Unfolding material constraints and opportunities in biodiversity citizen science information practices

Introduction

Biodiversity and environmental citizen science focuses on volunteer involvement in species monitoring and environmental assessment (Burgess et al.,2017; Chandler et al., 2017; Peter et al., 2019, 2021). Information practices in biodiversity citizen science are multifaceted, ranging from observing and identifying to collecting, curating and validating species (Ekström, 2022a). Moreover, participants encompass a variety of backgrounds and levels of expertise, from professional biologists to amateurs interested in monitoring species during mundane activities (Ekström, 2022a). Despite the range of previous knowledge, what many participants have in common is the utilisation of tools such as cameras, field guides, notebooks and smartphone applications for carrying out work. Likewise, when documenting findings, participants interact with the same large-scale information systems, such as the Swedish species observation system Artportalen (literal translation: the species portal), for reporting species observations. Considering this relation between seemingly material mutuality and epistemic disparity, questions arise regarding how information practices are shaped through participants’ interactions with material objects in relation to varying knowledge backgrounds.

Practice-based information studies have largely been occupied with investigating the amalgamation of the social and the material. Among the empirical investigations conducted in this field of research, studies depicting how materiality contributes to the shaping of practices are of certain importance for the scope of the present short paper. The organisation of work has been investigated in relation to Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, where the grid layout organises content and formulae entered in cells enable computational means for shaping the spreadsheet as an object (Dourish, 2017). In an empirical case of design researchers, cameras are ‘[…] attached significance similar to the way other scholarly communities regard dictation machines or software for data analysis’ (Pilerot and Limberg, 2011, p. 329). Research data have also been highlighted to be shaped through entanglement across a variety of support services and practice aiding in a professional context, both preceding and succeeding researchers’ work (Haider and Kjellberg, 2016).

Epistemic objects (cf. Knorr Cetina, 2001) have previously been studied in citizen science. Concerning at- home air quality measurement, particulate matter sensors have been understood as unbounded epistemic objects which allow participants to figure out the constraints of the sensors by themselves, rather than await expert validation before use (Matz et al., 2017). Investigating the biodiversity citizen science project iSpot from an educational technology perspective, one study understood species report contributions as social objects shared among participants as structuring and scaffolding participation in the community of practice (Scanlon et al., 2014). Regarding birdwatching, field guides have been considered media that establish the epistemic community. But also, the birds observed are considered epistemic objects as they are regarded as incomplete during sighting; as the birds are being identified, the birdwatchers are in a state of uncertainty during which the birds’ species group inherency is questioned and actively debated (Lundquist, 2018).

While the results from these studies provide relevant concatenations of the social and the material in relation to scholarly information practices studies on citizen science-related activities, volunteer work in a heterogeneous research setting such as biodiversity citizen science arguably complicates the handling of tools since the involved participants are assumed to have a range of knowledge backgrounds. Previous research contributions have focused on variations of biodiversity citizen science information practices (Ekström, 2022a) and notions of credibility, validity and authority emerging through information practices (Ekström, 2022b). Prior studies have also conceptualised trace data in relation to traditional qualitative research methods (Ekström, 2022c; Østerlund et al., 2015). However, what has not yet been investigated is how collaborative data production with the aid of material objects can be understood in a diversified research setting as well as how information practices are enacted to attain data production: how are information practices enabled and constrained through the utilisation of material objects? These questions are addressed as part of ongoing work to contribute with knowledge about information practices in biodiversity citizen science, seeking to better understand the roles that material objects play when producing citizen science biodiversity data.

Information practices are here studied as being shaped through situated use of material objects by participants active in the vicinity of a biodiversity citizen science information system, where enactments of information practices are traced to reported data. The purpose of this paper is to outline an approach building on Karen Knorr Cetina’s (2001) theory of objectual practice, how knowledge is constructed iteratively through material objects, for information practices studies. The approach is explicated by seeking to understand how information practices are enabled and constrained through the utilisation of material objects. Additionally, the approach seeks to address a longstanding issue in practice-oriented studies, which is that practice theory is difficult to utilise for the understanding of large-scale phenomena (cf. Nicolini, 2017; Schatzki, 2016). In what follows, the approach is explicated. Next, the empirical context is described. The paper ends with a concluding discussion.

