizen science project data,
photographs of objects or activities
related to citizen science, emails and
text messages, Facebook posts,
educational documents, newspaper
articles, blog posts, other documents
related to citizen science participation
170 documents
Range per participant: 15–43
Initial coding Interviewee transcripts
593 initial codes
Range per transcript: 52–197
1
Citizen scientists from entomology citizen science programs included in authors’ mixed methods study. The
authors of [69] provided transcripts for the theoretical sampling stage of this study.
2.5. Data Analysis
Non-verbatim transcripts served as the primary data source for this study and gen-
erated the majority of the codes. As is characteristic of grounded theory, data collec-
tion occurred in an iterative fashion with data analysis. MAXQDA 12 software (VERBI
Software-Consult-Sozialforschung GmbH, Berlin, Germany) facilitated data analysis and
visualization. All documents were stripped of personally identifiable information.
Coding. Initial coding in grounded theory is distinguished by being bottom-up,
wherein codes are developed from the data, applied at a detailed level, and are not de-
ductively based on literature [
60
,
71
]. Gerunds were used during the initial, line-by-line
coding of the transcripts and artifacts to ensure that analysis focused on actions taken
by citizen scientists. The number of initial codes per transcript ranged from 52 to 197
(total of 593 codes) and correlated with interview duration. Using MAXQDA’s Creative
Coding feature, similar codes were clustered together, named as a group (potential focused
codes), and then organized into a hierarchy. Cyclical coding sessions resulted in tentative
categories containing parent codes, each with subcodes. Within this group, similar codes
were clustered together. Finally, codes were linked within the Creative Coding session
to create a hierarchy for the tentative category, which contained parent codes, each with
subcodes. Creative coding and memo writing produced several conceptual categories. The
analysis of the research participant experiences was coded and color coded (see
Section 2.6
Data Visualization) within ten conceptual categories. A total of five of these categories
are the focus of this research, as they were most closely tied to the social relationships
and influences that the research participants could have on those in their social circles.
Descriptions of the additional conceptual categories are available in Lynch [72].
Data Validation. We established standards of validation through triangulation and
the use of multiple data collection strategies, peer review, prolonged engagement with
the participants, and member checking [
55
]. Following interview transcription, we cor-
roborated evidence by requesting it directly from the research participants or acquiring
the information from different sources and comparing events with additional interviews
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 7 of 20
through snowball sampling. Finally, we provided rich, thick descriptions, calling directly
upon the research participant’s words and provided details when describing focused codes,
tentative categories, and memos.
Memo writing. Focused codes were defined and explored during early memo writing,
through which significant and frequent initial codes were explained, and the processes
voiced by research participants were explored. Advanced memo writing developed rela-
tionships between significant codes, generated tentative categories, and finally, established
theoretical categories.
2.6. Data Visualization
The use of visual devices helps to envision, grasp, and summarize the complexities of
qualitative data [
73
]. Data visualization tools in MAXQDA 12 were integral to uncovering
connections between conceptual categories and summarizing the individual experiences
of different citizen scientists. Each conceptual category was assigned a unique color in
MAXQDA. Using the “Document Portrait” tool, the progression, sequence, and association
of specific codes in individual interviews was visualized and uncovered through color
(Figure 1). Portraits “read” from top to bottom and left to right, just as lines are read in a
book, aid in visualizing the presence, as well as the absence, of theoretical categories in
an interview. This “painted” view of each interview facilitated data analysis and allowed
patterns to emerge. Color frequency portraits, which are similar to bar graphs, illustrated
which categories dominated a research participant’s experience. Following early data
analysis, ten conceptual categories emerged, as pictured below in Figure 1. However, five
of these categories are the focus of this research. See Lynch [
72
] for descriptions of the other
conceptual categories.
Diversity 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21
Figure 1. An example of document and color frequency portraits [MAXQDA 12] generated for each
interview. *Those conceptual categories with an asterisk are the focus of this research, as they were
the most closely tied to the social relationships and influences that the research participants could
have on those in their social circles. Descriptions of the additional conceptual categories are availa-
ble in Lynch [72].
3. Results
Grounded theory methodologies can generate two types of theory. The first, substan-
tive theory, is a lower-level, theoretical explanation that is context-specific and does not
attempt to generalize across several areas of study [60,68,71]. The second, formal theories,
are less common, higher-level theories that offer a theoretical explanation of a sociological
inquiry and generalize across many areas of study, partly through substantial theoretical
sampling [60,68,71]. We propose a substantive-level theory illustrating how adult citizen
scientists involved in entomology research influenced the attitudes towards insects, ento-
mological knowledge, and pro-environmental behaviors of the people within their social
spheres. We propose the term “transference” as a theoretical construct to explain the social
process by which the educational and attitudinal impacts intended by program leaders
for the program participants are filtered by citizen scientists and transferred to others. A
total of five conceptual categories that were closely tied to the social relationships and
influences that the research participants could have on those in their social circles arose
from the experiences shared by participants during interviews and their analysis. For an
individual citizen scientist, transference involves individual and external phases, each
with associated actions (Figure 2). Individual actions are personal to each citizen scientist
and include maintaining a long-term interest in nature, joining a citizen science program,
and sharing science knowledge and experiences with others. External actions are driven
by people within a citizen scientist’s social sphere and involve expertise being attributed
to a citizen scientist by others, acquiring the role of expert, and influencing change in oth-
ers. Descriptions of each conceptual category, supporting data, and representative quotes
are provided in Table 3. An expanded table, including additional representative quotes,
is provided in the Supplementary Files.
Figure 1.
An example of document and color frequency portraits [MAXQDA 12] generated for each
interview. * Those conceptual categories with an asterisk are the focus of this research, as they were
the most closely tied to the social relationships and influences that the research participants could
have on those in their social circles. Descriptions of the additional conceptual categories are available
in Lynch [72].
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 8 of 20
3. Results
Grounded theory methodologies can generate two types of theory. The first, substan-
tive theory, is a lower-level, theoretical explanation that is context-specific and does not
attempt to generalize across several areas of study [
60
,
68
,
71
]. The second, formal theories,
are less common, higher-level theories that offer a theoretical explanation of a sociological
inquiry and generalize across many areas of study, partly through substantial theoretical
sampling [
60
,
68
,
71
]. We propose a substantive-level theory illustrating how adult citizen
scientists involved in entomology research influenced the attitudes towards insects, ento-
mological knowledge, and pro-environmental behaviors of the people within their social
spheres. We propose the term “transference” as a theoretical construct to explain the social
process by which the educational and attitudinal impacts intended by program leaders
for the program participants are filtered by citizen scientists and transferred to others. A
total of five conceptual categories that were closely tied to the social relationships and
influences that the research participants could have on those in their social circles arose
from the experiences shared by participants during interviews and their analysis. For an
individual citizen scientist, transference involves individual and external phases, each with
associated actions (Figure 2). Individual actions are personal to each citizen scientist and
include maintaining a long-term interest in nature, joining a citizen science program, and
sharing science knowledge and experiences with others. External actions are driven by
people within a citizen scientist’s social sphere and involve expertise being attributed to a
citizen scientist by others, acquiring the role of expert, and influencing change in others.
