How can we build trust and cooperation among the Citizen Observatory members/ stakeholders?
Why is it relevant?
Building trust and cooperation among the members and stakeholders of a Citizen Observatory is central to success and effectiveness. Trust serves as the foundation for meaningful collaboration, open communication, and active engagement - when stakeholders trust each other and the observatory, they are more willing to contribute their knowledge, expertise, and resources, creating a fertile ground for collective problem-solving and decision making. Trust also enhances cooperation by fostering a sense of shared purpose and mutual respect, enabling stakeholders to work together towards common goals. Crucially, it also increases the perceived levels of transparency and accountability, ensuring that the decisions and actions of the observatory are perceived as fair and legitimate, therefore increasing potential policy and governance impacts of the observatory. By building trust and cooperation, organisers can create a supportive and inclusive environment that encourages active participation, generates innovative solutions, and strengthens the overall impact and sustainability of the CO.
How can this be done?
There are a variety of approaches that can be used to build trust in a CO, allowing for increased cooperation, stronger relationships and increased impact.
Collaborative governance of the Citizen Observatory
Collaborative Governance involves convening various stakeholders and public agencies in shared platforms to participate in decision-making processes that aim to achieve consensus and manage expectations (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Such approaches are often used when there are attempting to overcome issues with uncertain and disputed solutions. They can help build consensus or compromise when different groups have different perspectives, or when there are significant differences among the people involved in their beliefs about how to handle a particular issue or task (Gerlak & Heikkila, 2011).
A variety of factors are purported to influence the success and effectiveness of Collaborative Governance. Face-to-face dialogue, trust building, and the building of commitment and shared understanding have all been suggested to contribute to the sustainability of such approaches (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Suitable leadership models or methods should also be in place, in order to manage conflict and monitor objectives (Bianchi, Nasi & Rivenbank, 2021).
Collaborative Governance can take many forms, such as consensus-bulding, community visioning and collaborative networks. Bradley (2012) highlights the diversity of these approaches. For example, consensus-building exercises constitute one form of Collaborative Governance, allowing stakeholders to come together to agree on actions that can solve specific public policy problems. Similarly, community visioning is a process where community members work together to identify common goals and create a shared vision of what they want their community to be like in the future. The formation of collaboration networks is another approach to Collaborative Governance. These networks are made up of a diverse group of stakeholders and aim to build social ties between actors while engaging in impactful collaboration and allowing cross-fertilisation of ideas (Bodin, 2017).
Co-design approaches can be one of the best ways to involve a range of stakeholders in setting up Citizen Observatory governance structures. There are a variety of co-design methodologies that can be used for this purpose. The Ground Truth 2.0 Methodology (Wehn & Pfeiffer, 2019), is a five-step process to enable the establishment of Citizen Observatories that have significance and utility for stakeholders (particularly local ones) in attaining influence and transformation. It integrates the social, technological, and operational aspects of a CO into a unified procedure. The five steps lead CO practitioners through the co-design process:
Planning the co-design process. Rapid context screening serves to initiate the co-design process and to identify who should be involved. This is followed by formation of the project or facilitator team, and planning of the specific co-design methods and tools to be used in the process.
Social innovation design. A core group of stakeholders negotiates a shared vision for the purpose of the CO, and describes functional requirements for to CO in the form of ‘stories’ of how future participants will interact with and via the CO online platform and data.
Tool development and launch of CO. The functional design is translated into a technical design; functional components of the platform and data aggregation tools are developed, coded and tested; and the existence of the platform is announced to the target audience via one or more launch events.
Rollout CO process and mobilisation for impact. Interface and feedback components of the platform are designed, customised and tested together with core stakeholders.
Operate, mature and evolve for sustainability. A final set of ongoing CO management tasks is initiated, which will be implemented continuously during long-term operation of the observatory.
All of these approaches are best conducted in-person, and in a place which is comfortable for the participants (which leads to increased accessibility and feelings of trust).
Open communication
Open communication plays a crucial role in building transparency and fostering trust and cooperation among stakeholders of Citizen Observatories. By establishing transparent channels and nurturing meaningful exchanges, organisers can cultivate an atmosphere of collaboration and engagement. In addition to considering communication channels, communication styles, language use and audience must also be considered. Complex language may not be accessible to some stakeholder groups, while simplistic language may be perceived as condescending by others. Therefore, several approaches can be taken in order to leverage open communication practices to build trust and cooperation.
