Citizen Science and Open Education. Is Science Open to Everyone? | Academic Affairs with philosopher Jan Bransen and sociologist Lotte Krabbenborg

During this event, organized by Radboud Reflects and the Open Science Community Nijmegen, sociologist Lotte Krabbenborg and philosopher Jan Bransen explored ways in which scientists and universities can involve students and citizens in teaching and research. The session was moderated by philosopher Cees Leijenhorst. After a fruitful discussion, people in the audience asked their questions about open science.

Beyond counting butterflies

“Citizen science is a fashionable label nowadays,” started Krabbenborg. Citizen science is often thought of as people helping scientists by gathering data—like counting butterflies or wearing smart devices. This is valuable, said Krabbenborg, but citizens can contribute far more than just data. They can help shape research, challenge scientific projects, and voice concerns when they feel the research doesn’t align with their values. Therefore, she prefer the term “citizen participation”. Bransen added that the very distinction between citizens and scientists is odd: “scientists are citizens too.” He emphasized that the university is too closed off from the city. “The campus should be the city and vice versa,” he said. 

Krabbenborg herself was involved in a study on patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Initially, the scientists leading this study focused on the best design for a smart gadget that would be useful for gathering data and improving treatment for these patients. Krabbenborg took a step back, listened to the patients and showed that these gadgets often interfered with the patient’s quality of life. It would distract them or remind them of their disease during day-to-day life, and they would rather learn how to combine their disease with work or family life. “We should invite patients into the conversation early on,” said Krabbenborg. Bransen agreed, pleading that “scientists should help people to ask better questions about their worlds, not just provide answers.”

Thinking about people, but not with them

Bransen mentioned the sharp divide between scientist and citizens: scientists produce knowledge about citizens, or relevant to them, and then share this knowledge with them. The scientists don’t really mingle with their research subjects. “We need different types of scientists,” Krabbenborg agreed. “Not people who say: this is the problem, and this is how we should address it. We should not think that if citizens don’t agree with the parameters set by scientists, they don’t get it and just lack the relevant knowledge.” Krabbenborg advocated for scientists gaining trust with people outside the university and taking their concerns seriously.

Krabbenborg also acknowledged that participation in science is often limited to certain groups of people. She’s a proponent of compensating citizens for their contributions to science. “Science has largely been an endeavour for those with the time and resources to contribute,” she said. Initiatives like the Climate research Initiative in The Netherlands (KIM), which pays citizens for their involvement, highlights the potential of more inclusive, interdisciplinary research that recognizes and values citizen participation. 

Who has knowledge?

The conversation around Citizen Science led to the debate on Open Education. Open Education, traditionally understood as the sharing of educational resources, needs a much broader perspective, according to Bransen. At the heart of this discussion is the question of “epistemic authority”, as Bransen puts it. Who was knowledge? Who is in a position to say, “I know how things work”? 

Traditionally, knowledge has been concentrated within academic institutions, with university researchers holding the lion's share of expertise, leaving citizens on the outside.  But should this knowledge remain confined to academic journals, as is largely the case today? Bransen argues that the current academic system is reaching its limits. "There’s too much to read. I’s simply impossible to keep up. And we’re narrowing our expertise more and more into specialized fields," he said. 

In this context, Bransen questions why we still organize education in isolated institutions with closed doors. "Why do we assume that education, and knowledge, must be confined to these walls?" he asks. Universities and research centers should no longer exist in isolation but should be more deeply integrated with the cities and communities around them. He mentions the vast expansion of knowledge on climate change, but still the apparent lack of urgency to act on it. Could the separation of “knowledge producers” and “knowledge consumers”—those who need to be “educated”, play a role in that?    

Meaningful societal change

One question lingered in the air throughout the conversation: What defines success if science is not solely about finding answers to problems posed by scientists themselves? Both speakers agreed that the emphasis on publishing in peer-reviewed journals should be reduced. Scientists need more time and support to engage with those outside academia and to shape their research based on the needs and concerns of the broader public. They should be speaking at patient conferences, engaging with communities and businesses, and working to improve people's quality of life. Universities should provide the time and resources for scientists to participate in these activities. This approach will not only make science more open, but also empowers it to drive meaningful societal change.

Announcement

How open are scientists to contributions from the public? And how open are they in sharing their teaching materials? Today, science is all about collaboration and transparency. Thanks to Citizen Science, non-scientists can actively participate in research. But is this really a fresh, new approach to science, or just an old idea dressed in modern clothes? In education, the demand for Open Education is growing. Imagine teachers making their course materials freely available to everyone. Would this improve education and enrich the knowledge of the public? How far are we willing to go with these changes? Come and share your thoughts on the openness of research and education.

The citizen as a scientist? 

How open is science to input from the public? The term “citizen science” is gaining popularity, but what does it really mean? Is it a revolutionary approach to scientific discovery, or simply a convenient label for activities like bird counting, air quality monitoring, or tracking personal data? Can non-scientists truly contribute meaningful knowledge? How far should we go in involving non-scientists in research? And, is citizen science truly accessible to all, or is it mainly a platform for a select, educated few?

Scientific education for everyone? 

How open is scientific education—to other teachers, but also to the public? Could freely accessible resources not only transform teaching practices and foster greater collaboration among educators? Beyond changing how teachers work, imagine more and more educational materials becoming available not just to students and other teachers, but to everyone. Might this empower individuals to become more self-directed learners, or is access alone insufficient? And in this new landscape of open education, what becomes of the traditional classroom—and the role of the teacher?

Join us for two short rounds of discussion. Ethicist Marcel Becker will lead the conversations. He will speak with philosopher Jan Bransen about Open Education and with sociologist Lotte Krabbenborg about Citizen Science.

There will be drinks after the event.

About the speakers

Jan Bransen is professor of Philosophy of Behavioral Sciences and academic leader of the Radboud Teaching and Learning Center at Radboud University. He has written several public books including Laat je niets wijsmaken en Gevormd of vervormd. In February 2024, ISVW Publishers will publish the book En nu? De mens als bedreigde diersoort.

Lotte Krabbenborg is a sociologist and political philosopher. She studies the ways in which new techno-scientific developments such as nanotechnology, biofuels and artificial intelligence influence and are adopted by society. She involves citizens and non-governmental organizations in her research.