Lightning Talk #215 Governance in Citizen Science Technologies

Summary

Karen Soacha presented her research on governance in citizen science technology, speaking from her multiple roles as a practitioner at the Institute of Marine Sciences, a team member managing a citizen observatory platform, part of a group conceptualizing pan-European research infrastructure for citizen science, and co-chair of a participatory science network connecting Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Ibero Peninsula. She focused on citizen observatories, which are platforms combining technologies, data, people, and standards that support both data collection and digital community creation in citizen science projects. Soacha emphasized that over 300 such platforms exist in Europe alone, with some like iNaturalist hosting over 253 million data points that support thousands of citizen science projects worldwide.

The core argument centered on the need for transparent governance models in citizen science platforms, as these technologies have significant agency and influence beyond being mere tools. Soacha’s research identified that platforms negotiate their roles in three key areas: ownership, sharing, and accountability of data, and can act as enablers, gatekeepers, or mediators. She presented a framework and set of principles to help platforms reflect on and openly communicate their governance approaches. Using her own MINCA citizen observatory as an example, Soacha described implementing multi-stakeholder governance involving participatory, academic, mobilizing, and facilitated communities, though she acknowledged this approach is extremely challenging in practice.

The presentation highlighted specific governance innovations including consent commons (visual icons to communicate data use terms), data citation guidelines that notify users when their data is used, and treating validated citizen science data as commons rather than individual property. Soacha concluded by calling for platforms to clearly communicate their governance models and for decision makers and funders to demand transparency in platform governance principles.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Governance transparency in citizen science platforms**: The need for citizen science technologies and platforms to openly communicate their governance models, principles, and decision-making processes to users and stakeholders, moving beyond treating these platforms as mere neutral tools.

– **Multi-stakeholder governance challenges**: The practical difficulties of implementing participatory governance models that include diverse communities (participatory, academic, mobilizing, and facilitated communities) and the ongoing struggle to make such complex governance structures functional.

– **Data ownership and commons approach**: The tension between individual data contributors’ rights and treating validated citizen science data as a commons, especially when community knowledge adds value to originally submitted data through validation and identification processes.

– **Platform agency and positionality**: Recognition that citizen science platforms themselves have agency and make decisions about data ownership, sharing, and accountability, rather than being passive infrastructure, and the need to make these roles explicit.

– **Practical implementation of governance principles**: Specific examples of translating governance principles into actionable features like consent commons (simplified terms of use), data citation guidelines, user notifications about data usage, and data sharing agreements.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aims to present ongoing research on governance models for citizen science platforms, advocating for greater transparency and participatory approaches in how these platforms operate, manage data, and engage with their diverse user communities.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone is academic yet practical, with the speaker being honest about challenges and limitations. Karen Soacha maintains an earnest, research-focused approach while acknowledging the ambitious and sometimes “polemic” nature of their proposals. The tone remains consistently reflective and self-aware, particularly when discussing the gap between idealistic governance models and practical implementation challenges.

Speakers

– Karen Soacha: Works at the Institute of Marine Sciences; Manager/team member of a citizen observatory (citizen science technology platform); Part of a group of 13 organizations working on conceptualizing pan-European research infrastructure for citizen science; Co-chair of a participatory science network connecting practitioners, researchers, and communities across Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Ibero Peninsula; Originally from Colombia; Researcher and practitioner in governance of citizen science technology

Additional speakers:

No additional speakers were identified in this transcript beyond those listed in the speakers names list.

# Comprehensive Summary: Governance in Citizen Science Technology

## Introduction and Speaker Background

Karen Soacha, originally from Colombia, delivered a comprehensive presentation on governance models in citizen science technology platforms. Speaking from her multifaceted role as a manager of a citizen observatory platform, team member of a group conceptualising pan-European research infrastructure for citizen science, and co-chair of a participatory science network connecting practitioners across Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Ibero Peninsula, Soacha brought both theoretical knowledge and practical implementation experience to her discussion of this emerging field. She works at the Institute of Marine Sciences and collaborates with a network of nine cities in Science Plateau.