Open and effective communication is widely acknowledged as a crucial component of successful citizen engagement. The European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) identified communication as a key aspect reflected in several of its ten guiding principles for citizen science projects (Robinson et al., 2018). The first principle emphasises the active involvement of citizen scientists in knowledge generation, a process that necessitates meaningful communication between participants with varying technical expertise. Additionally, other principles highlight the importance of providing feedback to citizen scientists regarding data utilisation and the resulting societal or policy outcomes, as well as the public availability of project data (Robinson et al., 2018). These principles emphasise the significance of open communication in relation to data collection, monitoring, and evaluation within citizen science initiatives.
Open communication practices should ensure the active involvement of stakeholders, including citizen participants, from the inception. Implementing effective communication strategies is therefore vital in addressing the ethical challenges associated with citizen science projects (Skarlatidou et al., 2019). By identifying the needs, goals, and expectations of participants early on and maintaining ongoing two-way communication throughout the project, there is a greater willingness among participants to contribute data that they may consider private (Eleta et al., 2019). Cultivating a culture of open communication that values sharing and contribution helps alleviate privacy concerns (Bowser et al., 2017). Adopting a model that engages all stakeholders in discussions regarding data governance enhances transparency, increases participants' willingness to contribute data, and ultimately builds trust in the data quality from the perspective of project facilitators (Eleta et al., 2019).
Communication strategies that incorporate testimonials and personal stories are often effective in driving change (Linke & Zerfass, 2011). Consequently, projects with a transformative agenda should prioritise open communication that enables the inclusion of participant perspectives (Anderson et al., 2020). By investing time in mapping relevant stakeholders and establishing channels to engage them in open communication during project development, initiatives increase the likelihood of a positive response, even from organisations or their members who may typically be resistant to change (Skarlatidou et al., 2019).
One approach that can incorporate testimonials, is the Citizen Science Impact StoryTelling Approach (CSISTA), which can be used to generate impact stories for citizen science (Wehn et al., 2021). CSISTA focuses on conveying the significant impacts of citizen science initiatives and is primarily intended for use by practitioners in this field. As part of the approach, the CSISTA Impact Inquiry Instrument was created as a qualitative data collection tool. It enables the illustration and communication of specific impacts of citizen science initiatives, such as their influence on policy and decision-making. CSISTA comprises three steps:
Practitioners define their storytelling goals and select the appropriate storytelling instrument and relevant data. The storytelling instruments include guidelines for crafting impactful stories in either an Impact Brief or Impact Narrative format.
Practitioners create concise or narrative impact stories that effectively communicate the policy impacts of a citizen science initiative to broader audiences. These stories can be shared with decision-makers to inform their understanding of the initiative's influence.
When using all of these tools, language and tone, and the requirements of the audience is of the utmost importance. One way to do this is to use social analysis tools to understand communication patterns of different stakeholder groups. At a simple level, word clouds, can be used to visualise commonly used words or phrases by stakeholder groups, and can give a visualisation of the type of language required. For a deeper understanding, sentiment analyses can also be conducted. As well as giving insight into language use, these tools can highlight stakeholder perception of specific aspects of your work and communication, meaning that issues in understanding or perception can be spotted and corrected. Finally, being open for feedback on language use, and ensuring iterative involvement of stakeholders in shaping communication practices can allow you to further refine language use.
Shared understanding of problem, solutions, risks & benefits via joint problem identification, shared data analysis, and scenario planning
Building a shared understanding and knowledge among participants in Citizen Observatories is crucial for fostering collaboration among stakeholders. Joint problem identification, shared data analysis, and scenario planning can ensure that diverse perspectives and concerns are taken into account and building trust. By promoting a common knowledge base, participants can develop a shared language, concepts, and insights related to the issues under investigation. This shared understanding facilitates effective communication, enhances the quality of discussions, and promotes collective learning, while ensure that power dynamics are not skewed by large imbalances in levels of understanding. It enables participants to contribute their diverse perspectives, expertise, and local knowledge, leading to more comprehensive and contextually relevant insights. Additionally, a shared understanding helps build trust and credibility among participants, as they can recognise and appreciate the expertise and contributions of others.