Descriptions of each conceptual category, supporting data, and representative quotes are
provided in Table 3. An expanded table, including additional representative quotes, is
provided in the Supplementary Files.
Diversity 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
Figure 2. Several individual and external actions must occur for transference of citizen science pro-
gram impacts to be achieved.
Table 3. Conceptual categories (actions) of transference with supporting data, artifacts, and repre-
sentative quotes. An expanded table is provided in the Supplementary Files.
Conceptual Category
Description
Supporting Data and Artifacts
Representative Quote
1. Maintain a long-term interest in nature
Refers to pre-existing and long-term affinity
with nature or science that is an individual’s
source for joining a citizen science program.
All interviewees associated their decision to
join a citizen science program with their ex-
isting affinity for nature or science, enjoy-
ment in learning about science, and using cit-
izen science programs as a means of main-
taining this interest.
Participant experiences and recollections;
participation in citizen science programs;
nature journaling, photography, and
other written records such as maps and
newspaper articles
“[Appreciation for nature and science] just
comes naturally from when I was young,
at least part of it. Over my lifetime, I just
was interested in it, so I pursued out of cu-
riosity and fun”.
2. Share science knowledge and experience
Refers to the internal action of sharing pro-
ject-related science knowledge and experi-
ences with someone not involved in the pro-
ject, including family members, neighbors,
friends, colleagues at work, even acquaint-
ances and strangers. All research participants
described this action.
Participant experiences and recollections;
corroborating stories of individuals; so-
cial media posts; public programs given;
classroom curricula and lessons devel-
oped
“…I do feel like my knowledge, I need to
share it... I want people to know what [bee
diversity] we have, and what is disappear-
ing ... Because if we don’t [know], then
when it disappears no one will ever know.
It won’t matter!”
3. Expertise attributed by others
Refers to the external perceptions of individ-
uals within a citizen scientists’ social sphere
in which citizen scientists are seen as experts
due to their long-term interest in nature, their
habit of connecting with people, sharing sci-
ence knowledge and experiences, their in-
volvement in and connection to current
Participant experiences and recollections;
speaker invitations, participant state-
ments, and perceptions from individuals
within research participant social circles
(snowball sampling)
“I would consider her an expert because
she knows. She can tell you everything.
Compared to anybody else I know”.
Figure 2.
Several individual and external actions must occur for transference of citizen science
program impacts to be achieved.
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 9 of 20
Table 3.
Conceptual categories (actions) of transference with supporting data, artifacts, and represen-
tative quotes. An expanded table is provided in the Supplementary Files.
Conceptual Category
Description
Supporting Data and Artifacts
Representative Quote
1. Maintain a long-term interest in nature
Refers to pre-existing and long-term affinity
with nature or science that is an individual’s
source for joining a citizen science program.
All interviewees associated their decision to
join a citizen science program with their
existing affinity for nature or science,
enjoyment in learning about science, and using
citizen science programs as a means of
maintaining this interest.
Participant experiences and recollections;
participation in citizen science programs;
nature journaling, photography, and other
written records such as maps and newspaper
articles
“[Appreciation for nature and science] just
comes naturally from when I was young, at
least part of it. Over my lifetime, I just was
interested in it, so I pursued out of curiosity
and fun”.
2. Share science knowledge and experience
Refers to the internal action of sharing
project-related science knowledge and
experiences with someone not involved in the
project, including family members, neighbors,
friends, colleagues at work, even
acquaintances and strangers. All research
participants described this action.
Participant experiences and recollections;
corroborating stories of individuals; social
media posts; public programs given;
classroom curricula and lessons developed
“ . . . I do feel like my knowledge, I need to
share it... I want people to know what [bee
diversity] we have, and what is disappearing
. . . Because if we don’t [know], then when it
disappears no one will ever know. It won’t
matter!”
3. Expertise attributed by others
Refers to the external perceptions of
individuals within a citizen scientists’ social
sphere in which citizen scientists are seen as
experts due to their long-term interest in
nature, their habit of connecting with people,
sharing science knowledge and experiences,
their involvement in and connection to current
research, and certain qualities displayed in
their interactions with others.
Participant experiences and recollections;
speaker invitations, participant statements,
and perceptions from individuals within
research participant social circles (snowball
sampling)
“I would consider her an expert because she
knows. She can tell you everything. Compared
to anybody else I know”.
4. Acquire the role of expert
Refers to the phenomenon in which citizen
scientists who are viewed as experts to those
around them are called upon by their peers to
answer questions about science, support
learning about science and insects, and handle
interactions with living organisms.
Participant experiences and recollections;
recollections and perceptions from
individuals within research participant
social circles (snowball sampling),
conservation education awards received, and
educational programming at public venues
“I’m considered their entomologist [laughter]
. . .
now they’ll say, ‘Go talk to Carolyn. Go ask
her, she’ll know.’ So they see me as a kind of a
bug, a bird expert”.
5. Influence change in others
Refers to the occurrence of social interactions
through which research participants felt they
had increased others awareness of interest in
and attitudes towards insects, pollinators, and
data collection for citizen science projects. This
action also refers to incidents in which research
participants described influencing
conservation behaviors in others outside of the
citizen science program.
Participant experiences and recollections;
recollections and perceptions from
individuals within research participant
social circles (snowball sampling)
“ . . . [She teaches] it with such enthusiasm . . .
she gets a response from the kids . . . I know
they were interested. She had my attention.
She said she always had something new every
summer to show, so they said, ‘Oh, please
come back so we can see what you have next
year’”.
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 10 of 20
3.1. Individual Phase of Transference
3.1.1. Action 1. Maintain a Long-Term Interest in Nature
Maintaining a long-term interest in nature refers to the pre-existing and long-term
affinity with nature or science that is an individual’s source for joining a citizen science
program. Participants enjoyed a physical closeness and interaction with nature and empha-
sized enjoyment in learning about science and making observations during participation.
This interaction could be as simple as making and enjoying casual observations. More
committed interactions were made by recording observations through journals (Anne,
Katherine), through photography (Carolyn), or other written records, such as maps (Carl-
ton). All interviewees associated their decision to join a citizen science program with this
existing affinity with nature or science, enjoyment in learning about science, and using
citizen science programs as a means of maintaining this long-term interest. They affirmed
that their interest in nature was “always” there and was connected to their youth, recalling
childhood memories of collecting butterflies, exploring natural areas with siblings, and
being fascinated by animals and living things. This interest was often encouraged by
parents, as in Nance’s case, but can spawn from or be renewed by the curiosity of an
individual’s own children, as was the case with Anne, Sean, and Vicki. Several described
themselves as being “all science”, or “all about nature”, and being known as a “nature
enthusiast” amongst friends and family.
