=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3016/paper10
|storemode=property
|title=Citizen science and socio-technical perspective: reflection on a possible integration
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3016/paper10.pdf
|volume=Vol-3016
|authors=Andrea Spasiano
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/stpis/Spasiano21
}}
==Citizen science and socio-technical perspective: reflection on a possible integration==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3016/paper10.pdf
Citizen science and socio-technical perspective: reflection on a
possible integration
Andrea Spasiano 1,2
1
University of Tuscia, Via del Paradiso, 47, 01100, Viterbo, Italy
2
University for Foreigners of Perugia, Piazza Braccio Fortebraccio, 4, 06123, Perugia, Italy
Abstract
Public participation in scientific research activities is also known as citizen science. It includes
a set of methodological approaches for engagement and recruitment of non-expert volunteers
coordinated by expert scientists, definition of tasks and scope aimed at organization of a
community to achieve research purposes. One of the main goals of citizen science is to find
scientific-based solutions to societal needs. Citizen science community acts as a system
composed by social and technical components. Public participation is, in fact, supported using
information technologies and digital technologies, such as smartphone and personal mobile
devices. Participants and experts also organize and coordinate their activities through social
media platforms. However, integration of citizen science approaches in a socio-technical
perspective is a research topic not yet explored. Scope of this short position paper is to pose
some reflection on possible integration starting from a brief review of main characteristics of
citizen science.
Keywords 1
Citizen science, public engagement, socio-technical perspective
1. Introduction and motivation
Citizen science is a set of methodological approaches aimed at increasing public participation in
scientific research activities [1,2,3]. Application of citizen science is transdisciplinary, allowing
multiple disciplines to join efforts with experts and volunteers to solve societal challenges [4,5,6].
Unlike other types of participative approaches, based on crowdsourcing models, citizen science
enlarges public participation to all steps of a research project, from data collection to interpretation of
results and dissemination of outcomes [3]. In this perspective, expert researchers engage amateur
volunteers in the definition of common and shared research design at the scope to find scientific-based
solutions to societal needs and environmental challenges [3]. In a citizen science approaches, external
environment indicates contextual background in which an organized groups of researchers and
volunteers act. Contextual background is understood as the set of environmental, geographic, socio-
demographics, cultural and jurisdictional factors. Societal challenges can be linked to different issues
that threaten contemporary societies: climate change, water resources management, sustainable
development, urban mobility, and urban planning, just to report most common application examples.
Citizen science can represent a method to support and coordinate public call-to-action aimed at co-
management and co-assessment of public resources – such as water, land, cultural heritage – combining
scientific purposes and societal challenges to address decision and policy making processes through
bottom-up approaches [2,3].
Literature usually distinguishes ideal types of citizen science: (1) contributory, (2) collaborated, and
(3) co-created [1,3,4]. Contributory ideal type refers to projects designed by expert scientists. The role
of volunteers is limited to data collection [1,3,4]. In a collaborated ideal type, expert scientists generally
7th International Workshop on Socio-Technical Perspective in IS development (STPIS 2021) 11-12 October 2021, Trento, Italy
EMAIL: aspasiano@unitus.it (A. 1)
©️ 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
117
define research goals, while volunteers can contribute to refine research design and activities such as
data collection and analysis, and dissemination of outcomes [1,3,4]. In a co-created ideal type, expert
scientists and volunteers collaborate, co-designing and co-conceptualizing all stage of the scientific
process [1,3,4].
Citizen science constitutes an innovative research approach aimed at the integration of human and
societal perspectives into scientific tasks [3] by (1) investigating into bidirectional relationships
between environmental and socio-economic and cultural systems; (2) modelling new organizational
processes supported by flexible interaction between humans and computers [7,8].
Starting from these conceptual assumptions, this short position paper intends to pose a reflection on
possible integration and interpretation of citizen science in a socio-technical theoretical perspective.
2. Citizen science: a combination of social and technical components
Citizen science approaches to scientific research lay on three fundamental pillars:
1. Internal collaboration among participants.
2. Interaction between groups of participants and external environment.
3. Use of Information Communication Technologies (ICT) and digital web-based technologies to
support and organize research tasks, internal organization of participants, communication activities and
interaction with external environment.
The first two pillar points refer to the social component of citizen science, while the latter to technical
component.
2.1. Social components
The participation of volunteers in a citizen science project is a collective process aimed at identifying
scientific-based solutions to collective issues. It implies the construction of structurally organized
groups of volunteers, the adoption of co-design research methodologies among all the participants and
the definition of common and collegial goals.
A citizen science community is a complex organization generally composed by groups of expert
scientists and volunteers, as depicted in table 1. Expert scientists are people who have academic or
scientific background [2]. They usually coordinate and supervise research activities as research design,
goals definitions, data collection settings and protocols [2]. Volunteers constitutes a heterogeneous
group with no academic qualification and profound differences in terms of professional expertise,
education, personal interests, and socio-cultural background [9]. Volunteers, therefore, interact and
collaborate within a context of social norms, legal frameworks, cultural values, and environmental
factors that influence the definition of common research goals, the implementation of methodologies
suitable for achieving the purposes and for adoption of suitable tools [2]. Volunteers can be categorized
as (1) decision makers, (2) stakeholders, (3) citizens and general public. Decision makers and
stakeholders constitute subgroups of expert amateurs, professionals and local authorities that give their
contribution in participative science by expertise and advanced education. Citizens and general public
are generally recruited and engaged within organized groups such as civic groups, neighborhood
organizations, target communities. In this perspective, volunteers’ engagement acquires a meaning
around the sense of community and belonging. Local communities’ participation in citizen science
activities enhances the role of citizens into research and decisional processes [10] and individual
motivations to participation. These latter usually refer to: (1) personal interest [1,11]; (2) scientific
knowledge for the better understanding of their environment or to gain political leverage [2]; (3)
improving relationships between people, institutional actors and stakeholders [2,7] aimed at social
learning and co-management of common resources and goods [12]; (4) promoting joint action and civic
participation on environmental topics with socio-economic and cultural implication or that involves
socio-organizational aspects [3,8].