Inclusive approaches not only increase transparency and credibility, leading to greater trust in the observatory's findings and recommendations; these practices also enable collective learning, empowering citizens and enhancing their confidence in the observatory's ability to address their needs and interests effectively. Ultimately, fostering shared understanding and knowledge empowers participants to become active contributors and co-creators of knowledge, strengthening the overall effectiveness and impact of COs in addressing environmental challenges.
Building a level of shared understanding and knowledge among participants in COs can be achieved through various approaches and tools. Firstly, participatory workshops and training sessions can be organised to facilitate knowledge exchange, where participants can share their experiences, expertise, and local knowledge (Paleco et al., 2021). These workshops can include interactive activities, group discussions, and hands-on training to promote learning and collaboration (Bonney et al., 2016). Online platforms, such as forums or social media groups, can also serve as spaces for ongoing communication and knowledge sharing among participants.
Furthermore, employing co-design and co-production methods can help foster shared understanding. By using methods such as the Ground Truth 2.0 co-design approach (Wehn & Pfeiffer, 2019), diverse perspectives can be considered by engaging participants in the design and implementation of data collection protocols, analysis techniques, and decision-making processes. Collaborative data analysis (Jennings et al., 2018), where participants collectively interpret and analyse data, can also contribute to shared understanding and generate insights.
In addition, knowledge brokers or facilitators can play a crucial role in promoting shared understanding for a wide range of stakeholders (DITOS Consortium, 2019). These individuals or organisations can act as intermediaries between scientists, policymakers, and citizens, translating complex scientific information into accessible formats and facilitating meaningful dialogue. Tools such as visualisation techniques, data dashboards, and interactive maps can also enhance the accessibility and comprehensibility of data, promoting shared understanding among different stakeholders.
Various co-evaluation methodologies allow for stakeholder input into a variety of CO activities, including the problem framing, data analysis and scenario planning. The Impact Journey Approach (MICS, 2022) utilised by the MICS project offers one such methodology. This approach provides a systematic method for identifying and monitoring pathways of change in your initiative, alongside stakeholders. Impacts can be identified and tracked by key stakeholders, including citizens, project coordinators, authorities, and other relevant parties. The approach consists of three main stages: context analysis, design and validation of the Impact Journey, and Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning. These stages facilitate the identification of relevant domains of change, expected impacts, and outcomes, as well as the formulation of strategies to achieve desired changes. Furthermore, they help establish cause and effect relationships and document causal assumptions, with the active participation of stakeholders through interactive and open workshops.
Overall, fostering shared understanding and knowledge in COs requires a combination of participatory approaches, knowledge-sharing platforms, co-design methods, and the involvement of knowledge brokers. These strategies aim to create a collaborative and inclusive environment where participants can collectively build knowledge, enhance their understanding of environmental issues, and contribute to informed decision-making processes.
Clear rules and processes for decision-making, including roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, decision-making criteria, and the procedures for resolving conflicts and disputes
In order to understand which processes and processes influence stakeholders, decision-making and conflict resolution, it is first important to understand which roles and what degree of power the various stakeholders have. This can be done with an organigraph, a tool which can be used to visualise and analyse the processes, structures, and dynamics of a system (such as the system of a Citizen Observatory). It allows users to develop a clear picture of roles and responsibilities within a system, as well as to better understand governance structures, and identify excluded actors. One approach to creating an organigraph was developed as part of the Shelter Project (Durrant et al., 2022). This methodology can be used to understand stakeholder power dynamics, and to identify stakeholder groups that are underrepresented and less connected to the decision-making process.
Another tool that can be used to identify and understand roles, responsibilities and procedures is the WeSenseIt conceptual framework (Wehn et al., 2015). This framework focuses on assessing the range, role, and authority of citizens, allowing for the tracking of governance process changes resulting from the implementation of COs. By using the WeSenseIt framework, researchers and policymakers can gain a comprehensive means of evaluating how citizen participation influenced decision-making processes, while providing insights into the evolving roles and responsibilities of citizens, their level of authority, and the scope of their contributions. The framework facilitated a multidimensional approach to governance analysis, capturing both qualitative and quantitative aspects of citizen involvement. Moreover, it can be used to identify areas for improvement, guiding strategies and policies to enhance the effectiveness and inclusivity of citizen observatories.