## The Scale and Significance of Citizen Science Platforms

Soacha began by establishing the substantial scope of citizen science technology platforms, noting that through inventory work conducted by 13 organizations working together during 3 years to think about research infrastructure for citizen science in Europe, they identified more than 300 platforms in Europe alone. These citizen observatories—a term she uses interchangeably with “citizen science platforms”—represent combinations of technologies, data, people, and standards that support both data collection and digital community creation. The scale of their impact is exemplified by platforms like iNaturalist, which hosts over 253 million data points supporting thousands of citizen science projects worldwide. These platforms contribute significantly to environmental, biodiversity, and health research fields, making their governance structures a matter of considerable importance.

## Reframing Platform Agency and Responsibility

A central theme of Soacha’s presentation was the fundamental reconceptualisation of citizen science platforms from passive tools to active agents with their own governance models and principles. She argued that whilst researchers and citizen science projects represent one aspect of the ecosystem, the platforms themselves have evolved into entities that “have agency” and “have principles” and “have governance models.” This perspective challenges the traditional view of technology platforms as neutral infrastructure, instead positioning them as stakeholders with significant influence over how citizen science operates.

Soacha emphasised that these platforms are “mainly negotiating in three areas: ownership, sharing, and accountability.” Within each area, platforms make decisions about “how the data is appropriated, by whom, under which rule, how the data is shared by whom, and under which benefit, and who accounts for the benefit.” This framework provides a systematic approach to understanding platform governance and reveals the complex decision-making processes that occur behind seemingly simple data collection interfaces.

## Platform Roles and Governance Framework

Through her research, Soacha presented a framework for platforms to reflect on their roles in relationships with users and stakeholders. She specifically mentioned that platforms can function as gatekeepers or mediators, with these roles representing different approaches to managing the three key areas of data ownership, sharing, and accountability. The recognition of these varied roles underscores the need for platforms to be explicit about their governance approaches rather than operating under assumptions of neutrality.

## Multi-Stakeholder Governance: Theory and Practice

Soacha presented her own MINCA citizen observatory as a case study in implementing multi-stakeholder governance models. Her approach involves engaging four distinct types of communities: participatory communities (the public generating and validating data), academic communities (researchers for validation and knowledge exchange), mobilising communities (local NGOs for ground engagement), and facilitated communities (governments and other actors necessary for territorial transformation or data access). This comprehensive model aims to ensure that all stakeholders have input into platform governance decisions.

However, Soacha was notably candid about the implementation challenges, acknowledging that “it’s extremely challenging” and “very complicated to see all these actors and trying to do these demands.” She admitted that claiming such a system is fully functional would be “very ambitious” and “not” accurate. This honest assessment highlights the gap between theoretical governance models and practical implementation, suggesting that the field is still in early stages of developing workable multi-stakeholder approaches.

## Data Commons and Individual Rights

One of the most thought-provoking aspects of Soacha’s presentation concerned the treatment of validated citizen science data as commons rather than individual property. She explained this concept through a practical example: when a citizen contributor submits a photograph they cannot identify, and community members with relevant knowledge provide identification, the validated data becomes more than the original contributor’s individual submission. As Soacha put it, “the photo that you didn’t know what it is and has been identified by people with knowledge… now that have added value is by the community and not just only you.”

This approach leads to treating validated data as commons whilst still respecting individual contributor rights through recognition and notification systems. Soacha acknowledged this concept as “polemic” with “many implications” related to digital data ownership and commons theory, indicating ongoing tensions between individual rights and collective benefit in citizen science platforms.

## Practical Governance Innovations

Despite the theoretical challenges, Soacha described several practical innovations her platform has implemented to improve governance transparency and user engagement:

**Consent Commons**: Recognising that users rarely read lengthy terms of use agreements, Soacha’s team developed simplified visual communication (like Creative Commons) to communicate data use terms. As she noted, “Most of us, we know that every time that we go to a new platform and you say, do you accept the terms of use? How many of you are reading the terms of use? We don’t have time.”

**Data Citation Guidelines**: The platform implements systems to notify users when their contributed data is used for research or policy purposes, providing recognition and maintaining connection between contributors and the impact of their participation.

**Data Sharing Agreements**: These agreements explicitly communicate how validated data will be treated as commons whilst respecting individual contributor rights, representing an attempt to balance competing interests transparently.

## Field-Wide Challenges and Key Messages

Soacha positioned her work within broader challenges facing the citizen science community, sharing three main takeaways from her research. She noted that documenting governance models and principles for platforms is “fundamental” but remains in “initial steps” across the field. This represents a significant gap in understanding how different platforms operate and make decisions about data and community management.

