Gvidi la demokratiigon de la scienco: kiel la Esplorado-Agado Partoprenata nutras la Civitanan Sciencon
Guiding the democratization of science: how Participatory Action Research nourishes Citizen Science
Palabras clave:
rajto esplori, generacioj pri demokratiigo, rilato scienco-socio, sciencigo de la popolo, right to research, generations on democratization, science-society relationship, making the population scientificResumen
Resumo
La demokratiigo de la scienco kutime prezentiĝas ene de la nuntempa emo profundigi en la partoprenadon de la socio. Tamen ĝi ankaŭ estas postulata ekde aliaj pluraj flankoj, kiel la rajtoj esplori kaj la liberiĝo de la popoloj. Ĉi tiu laboraĵo prezentas konkretan vidpunkton praktiki la demokratiigon de la scienco kiel ekzemplon de Civitana Scienco riĉigita de la Esplorado-Agado Partoprenata. Pro tiu celo, la dokumento (1) priskribas bremsilojn realigi la demokratiigon, (2) analizas kvar generaciojn de interplektado scienco-popolo (ni faras ĉi tion, venu kaj helpu, ni iel kunesploru, la komunumo sciencumas), (3) ofertas sintezan gvidilon demokratiigi la sciencon kaj (4) ekzempligas ĝin pere de du spertoj okazintaj en la suda parto de Hispanio: grupo de virinoj el marĝena kvartalo kaj grupo de lernantoj en altlernejo.
Abstract
The democratization of science is often presented within the current trend of deepening participatory processes in society. However, it is also advocated from other perspectives, such as the right to research and the liberation of peoples. This paper presents a concrete perspective for practicing the democratization of science as an example of Citizen Science enriched by Participatory Action Research. To this end, the document (1) describes the barriers to achieving democratization, (2) analyzes four generations of science-society engagement (listen to what we do, come and help, let's investigate, the community does science), (3) offers a concise guide to democratizing science, and (4) illustrates it with two experiences from southern Spain: a group of women from a marginalized neighborhood and a group of high school students.
Citas
Amazeen, M., Vasquez, R., Krishna, A., Ji, Y., Su, C. & Cummings, J. (2024) Missing voices: Examining how misinformation-susceptible individuals from underrepresented communities engage, perceive, and combat science misinformation. Science Communication, 46 (1), 3-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470231217536.
Anyolitho, M. K., Huyse, T., Masquillier, C., Nyakato, V. N. & Poels, K. (2024) Empowering communities through citizen science and participatory action research: Implementation of a schistosomiasis communication campaign in Uganda. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11 (1), 227. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02714-1.
Appadurai, A. (2006) The right to research. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4 (2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767720600750696.
Bacal, A. & Lindhult, E. (2024) Dialogue as social research orientation, method, and praxis: Participatory action research and problem-solving. Action Learning and Action Research Journal, 30 (1), 72-98.
Cantarero-Arevalo, L. & Nørgaard, L. S. (2025) Ethical integration of citizen science and youth participatory action research: Insights from the YouthChronic project. Research Involvement and Engagement, 11 (36). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-025-00699-y.
D’Onofrio, G., Arza, V. & Actis, G. (2024) Ciencia ciudadana en América Latina: Perspectivas y políticas públicas, Perfiles Educativos, 46 (184), 194-204. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2024.184.61781.
De Filippo, D., Sanz, E., Berteni, F., Barisani, F., Bautista Puig, N. & Grossi, G. (2021) Assessing citizen science methods in IWRM for a new science shop: A bibliometric approach. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 66 (2), 179-192.
Deng, Q. (2024) Who are the science audiences? A typology study on digital scientific audiences: Persona, performance, and public. Science Communication, 46 (6), 687-724. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241252160.
Eizmendi-Iraola, M. & Peña-Fernández, S. (2023) Universidades y redes sociales: De la divulgación científica a la autopromoción. Documentación de las Ciencias de la Información, 46 (1), 67-74. https://doi.org/10.5209/dcin.83768.
Frigerio, D., Richter, A., Per, E., Pruse, B. & Vohland, K. (2021) Citizen science in the natural sciences. En Vohland, K. , Land-Zandstra, A., Ceccaroni, L., Lemmens, R., Perelló, J., Ponti, M., Samson, R. & Wagenknecht, K. (Eds.), The Science of Citizen Science. Springer Nature, pp. 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_5.
Galán, C. (2003) «La ciencia en zapatillas»: Análisis del discurso de divulgación científica. Anuario de Estudios Filológicos, XXVI, 137-156. https://dehesa.unex.es/bitstream/10662/969/4/0210-8178_26_137.pdf.
