Citizen Science in Action: Validity, Engagement, and FAIRness in the Israel Center for Citizen Science

This research was conducted as part of a master’s thesis by Eran Schwartzfuchs, supervised by Professor Michal Kravel-Tovi in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Tel Aviv University. The study is based on approximately one year of ethnographic fieldwork and explores how the center reconciles its dual role as both a scientific and social institution, focusing on three central aims: scientific validity, public engagement, and FAIR data principles.

The first chapter examines the concept of scientific validity, asking how experts are able to work with data produced by non-experts. As argued in the study, the scientific validity achieved by the center is the outcome of practices and collaborations among many actors—experts and non-experts, humans and machines—who together produce “purified” data sets. The second chapter explores the center’s aspiration to engage with the public. How does the center manage to stay involved and remain relevant as both a scientific and social actor? Its ability to function as a “quasi-object” that serves both social and scientific goals is made possible by a clear separation between the roles and interests of these two worlds. Through boundary work and the unique biopolitical structure of citizen science, scientists and non-scientists participate together in connected activities that are both social and scientific. The third chapter investigates the FAIR principles, widely applied in citizen science as both a scientific practice and a social value, raising questions about data ownership. International databases become sites where the center’s workflow is reversed: scientists are required to trace their own chains of translation, and the accessibility of the data allows participants to supervise the work of scientists and challenge the existing power/knowledge structure of citizen science.

The central argument of this thesis is that instead of viewing citizen science in terms of fully achieving scientific validity and engagement, it should be understood as the outcome of negotiating these efforts and their contradictions. While the scientific and social realms may conflict, it is essential to recognize that such contradictions do not indicate failure. Rather, these tensions are the crucible in which citizen science takes shape.