Her recommendations focused on two primary areas. First, she called for platforms themselves to communicate their governance models and principles clearly to users and stakeholders, moving beyond assumptions of neutrality to explicit statements of their approaches to ownership, sharing, and accountability. Second, she urged decision makers and funders to require transparency in governance from citizen science platforms, suggesting that external pressure may be necessary to drive greater transparency in platform operations.

## Ongoing Research and Future Directions

Throughout her presentation, Soacha emphasised that research into citizen science platform governance remains in early stages and represents ongoing work. She described many aspects of platform agency and governance models as “not very well known within our citizen science community” and mentioned that their research findings are available as a living document in Zenodo. This positioning suggests significant opportunities for future research and development in understanding how platforms influence citizen science outcomes.

The step-by-step implementation approach Soacha advocated reflects a pragmatic recognition that comprehensive governance transformation is unrealistic, but incremental improvements in transparency and participation remain achievable goals. She acknowledged being “a little bit faster” through certain sections due to time constraints, indicating the depth of work still being explored in this area.

## Conclusion and Implications

Soacha’s presentation represents an important contribution to understanding governance challenges in citizen science technology platforms. By reframing platforms as active agents rather than passive tools, she opens new avenues for research and policy development in this emerging field. Her honest assessment of implementation challenges, combined with practical examples of governance innovations, provides a realistic foundation for future work in what she clearly positions as ongoing research in its initial steps.

The presentation highlights the tension between idealistic multi-stakeholder governance models and practical implementation constraints, whilst demonstrating that meaningful improvements in transparency and user engagement remain possible through incremental approaches. As citizen science platforms continue to grow in scale and influence, Soacha’s call for explicit governance communication and external accountability measures becomes increasingly relevant for ensuring these powerful tools serve their communities effectively and transparently.