Considering the participants’ long-term interest in nature, they expressed an enjoy-
ment in learning about science. They explained that the opportunity to help add to and
impact current research efforts was what they enjoyed the most about citizen science. Sev-
eral interviewees described their citizen science pursuits as “getting involved at a higher
level”. This
in vivo
phrase encapsulates the enjoyment, excitement, and invigoration that
the participants expressed about the usefulness of their participation in citizen science, the
novelty and authenticity of the research, and their ability to impact science at an academic
and policy level. Research participants felt that they were doing something useful with
their interests by adding to the foundational knowledge of bumble bee research rather than,
as noted by Carlton, “just casually observing something”. Anne enjoyed the inclusionary
nature of citizen science that allowed her to contribute to science research despite her
non-research background. It was not only non-academic citizen scientists that expressed
the enjoyment of participating in academic research. Barbara, a career scientist, intimated
that she sometimes feels that she has more impact through the data she collects for citizen
science than through the data that she obtains for her own work.
The research participants connected their enjoyment of learning science to maintaining
their long-term interests in nature and science. They described the act of learning about
science with excitement, enjoyment, surprise, and discovery. Citizen science provided an
opportunity for individuals with a science background to remain connected to current
research. Sean, an IT specialist with a master’s degree in the sciences, expressed satisfaction
in being able to stay involved with science through citizen science. All research participants
detailed a long-term interest in building knowledge, an enjoyment in learning science,
and gratification in their ability to interact with and support current academic research
that could impact the future. As an internal action, their desire to maintain a long-term
interest in nature led them to voluntarily join, interact with, learn about, and share their
entomology citizen science program of choice. Thus, citizen science is one way for them to
maintain their interests in science and nature.
3.1.2. Action 2. Share Science Knowledge and Experiences
Sharing science knowledge and experiences refers to the internal action of sharing
project-related science knowledge and experiences with someone not involved in the
project, including family members, neighbors, friends, colleagues at work, or even acquain-
tances and strangers. This action was described by all interviewees. Research participants
shared science knowledge about insect diversity and identification, conservation and stew-
ardship, pollinator importance, and pollinator friendly plants. Citizen scientists shared
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 11 of 20
science experiences related to their personal interests, their experiences as a citizen scientist,
their involvement in Bumble Boosters, and their methods for learning more about nature.
Casual encounters involved chance meetings and conversations in which intervie-
wees shared information about the Bumble Boosters program or science knowledge and
experiences. Interviewees explained that people tended to be surprised, even shocked, at
the idea of their involvement in a bumble bee citizen science project yet, these same people
discussed and wanted to know more about the project at length. Through these casual
encounters, citizen scientists encouraged family members, neighbors, and friends to grow
pollinator-friendly plants (Carlton, Katherine), encouraged children to interact with nature
(Katherine, Lois, Carolyn, Anne), and alerted coworkers, friends, and acquaintances about
citizen science (Katherine, Lois, Carolyn, Anne).
Some individuals explicitly described why it was important for them to share their
science experiences and knowledge. Katherine, Carolyn, Anne, and Nance described
their feeling of a need to influence people’s attitudes towards nature and to share science.
Carolyn, Anne, and Nance are, or were, teachers at the K-12 or postsecondary levels.
Additionally, Carolyn is involved in teaching Master Naturalists. Throughout their careers,
they have incorporated citizen science into their classrooms to varying degrees. They
recognized that unique learning opportunities can present themselves with citizen science
and that learning occurs over time and not only in the classroom. For example, Nance
and Anne valued the authenticity of citizen science and the opportunity to connect citizen
science research to their students’ everyday experiences. Several individuals felt value in
their ability to impact the awareness of bee diversity or science of others.
Based on interview statements by the six Bumble Boosters research participants, an
estimate was developed to assess the potential number of individuals with whom a re-
search participant had shared citizen science, and science knowledge and experiences.
For a general statement indicating that a research participant discussed the project with
people (plural), the potential number of individuals reached was counted as 2 because a
more specific number could not verifiably be estimated. Where more explicit numbers
were provided by a research participant, such as “we had about 50 visitors”, the potential
number of individuals reached was counted as 50. Although social media posts were used
as secondary data and served as examples of communications by research participants,
the level of potential individuals reached and the value of this interaction are difficult to
ascertain; thus, these were only given a count of one potential individual reached. The six
individuals varied greatly in the potential number of individuals with whom they shared
citizen science, and science knowledge and experiences, ranging from 2 to 1258. Between
family members, friends, neighbors, coworkers, students, social media posts, and encoun-
ters with acquaintances, these interactions totaled a potential 1315 individuals. Source
quotes for the potential contacts reached are provided in the Supplementary Materials.
This represents a potential number of individuals exposed to a citizen scientists’ science
knowledge and experiences, not the number of individuals upon which program impacts
have been transferred. This illustrates the larger social reach of citizen scientists compared
to program leaders as well as the expansive potential for transference through just a few
Bumble Boosters participants.
3.2. External Phase of Transference
3.2.1. Action 3. Expertise Attributed by Others
The attribution of expertise to citizen scientists by others refers to the external percep-
tions of individuals within a citizen scientists’ social sphere. The research participants who
were interviewed in this study did not self-identify as experts. Others around them saw
them as experts due to their long-term interest in nature, their habit of connecting with
people, sharing science knowledge and experiences, their involvement in and connection to
current research, and certain qualities displayed in their interactions with others. Snowball
sampling provided a unique opportunity to explore this process, which was explicitly
detailed by Carolyn and Anne and was evident in Carlton’s interactions with a neigh-
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 12 of 20
bor. They represent three of the six Bumble Boosters citizen scientists interviewed in this
study. It was also present in the experiences of research participants from the theoretical
sampling stage of this study—Nance and Vicki. Snowball sampling was pursued for all
Bumble Boosters research participants; however, interview requests were only answered
by individuals known to Carolyn and Carlton.
Paulette, Maggie, and Fannie are three individuals who witnessed Carolyn teach in
various circumstances and, “without a doubt”, considered her to be an expert. Paulette
described Carolyn’s ability to connect with students and witnessed her acting very naturally,
photographing, teaching, sharing her knowledge, wanting to help other people lose their
fear of insects, and appreciate diversity and the wonder of nature. Regarding her teaching,
all three individuals shared that Carolyn’s enthusiasm and science knowledge engaged
and excited children and elicited questions from them during the programs. Each of these
individuals witnessed Carolyn taking time to share her knowledge and passion with people
and investing time, resources, and expertise. In a follow-up email, Paulette summed up
her characterization of Carolyn: “She connects with all and is loved by all”. It appears that
failing to connect with others about the project may inhibit an individual from acquiring
the role of expert. Ellen, for example, shared the project with family members but felt
that she did not influence any changes in them, reporting that she did not observe any
differences in their behaviors or attitudes towards bees.
Individuals also attributed expertise to a citizen scientist because of their connection
to authentic research and professional scientists. A long-time friend of Carlton’s shared
his bumble bee findings with him because he is aware of Carlton’s interest in bumble bees
and wished to support Carlton’s efforts with citizen science research. A citizen scientists’
connection to professional researchers can benefit others as well. Maggie described how
Carolyn’s science knowledge and connection to research supports science education with
other teachers: “She is very good at finding resources for us or ways that we can participate
without having to spend a lot of extra money”. This process is a significant discovery
because it suggests that citizen scientists are far more than project volunteers. They serve
as ambassadors for a project, increasing not only the geographic and temporal spans of
data collection, but also the educational reach of a project.