Gutiérrez, B. (2016) La ciudad de código abierto como horizonte de la democracia radical transnacional. En Estado del Poder, Transnacional Institut, 1-20. https://www.tni.org/es/publicaci%C3%B3n/la-ciudad-de-codigo-abierto-como-horizonte-de-la-democracia-radical-transnacional.
Intemann, K. (2023) Science communication and public trust in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 48 (2), 350-365.
Janus, H., Klingebiel, S. & Paulo, S. (2015) Beyond aid: A conceptual perspective on the transformation of development cooperation. Journal of International Development, 27 (2), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3045.
King, A. C., Odunitan-Wayas, F. A., Chaudhury, M., Rubio, M. A., Baiocchi, M., Kolbe-Alexander, T., Montes, F., Banchoff, A., Sarmiento, O. L., Bälter, K., Hinckson, E., Chastin, S., Lambert, E. V., Gonzalez, S. A., Guerra, A. M., Gelius, P., Zha, C., Sarabu, C., Kakar, P. A., Fernes, P., Rosas, L. G., Winter, S. J., McClain, E. & Gardiner, P. A. (2021) Community-based approaches to reducing health inequities and fostering environmental justice through global youth-engaged citizen science. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (3), 892. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030892.
Kondo, T. (2023). ‘Research makes me strong’: An Oriental perspective towards using an autoethnographic approach. Action Learning and Action Research Journal, 29 (1), 13-28.
Lovrencic, A., Konecki, M. & Orehovacki, T. (2009) 1957-2007: 50 years of higher order programming languages. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 33 (1), 79-150.
Many, G. (2006) Software libre como elemento necesario para la democracia de la multitud. Comentario Internacional, 6, 251-270.
Mellor, D. D. & Green, D. J. (2023) A critical review exploring science communication of nutrition and dietetic research: A case‐based approach exploring methodologies. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 36, 1468-1479. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.13155.
Meyer, G. (2016) In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? Public Understanding of Science, 25 (4), 433-446.
Mozota, M., & Gibaja, J. (2021) Una ciencia democrática es una ciencia inclusiva. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/una-ciencia-democratica-es-una-ciencia-inclusiva-162516.
Newman, T. P., Williamson, L. D. & Xenos, M. A. (2024) Lived experience, shared knowledge: Reimagining community-driven science communication research. Science Communication, 46 (2), 239-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241227449.
Pavličić, J. (2023). Tradicionalni pristup naučnoj komunikaciji: kritika "modela deficita" i savremene perspektive. Theoria, 66 (4), 33-42.
Romero, J. G., Rodríguez, E. & Romero, Y. E. (2013) El trabajo docente: Una mirada para la reflexión. Textos y Contextos, 5, 35-38.
Schäfer, M. S., Kessler, S. H., & Fähnrich, B. (2017) Analyzing science communication through the lens of communication science: Reviewing the empirical evidence. In Weingart, P., Huppatz, B., Holtz, P. & Ulbrich, A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Oxford University Press, pp. 77-95.
Seethaler, S., Evans, J. H., Gere, C. & Rajagopalan, R. M. (2019) Science, values, and science communication: Competencies for pushing beyond the deficit model. Science Communication, 41 (3), 378-388.
Senabre, E., Ferran-Ferrer, N., & Perelló, J. (2018). Diseño participativo de experimentos de ciencia ciudadana. Comunicar, 54, 29-38. https://doi.org/10.3916/C54-2018-03.
Serbe-Kamp, É., Bemme, J., Pollak, D. J. & Mayer, K. (2023) Open citizen science: Fostering open knowledge with participation. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 9: e96476. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.9.e96476.
Suazo, I. (2023) Ciencia ciudadana: apropiación del conocimiento por la sociedad. SciComm Report, 3 (1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.32457/scr.v3i1.2152.
Villalón, G. L. (2016) La pirámide de la divulgación científica aplicada en Santiago de Cuba. Luciérnaga Comunicación, 7 (13), 91–101. https://revistas.elpoli.edu.co/index.php/luc/article/view/745.
West, J. D. & Bergstrom, C. T. (2021) Misinformation in and about science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (15), e1912444117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912444117.
Xolocotzi, E. H. (2007) La investigación de huarache. Revista de Geografía Agrícola, 39, 113-116.
Zhang, J., Joubert, M., Dudek, J. & Costas, R. (2024) The coverage of basic and applied research in press releases on EurekAlert!. Journal of Science Communication, 23 (07), A01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23070201.
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
On submission authors agree to share 50% copyright with Action Learning, Action Research Association Ltd (ALARA). On receipt of payment for public access to papers authors who are members of ALARA will receive 50% of the fee. The remaining 50% will be returned to ALARA.
ALARA is publishing both a hard copy and an electronic copy. There may be a delay in receiving the hard copy, as it is printed by an external print-on-demand publisher.