Karen Soacha: Hi! Thank you so much for attending this session. So, let’s start. Let’s see if some people are motivated by the topic. I hope so. I hope so. Also, someone is online. And thank you also for joining that. Okay, my talk is going to be about governance in citizen science technology. And as I said, it’s an ongoing journey. It’s part of our research. And also, I am here as a practitioner and as a researcher on the topic. My name is Karen Soacha. I work in the Institute of Marine Sciences. But, I am like holding different t-shirts today and for me it’s important sharing why. My first t-shirt is I work in a citizen observatory. It means in a citizen science technology itself. Part of the team managing and supporting this platform. And I will go later a little bit about what does it mean. I am also part of the group of organization that is right now working on conceptualizing the pan-European research infrastructure for citizen science. We are a group of 13 organizations working together during 3 years to think what could be the research infrastructure for citizen science in Europe. And my last t-shirt, but not least, is I am the co-chair of a participatory science network that is focused on connecting practitioners, researchers, and communities across Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Ibero Peninsula. I am originally from Colombia. Then those are like the 3 t-shirts that I am connecting right now in my talk and from where this research that I am sharing with you today is coming from. So, those are 3 messages that I will try to explain throughout my research. And those are like among the 3 takeaways that I want to share with you today. Is that the governance of citizen technologies, especially participatory platforms as we call, must be transparent. I think that I have been listening to this message since yesterday and today, especially in the plenary talk. Citizen observatories play a critical role in contribution of data, especially in the fields of environmental, biodiversity, health. And that need implies to have governance models that respond to this participatory nature. And third, documenting the governance models and also the principles that those platforms are having are fundamental, but the truth is we are still ongoing. It’s a task still under development and you will see today that we are like an initial steps in that regard within the field. Then first, let’s start with what is a citizen observatory? Is someone familiar with this term here? No? No one? Okay. I will be using during my talk the term citizen observatory or citizen science platform, like in the same way, that’s why I want to clarify at the beginning. When I say citizen science platform, all those technologies, web or mobiles or other kind of technologies including like a do-it-yourself devices that support the collection of data, the creating of community in citizen science. But every time that I talk, familiar with the term citizen science? Okay, one person. But just very quickly, when we talk about citizen science, it’s the active engagement of public in the creation of science that can be from designing research question to publishing the results. All within collecting the data, validating the data. The most common approach that we know in citizen science is people actively contributing with data, but people also can contribute in any point of the research. Then those platforms that we talk here is those supporting this process of citizen science. And there are many kind of platforms out there. Just in Europe, we are working on an inventory and we can identify more than 300 platforms. Out there, supporting citizen science. We are focusing nowadays in one very specific, that is citizen observatories. The term that we are using is because we call citizen observatories in this context the combination of technologies, data, people, standards that support data collection but also very important for us, the creation of the digital community behind that. Those platforms allow engagement in participatory science. And we also within the community try to point out that citizen observatory is the mix of the social and technical component that we cannot talk of this platform as a merely infrastructural software or hardware devices. When we talk about citizen observatory, we talk about this nice combination of the people, the standard, the processes, the knowledge that is exchanged as well as the software, the hardware and all other infrastructure all this makes. So, I will go a little bit faster in this point, but I just want to point out why it’s important and we will consider talking about governance in citizen observatories as important and the role that CEOs is providing to the benefit of society. Citizen observatory right now as facilitators, they support right now billions of data among the world that is open and accessible for using in research and in decision making. This information is allowing us to take better decisions and especially timely because society and especially public have the capacity to collect data in a time that many other actors don’t have. That’s why scientists and especially in this case I’m talking with a teacher also as a researcher, we don’t have, we need to work with the society to have this data at that time. And to respond to challenges that right now is asking for us to be faster. Biodiversity laws, climate change and many others. This is just a very short image, but I think it’s very clear. One of the most well-known citizen observatories across the world, that is a naturalist, I don’t know if anyone here uses it, that nowadays has available more than 253 millions of data. And this is just one of the platforms across the world, maybe most well-known with the most amount of data, but there are many others out there that are benefiting with many data across the world. So with this context that I was just trying to say why it’s important, those platforms, is why are we working on governance and ethics. And here I am trying to talk from two voices. One, talking as a manager or part of the team manager, one of the citizen observatories that is called MINCA, but also as a researcher that tries to contribute to the field that is important to talk about these topics for us. I think that these initial sentences in this context are more than, it’s not necessarily to go deep on that, but what we are trying to make a call right now is, in our field we used to believe that the platforms are a tool still. In citizen science we used to believe that the people doing citizen science, the researchers are the ones having all the agency. But the truth is, one is the people doing the research and the citizen science project, and other things are the platforms out there supporting the data collection. And those platforms themselves nowadays provide open services for hundreds of projects. Just iNaturalist is supporting the collection of data for more than, let me just go back for a moment. Oh, the data is not here. But it’s thousands of projects. Thousands of projects. Thousands of citizen science projects are putting their data there. Then, what we want to call in the community or make a call in the community is, those platforms have agency. Those platforms have principles, those platforms have governance models. And it’s a topic that still is not very well known within our group or within our citizen science community. And our reflection is, should we be open about these governance models and about these principles behind these platforms, that even if they are open and free, are holding the data of many citizen science projects behind. And then is when our research starts. And now I’m going to be a little bit faster in this point. And it’s those platforms’ positionality, and we have been doing research about the positionality of these platforms. And essentially what we identified is, those platforms are mainly negotiating in three areas, that is ownership, sharing, and accountability. And in each of these areas, it means how the data is appropriated, by