3.2.2. Action 4. Acquire the Role of Expert
Acquiring the role of an expert refers to the phenomenon in which citizen scientists
that are viewed as experts to those around them are called upon by their peers to answer
questions about science, support learning about science and insects, and handle interac-
tions with living organisms. In addition to participant experiences detailing how they
are sought out by others, secondary data supporting this phenomenon includes awards
received and educational programming at public venues. Several citizen scientists (Anne,
Carlton, Carolyn, Nance, and Vicki) described how individuals within their social sphere
knew them as experts. Research participants that acquired an expert role were similar in
voicing resolute reasons of why it is important to share science experiences and knowledge.
However, this intention alone did not precipitate an expert role. For example, Bethany,
whose congregation hosted a Firefly Watch event, represents an individual who feels
strongly about impacting others’ awareness of insects. She explained, “[
. . .
] that’s part
of the mark I think [people of faith] need to leave in this world, is just an appreciation for
all that God has given us”. In her case, she is supportive of citizen science efforts on her
congregation’s property but did not describe taking on an expert role to the congregation
members. Research participants expressed surprise at being considered an expert to their
peers but were pleased and driven to share their knowledge and experiences. Carolyn
described her role at school as an entomologist, “[
. . .
] a kind of a bug, a bird expert”.
Anne, who teaches mathematics rather than science, and Carolyn both described instances
in which they were summoned by colleagues if an insect or other animal was found in or
on school property. Thus, this role is not necessarily job-related. Teachers may become
experts in science-related topics even though they are teaching an unrelated field.
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 13 of 20
Regardless of the expertise attributed by others, the research participants continue
to distinguish themselves from the ‘real’ experts. Citizen scientists differentiate their
participation from experts as a hobby and an activity for their spare time. Carolyn explained
that science is a hobby for her and that she does not see herself as an expert. Despite being
very committed in time, data, and resources, citizen scientists often see themselves in
a supportive role. Carolyn decided to contribute her spare time, macrophotography
expertise, and insect photographs to iNaturalist, Bumble Bee Watch, Bumble Boosters,
etc. Her satisfaction in contributing to science grew—she has indeed started to become
an expert in bumble bee identification and a champion for their conservation. Further,
she is very conscious of her learning path to support these efforts. Upon reviewing the
conceptual diagram of the grounded theory created by the authors, Anne reiterated, “the
aspect that I feel least represents me is the role of expert. There is so much to learn, I barely
scrape the surface”. Tom did not see himself as a scientist, explaining, “I don’t write any
papers. I am not giving any speeches, writing any white papers or technical data on any of
my field activities”.
3.2.3. Action 5. Influence Change in Others
Influencing change in others refers to the occurrence of social interactions through
which research participants felt they had increased others awareness of interest in and
attitudes towards insects, pollinators, and data collection for citizen science projects. This
action also refers to incidents in which research participants described influencing conser-
vation behaviors in others outside of the citizen science program, such as the creation of a
pollinator habitat and leaving pollinator nesting sites alone. Participants proposed that
these outcomes were achieved by purposefully exposing people to positive experiences
with insects to counter negative prior experiences. Carolyn set up positive experiences for
students and also invited other teachers to help her and students collect lady beetles for a
citizen science project. Carolyn has provided materials and encouragement to other science
teachers in her area so that they, too, will bring citizen science into the classroom. Carlton
purposefully promotes the usefulness of bees in pollination to his friends and neighbors. In
one exemplary case, he discussed pollinator habitat problems with a neighbor looking to
destroy a bumble bee nest. Carlton was able to convince the neighbor to leave the nest alone
until the season had passed. Some citizen scientists promoted awareness and tolerance of
pollinators by writing an article for a local journal, sharing posts on Facebook, and giving
public presentations for Master Naturalists, local museums, and libraries. It should be
noted that Carolyn and Anne, who showed the strongest evidence of assuming the role of
expert to those around them, reached the greatest potential number of individuals.
Citizen scientists also reported bringing others into the research fold and achieved
this in various ways. Citizen scientists carried out data collection in front of others, with
the intention of showing them how easy it is and inspiring them to participate themselves.
Nance noted that her students’ focus strengthened once they began participating in citizen
science because the data was to be used in actual science research. Carlton acquired per-
mission from neighbors to place bumble bee domiciles on their property. These neighbors
checked in with him as to the occupancy status of the domicile. Anne and Katherine used
citizen science with their children during family time as a fun and educational activity.
Anne even hooked her husband into participating in the Bumble Boosters program. Her
husband later went on to submit a design to an annual bumble bee domicile competition,
“The Bombicile Challenge”.
4. Discussion
The qualitative methods of grounded theory provided a unique opportunity to explore
and explain the actions of citizen scientists through their own experiences as well as those
around them and to uncover a fuller understanding of how citizen science operates in
the field. This study provides a theoretical explanation of how adult citizen scientists
may acquire an expert role within their social spheres and potentially influence attitudes
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 14 of 20
towards insects and science as well as conservation behaviors of people within their
communities. This role may have implications for biodiversity conservation with regard to
public engagement and participation in conservation efforts.
All research participants in this study viewed citizen science as a means to maintain
their pre-existing interest in nature, sometimes in tandem with other nature- and science-
focused activities, including nature journaling, nature photography, and researching science
topics of interest through newspapers, popular articles, books, and training sessions. This
aligns with research on the motivations of citizen scientists volunteering in biodiversity and
environmental science projects [
74
]. Their motivation to join also stands to reason, as each
of the research participants voluntarily joined their respective entomology projects. Further,
as evidenced by the Bumble Boosters and other entomology project participants, citizen
scientists may be professional scientists, professionals in other fields with a background
in science, or self-taught naturalists. In addition, several of the research participants were
active in multiple citizen science programs (Table 1). The Bumble Boosters program, as with
many citizen science programs, has explicit goals to improve participant science literacy
and public engagement in conservation—here, pollinator conservation. The participation
of research participants in one or more citizen science programs to “maintain a long-term
interest in nature” challenges the assumption that a program should or could greatly alter
its voluntary participants’ interest in science and the natural world. If the Bumble Boosters
program, and perhaps other citizen science programs, serves as a beacon to bring together
individuals already invested in pollinator conservation, what then happens to the program
leaders’ educational and conservation goals for the participants?