Ensure benefit sharing in the Citizen Observatory
Ensuring equal benefit sharing is crucial to enhance overall effectiveness and legitimacy of, and participation in Citizen Observatories. It promotes safe participation by creating a mutually beneficial environment where participants feel valued and protected. By ensuring that participants receive tangible benefits from their involvement, such as access to relevant information, capacity building opportunities, or incentives, their engagement is encouraged and sustained. Additionally, benefit sharing helps to establish and maintain positive relationships among participants and stakeholders. When benefits are equitably distributed, it fosters a sense of fairness and trust, reducing the risk of conflicts or strained relationships. Lastly, by prioritising benefit sharing, COs can attract a diverse range of participants, including marginalised or underrepresented groups, leading to more inclusive and representative outcomes. Therefore, incorporating benefit sharing mechanisms is vital.
Ensuring benefit sharing in a CO can be achieved through several approaches. Firstly, clear and transparent mechanisms should be established to identify and acknowledge the contributions of participants. This can involve recognising their efforts, providing them with access to relevant information and data, and involving them in decision-making processes. Such mechanisms can be designed by participants themselves, and incorporated into the governance structure of COs, through a comprehensive co-design process. The Ground Truth 2.0 co-design approach (Wehn & Pfeiffer, 2019) is one such methodology that can be used to guide this process, ensuring that all stakeholders involved in an observatory can be involved in its design to ensure that benefits are shared.
Additionally, offering capacity building opportunities, training, and skill development programs can empower participants, enhance their skills and levels of engagement as well as their perception of benefit sharing. Furthermore, providing tangible incentives or rewards, such as financial compensation, access to resources, or recognition for their contributions, can further incentivise and acknowledge their involvement. It is also essential to prioritize the safety and well-being of participants by implementing appropriate safeguards, such as data protection measures and ethical guidelines, to ensure that their participation does not result in any harm or negative consequences. By adopting these strategies, COs can foster an inclusive, equitable, and mutually beneficial environment that encourages active participation and safeguards relationships among participants.
Capacity building: support stakeholders in their roles and responsibilities by strengthening their knowledge and skills, and enhance their understanding of the decision-making process and the issues at hand; demonstrating a commitment to building relationships and partnerships
The policy brief "Citizen Social Science: A Promising Approach for More Participation in Knowledge Production and Decision Making" (Mayer & Schuerz, 2022) offers crucial recommendations for capacity development to support stakeholders in their roles and responsibilities. These recommendations aim to improve Citizen Observatory stakeholders' knowledge and skills (particularly their understanding of relevant decision-making processes), and ultimately facilitate effective integration of citizen science and CO outputs within policy. The brief emphasises the democratisation of knowledge production and access, advocating for broader participation and inclusivity. It also highlights the importance of expanding teaching and training activities, enabling stakeholders to acquire the necessary competencies for citizen science engagement. Additionally, the brief underscores the significance of establishing qualitative standards and supporting infrastructures to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of citizen science initiatives. By implementing these capacity development recommendations, stakeholders can effectively navigate the complexities of decision-making processes, foster collaboration, and leverage citizen science as a valuable tool for informed policy development.
