“So, you are paid, but we are not?” Perspectives on Engagement Drivers and Inhibitors in Citizen Social Science with Marginalized Young Citizen Scientists
Citizen science in the social sciences, or Citizen Social Science (CSS), is increasingly popular (e.g., Heiss & Matthes, 2017; Lorenz, 2020), but CSS presents unique implementation challenges (Matthes & Freiling, 2026). As traditional social science methods already involve different publics in data collection, it has been argued that CSS projects should be defined as those that involve lay people more extensively and on equal footing with professional researchers in the research process (e.g., in collaborative or co-creative projects; Freiling & Matthes, 2024).
Integrating lay people into more stages of the research process in collaborative or co-creative projects means that for successful CSS projects, certain criteria need to be met: (a) professional researchers have to be equipped to communicate science to (oftentimes marginalized) citizen scientists of different backgrounds (Riesch et al., 2013); (b) project designs have to account for sociocultural diversity and allow flexibility regarding citizen scientists needs (Lorenz, 2020); and (c) citizen scientists have to be willing and motivated to engage in social science (Campos et al., 2021). Especially the latter is crucial (and highly intertwined with the first two aspects), because every CSS project depends primarily on effective engagement strategies for its target groups (e.g., Druschke & Seltzer, 2012). Multi-perspective evaluations and the continuous improvement of such CSS engagement strategies are thus of utmost importance.
This study examines what drives citizen scientists’ engagement, considering both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards. Phillips and colleagues (2019) outlined key dimensions of engagement that consist of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors: Intrinsic factors are, for instance, perceived possibilities of empowerment/efficacy (affective), knowledge enhancement (cognitive), engaging activities (behavioral), and network possibilities (social). All of those aspects sustain participation through personal motivation (Aristeidou et al., 2017; Bonney et al., 2015), which is considered a key driver of engagement (Phillips et al., 2019). Extrinsic factors typically include the formal project framework, recruitment, and compensation of citizen scientists (Göbel et al., 2022). They, too, can enhance or decrease engagement. However, this research has been conducted in the natural sciences (Phillips et al., 2019), and we cannot assume that they can be generalized to CSS (Heiss & Matthes, 2017; Göbel et al., 2022) without examining that.
Using the YouCount project as an example, we examine the views of professional scientists and citizen scientists to understand engagement dynamics with marginalized young Citizen Scientists in CSS. YouCount was a co-created EU-funded CSS project researching social inclusion drivers of marginalized young Citizen Scientists in nine cases across Europe. We use in-depth interviews with nine professional scientists (one from each case) and 17 focus groups with Citizen Scientists (one to two from each case) for our examination.
The data were coded deductively and inductively (see Table 1 for Coding Scheme). Deductive are the larger dimensions (cognitive, affective, behavioral) as well as specific codes such as “scientific involvement/identity” and “rewards.” Inductive codes include “intrinsic motivation” or “feeling overburdened.” When new codes emerged, all data were recoded to reflect those codes.
Our findings highlight the importance of ongoing communication, gamified scientific involvement, safe spaces, and relationship building for engagement. Materialistic rewards are initially valued by the young citizen scientists, while professional scientists emphasize intrinsic motivation. Perceptions of not being treated equally can thus arise, which can damage trust. Challenges include balancing co-creation and avoiding overburdening of citizen scientists while maintaining visibility of social inclusion. Due to other pressing concerns faced by marginalized young citizen scientists, gaining scientific skills is less engaging for them than anticipated (based on previous literature, e.g., Domroese & Johnson, 2017; Raddick et al., 2013).
CSS is a promising tool for addressing foundational questions in social science. However, to be truly effective and sustainable, CSS projects must ensure fair conditions for all participants. Tailoring those conditions to the specific needs of the target group, rather than letting them be driven solely by scientists' priorities, is not just an ethical necessity but also a prerequisite for maintaining the trust required for sustainable citizen science. Promising strategies to do so have emerged through discussions of differing attributions of value and visibility and through critical examination of ethical considerations.