Certain aspects of transference bear a resemblance to the diffusion of innovation, a
theory explaining how various technological innovations are adopted over time [
75
]. In
this study, innovation pertains to pollinator conservation actions that an individual may
take. Diffusion theory recognizes that effective communication between people about an in-
novation varies based on how similar individuals are in certain attributes, including beliefs,
education, etc. Individuals with a strong degree of similarity in beliefs and background
form a homophilous network and are able to share and communicate ideas more effectively
and frequently [
75
]. Researchers and the citizen scientists that voluntarily collaborate
with them meet the criteria for homophilous communication, forming a network based on
shared interests in science, entomology, conservation, etc. While this relationship is impor-
tant for supporting the learning interests and project objectives of citizen scientists, if global
awareness about biodiversity is low [
76
] and diverse and broad stakeholder engagement is
needed for society’s ability to grapple with wicked issues [
22
], this homophilous network
can limit the educational and conservation messages of the program leaders to individuals
already interested in science and nature. Heterophilous communication, occurring between
individuals with dissimilar attributes, is rarer and more difficult to engage in due to cognitive
dissonance and conflicting positions but is more crucial in spreading new technological inno-
vations [
75
]. When citizen scientists discuss a project with non-citizen scientists, they may be
more likely to engage in heterophilous communication.
All of the research participants described the action of sharing project-related science
knowledge and experiences with someone not involved in the project, including family
members, neighbors, friends, colleagues at work, or even acquaintances and strangers.
These casual encounters occurred regardless of whether the citizen scientist was seen as
an expert by others. Although the authors could not verify the type of communication
(homophilous or heterophilous) or determine the actual consequences of most of these
encounters, the rough estimate of over a thousand potential individuals reached by the
six Bumble Boosters participants (see Supplementary Files for source quotes used to
determine this estimate) was difficult to dismiss. The Bumble Boosters program leaders
committed sizable investments of time, money, and expertise to engage the public in
pollinator conservation and were pleased with the number of funded project kits (167) and
the associated project communications and outreach efforts with school-aged children and
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 15 of 20
adults alike. Bumble Boosters participants that share their science knowledge, experiences,
and efforts with pollinator conservation research added to the project’s outreach efforts.
Although the research participants interviewed in this study did not self-identify
as experts, some Bumble Boosters participants described instances in which individuals
within their social sphere perceived them as such. Several of those interviewed were seen
as experts in their home or workplace and as ambassadors of our program’s educational
and conservation objectives. Citizen scientists that have acquired an expert role exhibit
characteristics resembling diffusion theory’s opinion leaders and change agents. A change
agent is an individual that possesses expertise in a given innovation and facilitates the
adoption of the new idea in others. Much like people seek technological information from
opinion leaders or people that they see as more technologically knowledgeable, individuals
may seek out scientific knowledge and conservation actions from citizen scientists that
they see as more scientifically knowledgeable. As citizen scientists participate in research,
they may develop their own science knowledge and truly approach expertise.
Influencing change in others refers to the occurrence of social interactions through
which research participants felt they had increased others’ awareness of, interest in, and
attitudes towards insects, pollinators, and data collection for citizen science projects. This
includes incidents in which the research participants described influencing conservation
behaviors in others and bringing others into the citizen science research fold by modelling
project participation. Participants proposed that these outcomes were achieved by pur-
posefully exposing people to positive experiences with insects to counter negative prior
experiences. Hazen and Fox [
25
] described the indirect influence of a citizen science project
through teachers who had joined their entomology research. Their cascading classroom is
mirrored in transference, and we extend it to individuals outside of a classroom setting.
Our findings align with social network and diffusion research on citizen scientists in India
who also acted as environmental opinion leaders and who disseminated information and
awareness surrounding environmental issues to non-participants [
77
]. These roles parallel
a new perspective of citizen science as a community of civic educators. Ceccaroni, Bowser,
and Brenton [
78
] define civic educators as individuals “who believe that providing informa-
tion to others, and/or creating opportunities for others to learn, are paths to greater civic
competence and a better future” [p. 2]. Research participants clearly reflected this belief,
regardless of their level of entomology knowledge. Carolyn and Anne, who both acquired
the role of an expert, shared a sentiment represented in a statement by Anne: “anything
we do that makes somebody else aware of, or just opens someone to another issue or
another attitude, is a good thing”. According to Ceccaroni, Bowser, and Brenton [
78
], civic
educators identify themselves as advocates, experts, or a combination of the two. Interview
comments suggest that the individuals in this study would identify themselves solely
as advocates. However, others have attributed the role of expert to them. Thus, citizen
scientists may see themselves as advocates when they are indeed fulfilling an expert’s role
by educating the public and bringing them into the research fold.
Due to their geographic spread, science knowledge, positions as experts to peers, and
opportunity for heterophilous communication, citizen scientists may have an advantage
over program leaders in influencing educational and attitudinal change in the public. It is
important to support citizen scientists as they acquire the role of advocate and/or expert.
Each individual citizen scientist may influence biodiversity conservation efforts in their
local, geographic community. This potential for diverse community and stakeholder in-
volvement provides a crucial component of countering the wicked problem of biodiversity
loss [
76
]. If program leaders consider communications, training, and/or materials that
would support citizen scientists in this role, this might allow educational and behavioral
impacts of a program to be spread through citizen scientists. For example, when speaking
with citizen scientists about actions they can take to support insect conservation efforts, one
of the authors (Lynch–O’Brien) explicitly encourages citizen scientists to share their project
experiences with others in their social circles. It should be noted that challenges may be
present in documenting and amplifying transference. The citizen science community may
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 16 of 20
benefit from exploring the incorporation of diffusion theory principles into program design,
volunteer training, and program evaluation to encourage heterophilous communication,
measure broader impacts, maximize transference, and increase awareness of biodiversity
conservation. By acknowledging that citizen scientists share their science knowledge and
experiences, may acquire the role of expert, and have the potential to influence individuals
within their social sphere, program leaders can prepare and preemptively capture, docu-
ment, and leverage educational and conservation impacts reaching beyond the individuals
in a program. This requires that citizen science program leaders collaborate with citizen
scientists to engage new audiences in biodiversity conservation and request an invitation
to chronicle the many methods and audiences reached by them.
Citizen science is recognized for its ability to expand the geographic, temporal, and
spatial scales from which scientists can collect data in many disciplines, including biodi-
versity conservation. Citizen scientists become ambassadors of science and may expand
the educational reach of a project. Citizen science is already contributing data to support
our understanding of biodiversity and conservation at a global scale through the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including the monitoring of threatened species,
the establishment of protected areas, and marine pollution [
21
]. Further, citizen science
is positioned to contribute data to support the monitoring of all of the wicked problems
reflected in the SDGs [
20
]. The conservation of invertebrate diversity, including bees and
other insects, is impeded by negative perceptions towards these organisms, limited under-
standing of invertebrate ecological significance, and limited representation in conservation
policies [
79
–
81
]. In particular, social interactions can influence how individuals respond
to and value invertebrates [
80
] and science in general. Citizen scientists have been found
to involve others and talk informally about conservation activities related to citizen sci-
ence programming [
82
–
84
]. They have been identified as valuable guest speakers, field
trip leaders, and partners in advocating for science in schools [
85
]. This has implications
regarding how program outcomes are assessed, how to account for the broader impacts
of citizen science, and how to leverage conservation-focused programs to counter biodi-
versity loss. Deliberative engagement, a collaborative approach to building community
capacity and negotiating solutions to wicked problems, requires public communication
and engagement [
86
]. Program leaders may wish to encourage and document these social
networking pursuits as potential evidence of transference.