Biodiversity citizen science information practices as objectual practices

The overarching theoretical approach of this study is that of sociomaterial practice theory; ‘[…] how materiality is intrinsic to everyday activities and relations’ (Orlikowski and Scott, 2008, p. 455). From this perspective, 'within a practice, meaning and matter, the social and the technological, are inseparable and they do not have inherently determinate boundaries and properties; rather, they are constituted as relational effects performed in a texture... of situated practices’ (Gherardi, 2017, p. 40). Moreover, practices are from an information studies perspective understood as interrelated sets of routinised actions, rules, norms and conventions, shared ways of understanding the world, geographical and situated locations as well as interactions with material objects (Pilerot and Lindberg, 2018).

When carrying out research work, Knorr Cetina (2001) states, ‘[…] the definition of things, the consciousness of problems, etc., is deliberately looped through objects and the reaction granted by them’ (p. 184). This objectual practice inserts ‘[…] moments of interruption and reflection into the performance of research, during which efforts at reading the reactions of objects and taking their perspective play a decisive role’ (Knorr Cetina, 2001, p. 184).

Species, and their subsequent reported surrogates in the information system, are in the present approach considered epistemic objects, functioning as projections of knowledge rather than clearly defined things, in turn open for interpretation and question-generation as well as distributing work activities to a larger set of actors (Knorr Cetina,2001). Moreover, epistemic objects can be characterised by their lack of completeness since they can be understood to have the capacity to unfold indefinitely: ‘[…] since epistemic objects are always in the process of being materially defined, they continually acquire new properties and change the ones they have’ (Knorr Cetina,2001, p. 190). A book, as an illustrating example, can be characterised as an epistemic object in the sense that the reader’s learning outcomes can broaden after it has been read a second time (Pilerot, 2014).

The production of biodiversity citizen science data arguably include situations where standardised objects for data production are utilised varyingly as well as depending on previous experiences and competencies. Involving volunteers and experts alike, a bioblitz is a short-term, intensive period through which species are observed and identified in a given geographical setting (Meeus et al., 2021). As participants carry out information practices such as observing, identifying and reporting species observations, they make use of various material objects such as cameras, logbooks, field identification keys and large-scale information systems. While the visual sense is prominent when observing species, visual and auditive sensitivities alike are prominent in the identification of species, i.e., identifying a bird by sight or by listening to it singing. These sensitivities in turn pave the way for reporting species observations to biodiversity citizen science information systems.

Due to the heterogeneity of the participants involved, with their varying knowledge backgrounds (cf. Ekström, 2022a), objects utilised in relation to the information practices are assumed not to be stable but consistently redefined as per their current use. The objects create questions through their use rather than being materially defined, the meaning shifting throughout the interaction in certain situated settings. This paper seeks to outline an approach for studying material constraints and limitations of biodiversity citizen science information practices through the theory of objectual practice. The approach focuses on three units of analysis:

1. binoculars, cameras, and magnifying loupes used for observing species;
2. field guides, identification keys and smartphone applications utilised for identifying species;
3. and standardising, large-scale information systems such as Artportalen for reporting identified observations.

In what follows, the approach to investigating how biodiversity citizen science information practices are enabled and constrained through material objects is illustrated through an empirical context grounded in information practices studies of biodiversity citizen science fieldwork and the data that this fieldwork entail.

Empirical context

Concerning this empirical context, I discuss how the material aspects of participants’ information practices, when engaged in biodiversity citizen science fieldwork, can be made visible through Knorr Cetina’s (2001) theory of objectual practice. The empirical context is that of a bioblitz, an intensive, time-limited biological inventory carried out by amateur volunteers and experts in a given geographic setting, where the reports of sighted species reported from the bioblitz as trace data are also considered. This enables investigating material constraints and opportunities for citizen science information practices through participant observation (Delamont, 2004) as well as trace ethnography (Geiger and Ribes, 2011).