Useful resources
TOOLKIT: The Action Participatory Science Toolkit Against Pollution (Action Project, 2022) provides a range of tools to support with Citizen Science and Citizen Observatories, including guidelines for open and impactful communication and dissemination
TOOL: The Citizen Science Impact StoryTelling Approach (Wehn et al., 2021) can be used to create stories to communicate Citizen Observatory impacts to a range of stakeholders, including policy makers
METHOD: The Impact Journey Approach (MICS, 2022) provides a methodology for co-evaluation, which is inclusive of a range of stakeholders and aims to promote understanding of Citizen Observatory aims and impacts
POLICY BRIEF: The policy brief Citizen Social Science: A Promising Approach for More Participation in Knowledge Production and Decision Making (Mayer & Schuerz, 2022) outlines key recommendations for policy makers and citizen science practitioners to overcome current challenges and barriers to integration of citizen science within policy, including highlighting the variety of potential roles for each stakeholder group in decision-making
COOKBOOK: The WeObserve Cookbook (WeObserve Consortium, 2021) provides comprehensive support for Citizen Observatory practitioners, including specific pages on engaging stakeholders and building communities
PAPER: As part of the Ground Truth 2.0 project, Wehn and Almomani (2019) developed a framework detailing the various incentives and barriers for different stakeholders to understanding the factors that impact the sharing, harmonization, and utilization of data in policy making
PAPER: A conceptual framework for governance analysis within citizen observatories was also developed by Wehn et al. (2015) which can be used to understand range, role, and authority of citizens and track changes in governance processes resulting from the implementation of citizen observatories.
FRAMEWORK: The WeSenseIt Incentives and Barriers framework outlines the primary factors that facilitate or hinder citizen engagement in weather observatories, and can be useful to develop strategies aimed at augmenting ICT-enabled citizen participation
TOOL: The organigraph tool developed by (Durrant et al., 2022) – can be used to understand stakeholder power dynamics, and to identify stakeholder groups that are underrepresented and less connected to the decision-making process.
METHODOLOGY: The Ground Truth 2.0 co-design approach (Wehn & Pfeiffer, 2019) ensures participant involvement in the design of COs, ensuring that CO processes are designed by all and allows for joint learning
"You may also be interested in..."
References
Anderson, A. A., Williams, E., Long, M., Carter, E., & Volckens, J. (2020). Organizationally based citizen science: Considerations for implementation. Journal of Science Communication, 19(3), A01.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571.
Bianchi, C., Nasi, G., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2021). Implementing collaborative governance: models, experiences, and challenges. Public Management Review, 23(11), 1581-1589.
Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352), eaan1114.
Bonney, R., Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L., & Enck, J. W. (2016). Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?. Public understanding of science, 25(1), 2-16.
Bowser, A., Shilton, K., Preece, J., & Warrick, E. (2017, February). Accounting for privacy in citizen science: Ethical research in a context of openness. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 2124-2136).
Bradley, Q. (2012). A ‘Performative’ social movement: The emergence of collective contentions within collaborative governance. Space and Polity, 16(2), 215-232.
DITOS Consortium (2019) Citizen Science in UK Environmental Policy. DITOS Policy Brief 7.
Eleta, I., Clavell, G. G., Righi, V., & Balestrini, M. (2019). The promise of participation and decision-making power in citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1).
Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2011). Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: Evidence from the Everglades Restoration Program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 619-644.
Jennings, H., Slade, M., Bates, P., Munday, E., & Toney, R. (2018). Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement. BMC psychiatry, 18(1), 1-11.
Linke, A., & Zerfass, A. (2011). Internal communication and innovation culture: developing a change framework. Journal of Communication Management, 15(4), 332-348.
Paleco, C., García Peter, S., Salas Seoane, N., Kaufmann, J., & Argyri, P. (2021). Inclusiveness and diversity in citizen science. The science of citizen science, 261.
Robinson, L. D., Cawthray, J. L., West, S. E., Bonn, A., & Ansine, J. (2018). Ten principles of citizen science. In Citizen science: Innovation in open science, society and policy (pp. 27-40). UCL Press.
Skarlatidou, A., Suskevics, M., Göbel, C., Prūse, B., Tauginiené, L., Mascarenhas, A., ... & Wyszomirski, P. (2019). The value of stakeholder mapping to enhance co-creation in citizen science initiatives. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1).
Wehn, U., & Almomani, A. (2019). Incentives and barriers for participation in community-based environmental monitoring and information systems: A critical analysis and integration of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 341-357.
Wehn, U., Ajates, R., Fraisl, D., Gharesifard, M., Gold, M., Hager, G., ... & Wood, C. (2021). Capturing and communicating impact of citizen science for policy: A storytelling approach. Journal of environmental management, 295, 113082.
Wehn, U. & Pfeiffer, E. (2019). Deliverable D1.13 Guidelines for Citizen Observatories and Future Recommendations. Ground Truth 2.0.
Last updated