In this study, citizen scientists positively influenced attitudes towards science, attitudes
towards bees, and the pro-environmental behaviors of others. We found that the science
knowledge shared by citizen scientists with others is filtered by various elements, including
their own science experiences, prior knowledge, expertise, local politics, etc. This may
alter a citizen science program’s intended educational conservation message when it
is transferred by a citizen scientist. However, the anecdotal positive influence on the
public through citizen scientists is still compelling and provides an avenue for improving
stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation. The outreach capacity of citizen
scientists is a metric that should be considered in measuring the success of a citizen science
program; especially where citizen scientists already have positive attitudes towards science,
nature, the environment, etc. In fact, the recently proposed dimensions of engagement
framework [
84
] provides a new typology to characterize participant engagement that
acknowledges the behavioral and social/project activities, among others, in which citizen
scientists may engage. Transference supports this framework and adds to the list of
outcomes of citizen science programs, representing an extension of researchers’ educational
outreach capacity through volunteers to communicate the importance of biodiversity
conservation. Transference of program impacts and social interactions occurring through
citizen scientists may provide a beacon to unite citizen scientists interested in nature. This,
in turn, provides program leaders an opportunity to collaborate with citizen scientists to
reach new audiences and build the diverse stakeholder engagement needed for society to
begin taking on the wicked problem of biodiversity loss.
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 17 of 20
5. Limitations
As a qualitative study, the constructivist grounded theory methodology used in this
research is not broadly generalizable to citizen science communities in terms of traditional
quantitative generalizability. Additionally, the small number of research participants
further decreases this quantitative generalizability. However, the findings are transferable
to other similar settings and contribute an empirical understanding of transference. This
study leverages the strengths of qualitative research by employing qualitative processes of
triangulation, member checking, and providing rich, detailed descriptions of the shared
actions of purposefully recruited participants. It employed the qualitative processes of
triangulation, member checking, and theoretical saturation.
Self-selection bias is a limitation of this study. The recruitment of research participants
from citizen science programs to conduct this research was challenging. Of the 167 Bumble
Boosters participants, the six individuals recruited represent those who met the inclusion
criteria and who were also willing to be interviewed. However, the theoretical sampling
pulled in research participants from other entomology citizen science programs, primarily
from local chapters initiated by one of the authors for the purpose of recruitment. These
local chapters were initiated after attempts to connect with potential research participants
through citizen science networks produced a limited number of interviewees. In addition,
the research participants represented a narrow demographic profile.
Supplementary Materials:
The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10
.3390/d13080339/s1, Figure S1: Color coding example, Figure S2: Transference illustration, Table S1:
Demographic data of research participants, Video S1: 2014_Bumble_Boosters_Domicile_Design.mp4,
File S1: Bumble Boosters Code Memo Workbook, File S2: Bumble Boosters Code Summary Grid.pdf,
File S3: Bumble Boosters Document (Interview) Portraits.pdf, File S4: Creative coding sequence.png,
File S5: Transference Individuals Estimate, File S6: Consent Forms, Interview Questions, and Demo-
graphic Surveys, File S7: Multiple data sources generated through interviews and triangulation, File S8:
Source Quotes for Potential Contacts Reached, Table S2: Expanded Themes and Representative Quotes.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, L.I.L.-O. and D.G.; methodology, L.I.L.-O., W.A.B., J.M.D.,
T.H.-M., and D.G.; validation, L.I.L.-O. and D.G.; investigation, L.I.L.-O.; writing—original draft
preparation, L.I.L.-O.; writing—review and editing, L.I.L.-O., W.A.B., J.M.D., T.H.-M., and D.G.; All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of
the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln (IRB APPROVAL # 20150415239 EX on 2 April 2015).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement:
Data is contained within the article or in the supplementary materials.
Interview transcripts are not included in order to protect the privacy of participants.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Bonney, R.; Ballard, H.; Jordan, R.; McCallie, E.; Phillips, T.; Shirk, J.; Wilderman, C.C. Public Participation in Scientific Research:
Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report; Online Submiss; Center
for Advancement of Informal Science Education: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
2.
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.; et al. Public Participation in Scientific Research: A Framework for Deliberate Design. Ecol. Soc.
2012
, 17, 207–227.
[CrossRef]
3.
Dickinson, J.L.; Bonney, R. (Eds.) Citizen Science: Public Participation in Environmental Research; Cornell University Press: Ithaca,
NY, USA, 2012.
4.
Castracani, C.; Spotti, F.A.; Schifani, E.; Giannetti, D.; Ghizzoni, M.; Grasso, D.A.; Mori, A. Public engagement provides first
insights on Po Plain ant communities and reveals the ubiquity of the cryptic species Tetramorium immigrans (Hymenoptera,
Formicidae). Insects 2020, 11, 678. [CrossRef]
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 18 of 20
5.
Davis, A.K.; Howard, E. Spring recolonization rate of monarch butterflies in eastern North America: New estimates from
citizen-science data. J. Lepid. Soc. 2005, 59, 1–5.
6.
Gollan, J.R.; Smith, H.M.; Bulbert, M.; Donnelly, A.P.; Wilkie, L. Using spider web types as a substitute for assessing web-building
spider biodiversity and the success of habitat restoration. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 3141–3155. [CrossRef]
7.
Howard, E.; Davis, A.K. Documenting the spring movements of monarch butterflies with Journey North, a citizen science
program. Monarch. Butterfly Biol. Conserv. 2004, 105, 105–116.
8.
Howard, E.; Davis, A.K. The fall migration flyways of monarch butterflies in eastern North America revealed by citizen scientists.
J. Insect Conserv. 2009, 13, 279–286. [CrossRef]
9.
Kadoya, T.; Suda, S.; Washitani, I.; Ishii, H.S.; Kikuchi, R. Using monitoring data gathered by volunteers to predict the potential
distribution of the invasive alien bumblebee Bombus terrestris [electronic resource]. Biol. Conserv.
2009
, 142, 1011–1017. [CrossRef]
10.
Losey, J.E.; Hoebeke, E.R.; Perlman, J.E. Citizen scientist rediscovers rare nine-spotted lady beetle, Coccinella novemnotata, in
eastern North America [electronic resource]. J. Insect Conserv. 2007, 11, 415–417. [CrossRef]
11.
Lye, G.C.; Osborne, J.L.; Park, K.J.; Goulson, D. Using citizen science to monitor Bombus populations in the UK: Nesting ecology
and relative abundance in the urban environment. J. Insect Conserv. 2012, 16, 697–707. [CrossRef]
12.
Méndez, M.; Cortés-Fossati, F. Relative Contribution of Citizen Science, Museum Data and Publications in Delineating the
Distribution of the Stag Beetle in Spain. Insects 2021, 12, 202. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Sequeira, A.M.; Roetman, P.E.; Daniels, C.B.; Baker, A.K.; Bradshaw, C.J. Distribution models for koalas in South Australia using
citizen science-collected data. Ecol. Evol. 2014, 4, 2103–2114. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Sheil, D.; Mugerwa, B.; Fegraus, E.H. African golden cats, citizen science, and serendipity: Tapping the camera trap revolution.
South Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 2013, 43, 74–78. [CrossRef]
15.
Pattengill-Semmens, C.V.; Semmens, B.X. Conservation and management applications of the reef colunteer fish monitoring
program. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2003, 81, 43–50. [CrossRef]
16.
Rosevelt, C.; Huertos, M.L.; Garza, C.; Nevins, H.M. Marine debris in central California: Quantifying type and abundance of
beach litter in Monterey Bay, CA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 71, 299–306. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17.
Moskovits, D.K.; Fialkowski, C.J.; Mueller, G.M.; Sullivan, T.A. Chicago Wilderness: A new force in urban conservation. Ann. Mo.
Bot. Gard. 2002, 89, 153–163. [CrossRef]
18.
Lepczyk, C.A. Integrating published data and citizen science to describe bird diversity across a landscape. J. Appl. Ecol.
2005
, 42,
672–677. [CrossRef]
19. Wiersma, Y.F. Birding 2.0: Citizen science and effective monitoring in the Web 2.0 world. Avian Conserv. Ecol. 2010, 5, 1–9.
20.
Fraisl, D.; Campbell, J.; See, L.; Wehn, U.; Wardlaw, J.; Gold, M.; Moorthy, I.; Arias, R.; Piera, J.; Oliver, J.L.; et al. Mapping citizen
science contributions to the UN sustainable development goals. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1735–1751. [CrossRef]
21.
Fritz, S.; See, L.; Carlson, T.; Haklay, M.; Oliver, J.L.; Fraisl, D.; Mondardini, R.; Brocklehurst, M.; Shanley, L.A.; Schade, S.; et al.
Citizen science and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 922–930. [CrossRef]
22.
Kreuter, M.W.; De Rosa, C.; Howze, E.H.; Baldwin, G.T. Understanding wicked problems: A key to advancing environmental
health promotion. Health Educ. Behav. 2004, 31, 441–454. [CrossRef]
23.
Dillon, J.; Stevenson, R.B.; Wals, A.E.J. Introduction to the special section moving from citizen to civic science to address wicked
conservation problems. corrected by erratum 12844. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 450–455.
24. Silvertown, J. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24, 467–471. [CrossRef]
25.
Hazen, R.F.; Fox, M.S. A cascading classroom: The benefits of utilizing teachers and students as citizen scientists in research. Am.
Entomol. 2012, 58, 11–14. [CrossRef]
26.
Jenkins, L.L. Using citizen science beyond teaching science content: A strategy for making science relevant to students’ lives.
Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2011, 6, 501–508. [CrossRef]
27.
Kridelbaugh, D.M. The use of online citizen-science projects to provide experiential learning opportunities for nonmajor Science
students. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 2016, 17, 105–106. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28.
Oberhauser, K.; LeBuhn, G. Insects and plants: Engaging undergraduates in authentic research through citizen science. Front.
Ecol. Environ. 2012, 10, 318–320. [CrossRef]
29.
Paige, K.; Lloyd, D.; Zeegers, Y.; Roetman, P.; Daniels, C.; Hoekman, B.; Linnell, L.; George, A.-L.; Szilassy, D. Connecting teachers
and students to the natural world through “operation spider”: An aspirations citizen science project. Teach. Sci. 2012, 58, 15–22.
30.
Shaffer, C.D.; Alvarez, C.; Bailey, C.; Barnard, D.; Bhalla, S.; Chandrasekaran, C.; Chandrasekaran, V.; Chung, H.-M.; Dorer, D.R.;
Du, C.; et al. The genomics education partnership: Successful integration of research into laboratory classes at a diverse group of
undergraduate institutions. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2010, 9, 55–69. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31.
Shah, H.R.; Martinez, L.R. Current approaches in implementing citizen science in the classroom. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ.
2016
, 17,
17–22. [CrossRef]
32.
Spicer, H.; Nadolny, D.; Fraser, E. Going squirrelly: Evaluating educational outcomes of a curriculum-aligned citizen science
investigation of non-native squirrels. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 2020, 5. [CrossRef]
33.
Brossard, D.; Lewenstein, B.; Bonney, R. Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. Int. J.
Sci. Educ. 2005, 27, 1099–1121. [CrossRef]
34.
Crall, A.W.; Jordan, R.; Holfelder, K.; Newman, G.J.; Graham, J.; Waller, D.M. The impacts of an invasive species citizen science
training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Underst. Sci. 2012, 22, 745–764. [CrossRef]
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 19 of 20
35. Falk, J.H. Free-choice environmental learning: Framing the discussion. Environ. Educ. Res. 2005, 11, 265–280. [CrossRef]
36.
Price, C.A.; Lee, H.-S. Changes in participants’ scientific attitudes and epistemological beliefs during an astronomical citizen
science project. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2013, 50, 773–801. [CrossRef]
37.
Merriam, S.B.; Bierema, L.L. Adult Learning: Linking Theory and Practice, 1st ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2013; ISBN
978-1-118-13057-5.
38. Tuss, P. From student to scientist an experiential approach to science education. Sci. Commun. 1996, 17, 443–481. [CrossRef]
39. Clary, R.; Wandersee, J.; Guyton, J.; Williams, M. Citizen science in your own backyard. Sci. Teach. 2012, 79, 51–57.
40.
Cooper, C.B.; Dickinson, J.; Phillips, T.; Bonney, R. Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecol. Soc.
2007, 12, 11. [CrossRef]
41.
Newman, G.; Wiggins, A.; Crall, A.; Graham, E.; Newman, S.; Crowston, K. The future of citizen science: Emerging technologies
and shifting paradigms. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 10, 298–304. [CrossRef]
42.
Raddick, M.J.; Bracey, G.; Carney, K.; Gyuk, G.; Borne, K.; Wallin, J.; Jacoby, S.; Planetarium, A. Citizen science: Status and
research directions for the coming decade. AGB Stars Relat. Phenom. 2010 Astron. Astrophys. Decad. Surv. 2009, 2010, 46.
43. Sterling, D.R.; Frazier, W.M. Collaboration with community partners. Sci. Teach. 2006, 73, 28.
44.
Sullivan, B.L.; Wood, C.L.; Iliff, M.J.; Bonney, R.E.; Fink, D.; Kelling, S. eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the
biological sciences. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 2282–2292. [CrossRef]
45. Tudor, M.T.; Dvornich, K.M. The NatureMapping program: Resource agency environmental education reform. J. Environ. Educ.
2001, 32, 8. [CrossRef]
46. Wilson, C.; Godinho, L. The benefits of engaging volunteers in urban bat research. Vic. Nat. Blackburn 2013, 130, 182–187.
47.
McKinley, D.C.; Miller-Rushing, A.J.; Ballard, H.L.; Bonney, R.; Brown, H.; Cook-Patton, S.C.; Evans, D.M.; French, R.A.; Parrish,
J.K.; Phillips, T.B.; et al. Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental
protection. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 208, 15–28. [CrossRef]
48.