whom, under which rule, how the data is shared by whom, and under which benefit, and who accounts for the benefit. Each platform can take different roles. Some platforms can act as an enabler, And I will give some examples in our own case, with our own platform, how are we acting in different ways in this. Then we put out there an initial proposal of a framework to invite the citizen science platform to reflect about their roles. What are they doing related to the data that they are managing? Are they acting of a gatekeeper? Are they just keeping the data for certain kind of users, protecting under certain kind of arguments? Or are they opposite? They are acting as a mediator between the users of the data and other stakeholders. There are different roles that we are inviting with this tool to the platforms to openly display these roles. As well as we are proposing the framework, we are working in a set of principles that as a platform we are also reflecting and trying to share with other platforms. I will not go deep on this, but I will share with you some examples of how we are transforming these principles in actions within our platform. This is an open document and living document that is already available in Zenodo and that we are taking in different spaces for feedback and working with other users, managers, stakeholders. So related to these principles, what we are trying to share also is what is the background of these principles. Those are coming from different initiatives, some of them in Colombia, some of them here in Europe, like our network of nine cities in Science Plateau that we were testing and we were working then to understand the governance dynamics that they have and how they have been building this model of governance and how they have been building this in certain way these principles. But what I want to go deeper here and let a little bit of time for the Q&A session is essentially our contribution right now is the framework as a tool for reflecting by the platform which role, the principles that I already shared with you, and how are we putting this in practice is with the MINCA governance models, the MINCA citizen observatory and through standards, protocols and data sharing agreement that we are implementing within the platform. The first is the MINCA governance models, that is, I will share with you, is one of the most challenging, I have heard during these two days the multi-stakeholder model for governance is the most important one, but in fact implementing this even in a citizen science platform has been extremely challenging for us, I will share that with you. The consent commons, the data citation and the data sharing agreements. So related to our governance model, we are a group of 15 people managing this citizen science technology that in practical terms is a web and an app and all these people behind working on principles, curation of data, ethics, communication, policy, but this is just a small group putting in practice something bigger, that is the communities that are really important for us. We call this like a four type of community. We call it participatory community, that is essentially the public and the people out there generating data and validating that. The academic community, usually we have alliances with researchers and other kind of universities to really engage on validation and exchange of knowledge with the participant. We call, sorry, mobilizing community. The mobilizing community are usually the local NGOs that we need on the ground to really engage people. We are not like as a platform going there to the people, use the platform. Usually we provide or we invite the people that is on the ground, social organizations, conservationists to engage, this is what we call mobilizing. And facilitated community is what we call governments and other kind of actors that are necessary to do any kind of transformation in the territory or even have the access to collect some data. Then for our governance model, all of these actors are necessary to sit and to try to consulate to take over decision of the platform and reflect their needs and their expectation in terms of settings, functionalities, protocols, and process. This is our expectation, in fact, it’s extremely challenging, it’s extremely challenging. We create this that is nice, always like kind of drawing to say, okay, we are going to have a panel by the different actors, we are going to have notes by regional areas, we will have an executive board, we will have a coordination team. There are many lessons learned behind this because it’s, in truth, saying that this is functional is very ambitious, it’s not. It’s very complicated to see all these actors and trying to do these demands. But what we are doing, trying to implement step by step. One implementation that we have done is something called consent commons, for instance. One is how to make transparent the agreements or the terms of use behind the platform. Most of us, we know that every time that we go to a new platform and you say, do you serve the terms of use? How many of you are reading the terms of use? We don’t have time. This is going to be our life. This is an initiative like creative commons that through an icon try to communicate very easy to the participant who is managing to the data, if there is transfer to the personal data for other purposes beyond the platform. I know it’s pretty ambitious right now, but we implemented with the expectation that in the future could work, that many people would easily recognize these icons and instead of reading a terms of use of 15 pages, is going to understand that this implies, for instance, that one important for us is there is no transfer of data outside of the platform, personal data. It’s important for us to communicate. We have this icon saying to the user, but it’s part of our commitment, but it’s still ongoing. Also, we are working on the recognition of the data produced by the users. And one of these is we create citation guidelines. We are working in a process where the people receive a notification of who is using their data. It means if you produce a data, then if someone was using for a research article, for a policy, or for any other purpose, you receive daily in your email a notification of who owned and where purchased. We are working on that, and it’s part of the benefit of taking back to the user. And maybe one last but a little bit, I can say, polemic in some point of view is the idea of the data as a commons. Citizen science data rely a lot on the validation of the data by the community. Even if you produce a photo of right now a plant that you don’t know, you log to the platform, there are many people there saying, this is what you are seeing is this. Then we started to have the conversation. Now the photo that you didn’t know what it is and has been identified by people with knowledge on that is only your photo, and now that have added value is by the community and not just only you. That’s why we create that data sharing agreement, and it’s part that we are saying to our community, we respect your rights, but once the data is in our platform and it’s validated, it’s started to think of data as a commons. And this has many implications, but also we think it’s part of the discussion nowadays about this digital safe data and what is a data as a commons. What tensions are we facing? Many human procedural technology. I have been talking about that throughout my days, and I want to keep with my two minutes for the questions, sorry because I was taking longer. And actions that we are invited to take is last platforms. We need to communicate clearly our governance models and principles. People need to understand and decision makers and funders need to ask for that by the platforms. And it’s necessary to engage and keep growing in this field to really, because citizen science, and even if it’s bringing a lot of data for many, we are not really working, there is not a lot of development in terms of governance and principles. Thank you so much.