Cameras, binoculars and magnifying loupes

When carrying out fieldwork by inventorying a given geographic region, participants make use of objects such as cameras, binoculars or magnifying loupes, allowing them to visually observe species, considered as epistemic objects. These tools are used to determine species’ identity, sex and additional distinguishing features as well as movements, doings or habitat, which is valuable information for understanding species distribution in the area (Ekström, 2022a). However, objects carry a variety of connotations contingent on how they are epistemically viewed (Knorr Cetina, 2001). Engaging in participant observation of a bioblitz can serve to unfold how information practices are enacted through participants’ use of material tools.

For instance, a pair of binoculars might be deemed an adequate tool for observing sea birds at a distance. As binoculars utilised for birdwatching are technically advanced pieces of equipment, the inexperienced participant, however, might need several tries before fully grasping how to set up the tripod, how to zoom in on the birds and in what direction to look. Iterative utilisation is here key for grasping what can be seen and how to use the binoculars to the best of the capabilities considering the objective of the bioblitz.

Related, magnifying loupes used for close examination of small species or details of a plant might need several iterations of utilisation before knowing where to look and what to look at. The loupe acquires various properties through its’ iterated use, which in turn provides diverse ways through how it is used for the participants’ comprehension of what is observed (cf. Knorr Cetina, 2001). Moreover, cameras can serve to capture and document species without necessarily taking samples, but can be used as both a binocular and a loupe through zooming in and out on the species under scrutiny. Knowing what comprises significant information to capture when observing species is knowledge gained through repetitive handling. The documentation aspect of species observation leads us to the following section concerning objects utilised for identifying species.

Field guides, identification keys and smartphone applications

The unit of analysis described in the previous subsection opens up for studies into how tools are iteratively utilised for species observations as information practices. In what follows, documents and applications that guide the participants in their work are also considered. While the tools previously accounted for allow close investigations of the matter under scrutiny, participants may need to consult sources external to themselves to be able to correctly identify species, either by sight or by hearing. During fieldwork, field guides and identification keys can serve to assist participants when identifying species, understood as epistemic objects, on-site. By further drawing on the theory of objectual practice, the utilisations of these documents can be made visible, allowing the unfolding of how the objects shape the information practices.

Field guides and identification keys can be used varyingly among participants depending on their own knowledge base, interests and past experiences of conducting biodiversity citizen science fieldwork. By referring to these objects, participants may singlehandedly or collaboratively identify species during their on-site monitoring of the flora and fauna in the bioblitz setting. Studying how participants work back and forth between the species and the guides can provide understandings of knowledge implications for information practices as the objects occur and reoccur in shifting, non-identical processes (cf. Knorr Cetina, 2001).

Similarly, the emergence of smartphone applications making use of AI-supported computer-vision or sound- identification techniques for automatic species detection presents yet another possible intervention with regards to how material objects contribute to shape information practices. Know-how of what details of the species to focus on and how to position the smartphone camera is followed by iterated use of the application in question, but also how to make use of the phone’s camera for the computer-vision feature, or the microphone for the sound-identification technique, to be able to automatically detect the species in question. Investigating the handling of field guides, identification keys and smartphone applications can serve further inquiries into how these alternating utilisations form information practices in relation to endeavours for identifying species (cf. Law and Lynch, 1988).

Large-scale information systems for reporting identified observations

This final subsection deals with the material outcomes of tool handling as a unit of analysis when investigating participation in bioblitzes, that is, the reports of species sighted in a bioblitz. These sightings are subsequently reported by participants to large-scale information systems such as Artportalen. The reports can comprise several metadata entries such as geographical coordinates, taxa, quantities, biotopes, annotations as well as supplemental documentation in the form of photographs, video recordings or sound clips. In turn, these reports also provide the addition of geographical coordinates, through which the reports can be made visible on a geographic information system map in the information system.