Trumbull, D.J.; Bonney, R.; Bascom, D.; Cabral, A. Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project. Sci.
Educ. 2000, 84, 265–275. [CrossRef]
49.
Jordan, R.C.; Gray, S.A.; Howe, D.V.; Brooks, W.R.; Ehrenfeld, J.G. Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen-science
programs. Conserv. Biol. 2011, 25, 1148–1154. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50.
Cronje, R.; Rohlinger, S.; Crall, A.; Newman, G. Does participation in citizen science improve scientific literacy? A study to
compare assessment methods . Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2011, 10, 135–145. [CrossRef]
51.
Evans, C.; Abrams, E.; Reitsma, R.; Roux, K.; Salmonsen, L.; Marra, P.P. The neighborhood nestwatch program: Participant
outcomes of a citizen-science ecological research project. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19, 589–594. [CrossRef]
52.
Druschke, C.G.; Seltzer, C.E. Failures of engagement: Lessons learned from a citizen science pilot study. Appl. Environ. Educ.
Commun. 2012, 11, 178–188. [CrossRef]
53.
Overdevest, C.; Orr, C.H.; Stepenuck, K. Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues. Hum.
Ecol. Rev. 2004, 11, 177–185.
54.
Forrester, T.D.; Baker, M.; Costello, R.; Kays, R.; Parsons, A.W.; McShea, W.J. Creating advocates for mammal conservation
through citizen science. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 208, 98–105. [CrossRef]
55.
Creswell, J.W.; Poth, C.N. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, 4th ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.:
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018.
56.
Merriam, S.B.; Tisdell, E.J. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, 4th ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA,
2016.
57.
Riesch, H.; Potter, C. Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Underst.
Sci. 2014, 23, 107–120. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58.
Zeegers, Y.; Paige, K.; Lloyd, D.; Roetman, P. ’Operation Magpie’: Inspiring teachers’ professional learning through environmental
science. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 2012, 28, 27–41. [CrossRef]
59.
Babchuk, W.A. Grounded theory as a "family of methods": A genealogical analysis to guide research. In Proceedings of the Adult
Education Research Conference, Sacramento, CA, USA, 6 June 2010.
60.
Charmaz, K. Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-0-85702-
914-0.
61.
Hood, J.C. Orthodoxy vs. power: The defining traits of grounded theory. In The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory; SAGE
Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007; pp. 151–164.
62.
Barron, M.C.; Wratten, S.D.; Donovan, B.J. A four-year investigation into the efficacy of domiciles for enhancement of bumble bee
populations. Agric. For. Entomol. 2000, 2, 141–146. [CrossRef]
63.
Bogash, S. Improving Pollination through Bumblebee Habitation; Evaluation of Nest Box Types in Bumblebee Colonization; SARE:
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education; University of Maryland: College Park, MD, USA, 2009; pp. 1–7.
64.
Golick, D.A.; Schlesselman, D.M.; Ellis, M.D.; Brooks, D.W. Bumble boosters: Students doing real science. J. Sci. Educ. Technol.
2003, 12, 149–152. [CrossRef]
65.
Lye, G.C.; Park, K.J.; Holland, J.M.; Goulson, D. Assessing the efficacy of artificial domiciles for bumblebees. J. Nat. Conserv.
2011
,
19, 154–160. [CrossRef]
Diversity 2021, 13, 339 20 of 20
66.
Szalanski, A.; Tripodi, A. Evaluation of the Utility of Adding Artificial Bumble Bee Nesting Sites to Increase Pollination Services in a Small
Farm Environment; SARE: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education; University of Maryland: College Park, MD, USA,
2012; pp. 1–14.
67.
Marshall, C.; Rossman, G.B. Designing Qualitative Research, 6th ed.; SAGE Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016; ISBN
978-1-4522-7100-2.
68.
Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Aldine Publishing Company:
Chicago, IL, USA, 1967; ISBN 0-202-30260-1.
69.
Lynch, L.I.; Dauer, J.M.; Babchuk, W.A.; Heng-Moss, T.M.; Golick, D. In their own words: The significance of participant
perceptions in assessing entomology citizen science learning outcomes Using a mixed methods approach. Insects
2018
, 9, 16.
[CrossRef]
70. Kaiser, K. Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qual. Health Res. 2009, 19, 1632–1641. [CrossRef]
71.
Urquhart, C. Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013;
ISBN 978-1-84787-054-4.
72.
Lynch, L.I. Science Experiences of Citizen Scientists in Entomology Research; University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2016.
73.
Bogdan, R.C.; Biklen, S.K. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods, 5th ed.; Pearson: Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA, 2006.
74.
Moczek, N.; Nuss, M.; Köhler, J.K. Volunteering in the citizen science project “insects of saxony”—The larger the island of
knowledge, the longer the bank of questions. Insects 2021, 12, 262. [CrossRef]
75. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
76.
Sharman, M.; Mlambo, M. Wicked: The problem of biodiversity loss. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc.
2012
, 21, 274–277. [CrossRef]
77.
Johnson, M.F.; Hannah, C.; Acton, L.; Popovici, R.; Karanth, K.K.; Weinthal, E. Network environmentalism: Citizen scientists as
agents for environmental advocacy. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 29, 235–245. [CrossRef]
78.
Ceccaroni, L.; Bowser, A.; Brenton, P. Civic Education and Citizen Science: Definitions, Categories, Knowledge Representation. In
Analyzing the Role of Citizen Science in Modern Research; Information Science Reference: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017; pp. 1–23.
79.
Cardoso, P.; Erwin, T.L.; Borges, P.A.; New, T.R. The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them.
Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 2647–2655. [CrossRef]
80.
Fukano, Y.; Soga, M. Why do so many modern people hate insects? The urbanization–Disgust hypothesis. Sci. Total Environ.
2021
,
777, 146229. [CrossRef]
81.
Milano, F.; Blick, T.; Cardoso, P.; Chatzaki, M.; Fukushima, C.S.; Gajdoš, P.; Gibbons, A.T.; Henriques, S.; Macías-Hernández, N.;
Mammola, S.; et al. Spider conservation in Europe: A review. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 256, 109020. [CrossRef]
82.
Lewandowski, E.; Oberhauser, K. Butterfly citizen science projects support conservation activities among their volunteers. Citiz.
Sci. Theory Pract. 2016, 1, 6. [CrossRef]
83.
Lewandowski, E.J.; Oberhauser, K.S. Butterfly citizen scientists in the United States increase their engagement in conservation.
Biol. Conserv. 2017, 208, 106–112. [CrossRef]
84.
Phillips, T.B.; Ballard, H.L.; Lewenstein, B.V.; Bonney, R. Engagement in science through citizen science: Moving beyond data
collection. Sci. Educ. 2019, 103, 665–690. [CrossRef]
85.
Jones, G.; Childers, G.; Stevens, V.; Whitley, B. Citizen scientists: Investigating science in the community. Sci. Teach.
2012
, 79,
36–39.
86. Carcasson, M. Tackling wicked problems through deliberative engagement. Natl. Civ. Rev. 2016, 105, 44–47. [CrossRef]
