The Phenomenon of Citizen Science in Contemporary Science Studies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47850/RL.2026.7.2.55-65Keywords:
citizen science, amateur science, epochal break, applied aspects, general public, interaction, dialogueAbstract
The article is devoted to discussing the approaches that have developed in contemporary science studies to examining the phenomenon of citizen (non-professional) science, where the focus is on the active participation of interested members of the public either in the very process of producing scientific knowledge or in setting the directions of scientific inquiry. In short, we are interested in the established forms of interaction between civic activists and staff of scientific institutions across a wide range of scientific practices, and how this influences professional science. It is shown that the theoretical basis for analyzing the phenomenon of citizen science is the concept of “Mode 2 science”, which emphasizes the democratic, non-class-based, multicultural character of the scientific research process; special attention is paid to the positive impact that non-academic ways of producing knowledge have on the knowledge production process, of which the concept of “citizen” science is a striking example. At the same time, drawing on a number of studies, it is shown that the situation is not so unequivocal, and therefore one should refrain from making sweeping claims and be more cautious, for example, about the assertion that citizen science helps create a science that is much more open to public participation, thereby reducing the distance between science and society. In reality, the role of citizen participants is often reduced to collecting primary data, while their influence on defining the overall design of projects, choosing data collection methods, and setting ultimate goals is often minimal. This situation requires STS researchers to critically assess how the concept of public participation in science is developing and how it might evolve in the future.
References
Аблажей, А. М. (2019). Трансформации института науки в современных условиях: анализ исследовательских подходов. Идеи и идеалы. Т. 11. № 2. Ч. 1. С. 44-62.
Ablazhey, А. M. (2019). Transformations of Science in the Modern Conditions: Analysis of the Research Approaches. Ideas and Ideals. Vol. 11. No. 2. Pt. 1. Pp. 44-62. (In Russ.)
Артюшина, А. В. (2012). Социология науки и техники (STS): сетевой узел и трансформация лабораторной жизни. Социологические исследования. № 1. С. 35-52.
Artushina, A. V. (2012). Sociology of Science and Technology (STS): Network Node and the Transformation of Laboratory Life. Sociological Studies. No. 1. Pp. 35-52. (In Russ.)
Егерев, С. В. (2025). «Герасим-на-Дому» и перспективы отечественной CS-платформы. Рецензия на книгу «Научное волонтерство: делаем науку вместе». Управление наукой: теория и практика. Т. 7. № 1. С. 220-225.
Egerev, S. V. (2025). “Gerasim-at-home” and prospects for a national CS platform. Review of the book “Citizen Science: Let’s Do Research Together”. Science Management: Theory and Practice. No. 7. No. 1. Pp. 220-225. (In Russ.)
Кошовец, О. Б., Фролов, И. Э. (2020). «Прекрасный новый мир»: о трансформации науки в технонауку. Эпистемология и философия науки. Т. 57. № 1. С. 20-31.
Koshovets, O. B., Frolov, I. E. (2020). Brave new World: On Science Transformation into Technoscience. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 57. No. 1. Pp. 20-31. (In Russ.)
Рассолова, Е. Н., Галкин, К. А. (2024). Трансформация моделей взаимодействия науки и общества: от диалогической модели популяризации к сетевой структуре гражданской науки. Управление наукой: теория и практика. Т. 6. № 3. С. 193-207.
Rassolova, E. N., Galkin, K. A. (2024). Transformation of Models of Interaction Between Science and Society: from the Dialogical Model of Popularization to the Network Structure of Citizen science. Science Management: Theory and Practice. No. 6. No. 3. Pp. 193-207. (In Russ.)
Шевченко, С. Ю. (2018). Народная наука: отличимы ли люди от бактерий. Эпистемология и философия науки. Т. 55. № 1. С. 171-183.
Shevchenko, S. Yu. (2018). Citizen Science: are the People Distinguishable from Bacteria? Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 55. No. 1. Pp. 171-183. (In Russ.)
Шиповалова, Л. В. (2022). Как возможна пост-нормальная наука? Эпистемология и философия науки. Т. 59. № 3. С. 61-73.
Shipovalova, L. V. (2022). How is Post-Normal Science Possible? Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. Vol. 57. No. 1. Pp. 20-31. (In Russ.)
Jandrić, P., Tolbert, S., Hayes, S., Jopling, M. (2025). Postdigital Citizen Science: Mapping the Field. Postdigital Science and Education. No. 7. Pp. 9-30.
Masq, H., Tancoigne, E., Strasser, B. (2020). From Deliberation to Production: Public Participation in Science and Technology Policies of the European Commission (1998-2019). Minerva. No. 58. Pp. 489-512.
Schiemann, G. (2011). An Epoch-Making Change in the Development of Science? A Critique of the “Epochal-Break-Thesis”. In Carrier, M. and Nordmann, A. (eds.). Science in the Context of Application. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 274. Springer Science + Business Media. Pp. 431-452.
Tolbert, S., Olson, Ch. Ul Haq, R. Evans, L., dos Santos, A. P. O., Franco, A. A., Jager, I., Kovač, M., Orchard, S., Harris, S., Šrajer, F., Santos-Lang, C., Jandrić, P., Hayes, S., Jopling, M. (2025). “Citizen Scientists” on Citizen Science. Postdigital Science and Education. Vol. 7. No. 1. Pp. 120-142.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://oc.philosophy.nsc.ru/remote.php/webdav/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%20%D1%81%20%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%20RL-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2.doc