While the utilisation of the information system presents one way to make visible how material objects shape participants’ information practices, retroactively delving into these reports provide another. By tracing the emergence and the details of these reports, viewed as epistemic objects, it is possible to unfold yet another layer to how material objects shape the information practices. A report is the objectual outcome of the information practices, but its’ entailed meaning can differ through iterated use. In other words, a documented insect found on a flower petal can serve several meanings for various participants, providing a different type of knowledge for an expert entomologist than for an amateur botanist. Similarly, a photograph of a sea bird can serve to identify the species for the ornithologist, but provide information about its habitat, for the biologist. The photograph becomes an epistemic object at the moment that the questions it gives rise to get answered by the person who at this moment interacts with the object.

Considering the species reports documented via large-scale information systems, species reports as objects can be said to exist in several ways simultaneously since they have a variety of forms and can be understood as what they are or could have been. Objects are meaning-making as they generate practices: ‘[…] they provide for the concatenation and constructive extension of practice’ (Knorr Cetina, 2001, p. 192). In other words, the data produced can itself consist of varying contents depending on the perceiver while at the same time being conformed in relation to the reporting system of Artportalen. Adopting a trace ethnography- oriented perspective to the reports and their additional documented features enables ‘[…] fine-grained understandings of how applications and technical tools have been used’ (Ekström, 2022c, p. 16). As such, it allows the investigation of how objects are not clearly defined things but rather can be characterised by a lack of completeness, constantly unfolding and being materially defined (cf. Knorr Cetina, 2001).

Concluding discussion

In this paper, I have discussed the possibilities of applying the theory of objectual practice (cf. Knorr Cetina, 2001) to study how information practices are enabled and constrained through the use of material objects. The use of the theory of objectual practice as an analytical instrument for information practices research has been illustrated by an empirical contextualisation of biodiversity citizen science. More specifically, this has been done through the combination of participant observation (cf. Delamont, 2004) and trace ethnography (cf. Geiger and Ribes, 2011) for the study of information practices emerging in connection to a bioblitz. The approach includes three units of analysis: binoculars, cameras and magnifying loupes used for observing species; field guides, identification keys and smartphone applications utilised for identifying species; and standardising, large-scale information systems such as Artportalen for reporting identified observations.

Previous research has investigated epistemic objects in citizen science (e.g., Lundquist, 2018; Matz et al., 2017; Scanlon et al., 2014) as well as how matter matters for the enactment of information practices (e.g., Pilerot, 2014). Investigating varying utilisations of material objects in biodiversity citizen science participation allows scrutiny of how information practices emerge in heterogeneous research settings as well as the ongoing definition of the representations of species reports in information systems. The approach to the theory of objectual practice in relation to a multifaceted empirical setting such as biodiversity citizen science arguably extends sociomaterial aspects to citizen science studies and contributes to theoretical perspectives in empirical information practices research. It also fosters the possibility of understanding engagement in biodiversity citizen science as large-scale phenomena (cf. Nicolini, 2017) by focusing both on the local, epistemically bound information practices and the biodiversity citizen science data that these information practices entail.

The contextualisation permits an approach to study how material objects enable and constrain biodiversity citizen science information practices. Departing from the empirical context in this short paper, further empirical studies are needed to explicate these aspects of conducting biodiversity citizen science fieldwork on-site and the outcomes of the fieldwork as reported species observations in large-scale information systems. By so doing, it is possible through a sociomaterial lens to attain additional knowledge concerning information practices in emerging, collaborative scientific activities. The approach could also show feasible for other empirical settings beyond biodiversity citizen science, enabling further investigations of how material objects enable and constrain information practices.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the referees for valuable feedback on the paper.

About the author

Björn Ekström is a doctoral student at the Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Allégatan 1, SE-501 90, Borås, Sweden. His main research interests include information practices, citizen science and digital methods. He can be contacted at: bjorn.ekstrom@hb.se.

How to cite this paper