Participant ownership

Participant ownership

Back to the principles’ overview

Participant ownership: Co-evaluation aims for co-ownership. Ownership of the co-evaluation process should not be concentrated with project managers or with an external entity. Instead citizen science participants take certain actions and responsibilities for project activities and outcomes and hence for their assessment. Be aware that ownership in evaluation tends to be taken gradually and may lead to a shift from individual expectations of participants towards a more collective and strengthened view on expected project outcomes.

Recommendations:

  • Participants need to have the options to gradually take responsibility in the evaluation process. Create reflexive niches for participants where ownership can evolve gradually.
  • Take good care of expectation management in terms of impact assessment as participant expectations may go beyond the project’s scope. Discuss potential boundaries openly in the project.
  • Familiarize actors from specific interest groups and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) with the evaluation process, and possibly engage them as well, to make sure that participant ownership can be continued even after the research intervention. This should be addressed early on.

Contribute to the discussion of this principle

Enrich this principle with your own experiences, expand it with fresh views, complement, challenge and critique it – and be named as a contributor to the Whitepaper if you wish so 🙂

  1. It is great when participants take ownership of the projects they are involved in, but does this reduce from the…

  2. It seems to me that this principle embodies the essence of co-evaluation. Which is an action taken in order to…

  3. This is a really important one, but perhaps also the hardest to achieve. Those marginalized perspectives are often the ones…

  4. Being open and transparent is key in my opinion for any successful project. I would add a recommendation to include…

  5. Thank you for organizing this consultation. It is a demonstration that you practice what you preach 🙂 This principle is…

  6. Forms and protocols for informed consent and similar need to be adapted for clearance from the part of ethic committees…

  7. It is important that the extra time required is factored-in from start. Otherwise it may come as a surprise and…

  8. With regards to this and all other principles, aspects of ethics and responsibility in all the research steps, must be…

  9. OK with the principle. In the recommendations, I thinks “reflexivity” should be stressed more. E.g. Not only flexibility, but also…

  10. I really like this one, but I would add some recommendations regarding the “letting go” of ownership from scientists or…

  11. I think this principle is the more specific to co-evaluation, while the rest could be standard principles for participatory research.…

  12. I think this one is also very important, but I miss more recommendations about the empowerment aspect and how co-evaluation…

  13. I like this one very much, and it’s already core to citizen science so it should definitively be part of…

  14. I think that respecting the timing constraints and interests of participants is vital. Also starting evaluation as early as possible.…

  15. I find the principle highly important and also all associated recommendations! Regarding the “negotiation of the research question” in the…

Join the discussion

5 comments
  • “gradually take responsibility in the evaluation process” –> here it would be helpful to have some illustrative examples of how this could be organised, what formats would be suited for this?

    Would it be possible to have concrete examples after the recommendations / for the recommendations from your project or other projects?

  • I really like this one, but I would add some recommendations regarding the “letting go” of ownership from scientists or project managers. Its not just about familiarizing participants with the co-evaluation process and giving them options to take responsibility. It also is of great importance that project “leaders” abandon this role, that there is some rotatory system for project management that doesn’t accumulate ownership and power in some hands

  • To this I would like to add the concept of the evaluation champions/leaders/ambassadors (you can name it as you like). It is always helpful if there are persons from within the community that know how evaluation works, what should be done, when and by whom. These persons both drive the co-evaluation community forward, but they also pass on the their knowledge to other members.

  • With regards to this and all other principles, aspects of ethics and responsibility in all the research steps, must be addressed and discussed. In other words, these are cross-cutting themes. E.g. issues such as conflict of interest, privacy etc. maybe less familiar to citizens scientists than to professional researchers: therefore the latter have an obligation to bring them up as far as the former are concerned. I want to stress that being more familiar is not necessarily equivalent to being more respectful,

  • It is great when participants take ownership of the projects they are involved in, but does this reduce from the responsibility of project coordinators? How can this balance be managed? What happens if a participant who had a big responsibility is not able to engage with the project anymore? Maybe you can suggest or give examples of directions participants can take ownership of?

Events

x