Agreement points

Similar viewpoints

Unexpected consensus

Overall assessment

Summary

This transcript contains a presentation by a single speaker (Karen Soacha) discussing governance in citizen science technology. There are no multiple speakers present to form agreements or consensus points.

Consensus level

Not applicable – single speaker presentation format with no multi-party discussion or debate to assess consensus levels.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

This transcript represents a single-speaker presentation by Karen Soacha about governance in citizen science technology. There are no disagreements present as this is not a multi-speaker discussion or debate. Karen presents her research findings and recommendations without opposition or alternative viewpoints from other speakers.

Disagreement level

No disagreement level applicable – this is a monologue presentation rather than a discussion with multiple perspectives. The speaker does acknowledge internal tensions and challenges within her own work (such as the difficulty of implementing multi-stakeholder governance models), but these represent practical implementation challenges rather than disagreements between different speakers or stakeholders.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Key takeaways

Governance of citizen science technologies must be transparent and responsive to their participatory nature

Citizen science platforms have agency and influence beyond being mere tools – they affect thousands of projects and hold significant amounts of data

Platforms negotiate data relationships through three key areas: ownership, sharing, and accountability

Multi-stakeholder governance models are theoretically important but extremely challenging to implement in practice

Data validated by community knowledge should be considered as commons rather than individual property

There are over 300 citizen science platforms in Europe alone, with some like iNaturalist holding over 253 million data points

The field of citizen science governance and principles is still in early development stages

Resolutions and action items

Platforms need to communicate their governance models and principles clearly to users and stakeholders

Decision makers and funders should require transparency in governance from citizen science platforms

Continued development and research in governance and principles is necessary for the citizen science field

Step-by-step implementation of governance models rather than attempting full transformation at once

Implementation of consent commons, data citation guidelines, and data sharing agreements as practical governance tools

Unresolved issues

How to effectively implement multi-stakeholder governance models in practice remains extremely challenging

The tension between individual data ownership rights and community-validated data as commons needs further resolution

How to ensure users actually understand simplified terms of use icons and consent mechanisms

How to balance platform agency with user rights and community needs

The broader question of digital data ownership and what constitutes data as commons in citizen science contexts

Suggested compromises

Using simplified icons (similar to Creative Commons) to communicate terms of use instead of lengthy legal documents

Implementing gradual, step-by-step governance changes rather than attempting comprehensive transformation

Treating validated data as commons while still respecting individual contributor rights through recognition and notification systems

Balancing platform efficiency with multi-stakeholder input through flexible governance structures that can be implemented incrementally

But the truth is, one is the people doing the research and the citizen science project, and other things are the platforms out there supporting the data collection. And those platforms themselves nowadays provide open services for hundreds of projects… Then, what we want to call in the community or make a call in the community is, those platforms have agency. Those platforms have principles, those platforms have governance models.

Speaker

Karen Soacha

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the traditional view of technology platforms as neutral tools. By asserting that platforms have ‘agency’ and their own governance models, Soacha introduces a critical perspective that positions these platforms as active stakeholders rather than passive infrastructure. This reframes the entire discussion from technical implementation to power dynamics and responsibility.

Impact

This insight serves as the foundational premise for the entire presentation, shifting the conversation from viewing citizen science platforms as mere tools to understanding them as entities with their own positionality, principles, and influence. It establishes the need for transparency and accountability in platform governance.

Those platforms are mainly negotiating in three areas, that is ownership, sharing, and accountability. And in each of these areas, it means how the data is appropriated, by whom, under which rule, how the data is shared by whom, and under which benefit, and who accounts for the benefit.

Speaker

Karen Soacha

Reason

This framework provides a concrete analytical structure for understanding platform governance. By breaking down platform agency into three specific dimensions (ownership, sharing, accountability), Soacha moves from abstract concepts to actionable analysis. This creates a practical tool for evaluating and comparing different platforms.

Impact

This framework becomes the analytical backbone for the rest of the presentation, providing a systematic way to examine platform behavior and governance. It transforms the discussion from philosophical to practical, offering a methodology for platform assessment.

Now the photo that you didn’t know what it is and has been identified by people with knowledge on that is only your photo, and now that have added value is by the community and not just only you. That’s why we create that data sharing agreement, and it’s part that we are saying to our community, we respect your rights, but once the data is in our platform and it’s validated, it’s started to think of data as a commons.

Speaker

Karen Soacha

Reason

This comment introduces a provocative concept that challenges traditional notions of individual data ownership. By arguing that community validation transforms individual contributions into collective knowledge, Soacha raises fundamental questions about intellectual property, collective intelligence, and the nature of collaborative knowledge creation in digital spaces.

Impact

This concept introduces significant complexity to the discussion by addressing the tension between individual rights and collective benefit. It demonstrates how platform governance must navigate competing claims and values, moving the conversation into more nuanced territory about digital commons and collaborative knowledge production.

Most of us, we know that every time that we go to a new platform and you say, do you serve the terms of use? How many of you are reading the terms of use? We don’t have time. This is going to be our life.

Speaker

Karen Soacha

Reason

This seemingly simple observation highlights a critical gap between formal governance structures (terms of use) and actual user behavior. It exposes the inadequacy of current transparency mechanisms and the need for more accessible ways to communicate platform governance to users.

Impact

This comment bridges the gap between theoretical governance principles and practical user experience, leading to the introduction of the ‘consent commons’ solution. It demonstrates how governance transparency must be redesigned for real-world usability rather than legal compliance alone.

This is our expectation, in fact, it’s extremely challenging, it’s extremely challenging… There are many lessons learned behind this because it’s, in truth, saying that this is functional is very ambitious, it’s not. It’s very complicated to see all these actors and trying to do these demands.

Speaker

Karen Soacha

Reason

This moment of honest vulnerability about implementation challenges is particularly insightful because it acknowledges the gap between idealistic governance models and practical reality. Rather than presenting a success story, Soacha admits the difficulties, which adds credibility and realism to the discussion.

Impact

This admission shifts the tone from prescriptive to exploratory, acknowledging that multi-stakeholder governance in citizen science platforms remains an ongoing challenge rather than a solved problem. It invites further research and collaboration rather than presenting final solutions.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a technical presentation about platform features into a sophisticated discussion about power, agency, and governance in digital citizen science. Soacha’s insights progressively built complexity – starting with the fundamental recognition of platform agency, providing analytical frameworks for understanding it, demonstrating practical implementation challenges, and honestly acknowledging the difficulties involved. The comments shaped the discussion by establishing citizen science platforms as active stakeholders requiring transparent governance, rather than neutral tools. This reframing has significant implications for how the citizen science community approaches platform selection, development, and regulation. The presentation successfully bridges theoretical governance concepts with practical implementation experiences, creating a foundation for future research and policy development in this emerging field.

How can multi-stakeholder governance models be effectively implemented in citizen science platforms?

Speaker

Karen Soacha

Explanation

Karen explicitly mentioned that implementing multi-stakeholder governance models has been ‘extremely challenging’ and ‘very complicated’ for their platform, indicating this is an area requiring further research and development

How can platforms better engage all four types of communities (participatory, academic, mobilizing, and facilitated) in governance decisions?

Speaker

Karen Soacha

Explanation

Karen described their ambitious governance model involving four community types but acknowledged it’s not fully functional and requires step-by-step implementation, suggesting need for research on effective engagement strategies

What are the implications and best practices for treating validated citizen science data as commons rather than individual property?

Speaker

Karen Soacha

Explanation

Karen described this as ‘polemic’ and mentioned it has ‘many implications’ related to digital data and data commons, indicating this controversial topic needs further exploration

How can consent commons systems be developed to make platform terms of use more transparent and accessible?

Speaker

Karen Soacha

Explanation

Karen acknowledged this initiative is ‘pretty ambitious right now’ and depends on future adoption, suggesting research is needed on effective implementation and user adoption strategies

What governance models and principles do other citizen science platforms use, and how can these be documented and shared?

Speaker

Karen Soacha

Explanation

Karen emphasized that documenting governance models is ‘fundamental’ but ‘still ongoing’ and in ‘initial steps,’ indicating a significant research gap in the field

How can funders and decision makers be encouraged to require transparency in platform governance models?

Speaker

Karen Soacha

Explanation

Karen stated that ‘decision makers and funders need to ask for that by the platforms,’ suggesting research is needed on policy and funding mechanisms to promote governance transparency

What are the roles and agency of citizen science platforms, and how do they negotiate ownership, sharing, and accountability?

Speaker

Karen Soacha

Explanation

Karen mentioned this is ‘a topic that still is not very well known within our citizen science community’ and represents ongoing research into platform positionality