Expertise, education, socio-cultural background, and motivations are key aspects for the definition
of roles within a citizen science community and defining the level of participation in scientific tasks.
The participatory process, in fact, is articulated in different steps: envisioning and goal settings, model
formulation, data collection and cross-checking, model application and evaluation of outcomes [7].
118
Table 1
Schematization of organization in a citizen science community.
Group Definition Categories Institutions/communities
People with academic or Expert scientists Universities, academic
Experts scientific background institutions, research
centers
Decision makers, Local authorities,
stakeholders professionals, expert
People with no amateurs
Volunteers academic background
Citizens, public Civic groups,
neighborhood
organizations, target
communities, online
communities
2.2. Technical components
The implementation of web-based technologies into citizen science approaches gives new
perspectives for engagement enlarging participation from physical to virtual spaces. In particular, social
media systems allow rapid sharing of information at low cost connecting and mobilizing people within
online communities. Involving online communities into the citizen science approach implies a new form
of participatory organization around (1) remote work teams, (2) collaborative task management, (3)
management of the dynamic division of labor, and (4) communication with large audience [13].
Introduction of web-based technologies and social media tools in citizen science investigation is
reshaping socio-spatial networks of participation, projecting the engagement of volunteers from
community-based approaches towards virtual contexts [14]. The adoption of computer-based models –
e.g., software platforms, suitable smartphone applications – is functional to:
(1) Support recruitment and engagement activities [15,16] enlarging participation by means
of non-intrusive tools, commonly used in daily life of citizens [17,18].
(2) Support data collection activities and crowdsourcing by means of distributed network of
human sensors [19] that operate at different scale of geographic scale and time.
(3) Support communication efforts directed to general public or specific target groups.
(4) Analyze social networks patterns to identify potential stakeholders to involve, defining
roles and tasks within the organization [14,20,21].
(5) Investigate internal interactions between members of an online community [22] and
external interactions between users and their context of interaction [23,24].
(6) Evaluate individual and collective efforts by visualization of results.
(7) Enhance a constant information flow for directional purposes [3].
These points synthetize the technological framework of citizen science platforms as recruitment
pools between projects and volunteers. Platforms such as Zooniverse and Spotteron, for example, offer
features and tools for supporting the participation of volunteers in scientific research and knowledge
co-production processes through data collection functions from geo-localized observations, social
community extensions – such as newsfeeds, forum, comments, liking and user following, data
visualization and summary and data visualization dashboard and rating of observations for the data
validation and information provided by users. These functionalities are aimed at building operative
119
communities of volunteers that share opinions and experiences in relation to topics of scientific interest,
highlighting their impacts on daily experiences.
3. Benefits and limits of citizen science
3.1. Benefits
The benefits of citizen science are measured in terms of raising knowledge through co-production
and constant dialogue between citizens and experts around environmental and societal challenges.
Benefits and opportunities are bidirectional for experts and volunteers. Experts can broaden availability
of data at low cost. Volunteers can benefit within the organization in terms of professionalization,
acquisition of skills and awareness, through the possibility of continuous training, dialogue and open
discussion with experts and stakeholders [3]. Citizen science represents a common space for socializing;
it creates a sense of belonging that contributes to participants’ performance and outcomes [11] by
improving efficiency, effectiveness and the scope of research processes [8]. Citizen science creates a
space for social inclusivity, dialogue between stakeholders and allows people to express themselves by
giving a voice to non-experts [8]. Social inclusivity—derived from citizen science activities—
contributes to mitigate conflicts around environmental and resources management [25]. It also
contributes to improve the economic situation of participants by giving them knowledge and tools for
managing local issues [25].
Citizen science, firstly, encourages dialogue and the exchange of information between citizens and
experts, in order to increase awareness on public interest issues and in decision-making processes
[26,27]. Dialogue and information exchange are also functional to collaborative modelling of tools and
processes [7,28], definition of methodologies, protocols and research methods that reflect shared points
of view between experts and engaged volunteers [29].
3.2. Limits
The limits related to citizen science can be divided into:
1. Socio-cognitive
2. Technological
As previously reported, citizen science aims to integrate humanistic and socio-cultural aspects into
the processes and definition of research protocols to arrive at a co-production of knowledge. Human
perceptions and socio-cultural background may affect data collection activities and the fulfillment of
tasks assigned to the volunteers [7,30]. Levels of education or training and cognitive biases can threaten
the validity and reliability of volunteers’ observations [10,31]. Subjective perceptions and biases not
only influence interpretation and dissemination of results, but also may have potential negative
consequences in economic, human and environmental concerns [31].
Still on the social implications, citizen science approaches can be influenced by social marginality
deriving from controversies, insufficient funding, and barriers to participation related to social
marginalization or political and jurisdictional barriers [2,8,32,33]. Marginalization usually takes origin
from social, political and jurisdictional issues that limit the participation to specific groups and exclude
others [2,10,34].
These aspects can be further aggravated by the digital divide. The latter sharpens the differences
between social groups often leading to the marginalization of disadvantaged groups. Participation in
research projects according to citizen science approaches thus risks being elitist. Such differentiations
may be reflected geographically, where network coverage is greater in urban than in rural areas.
From a technical point of view, these issues lead to discontinuity in data collection, exchange and
processing of information useful for implementing analytical models and for achieving valid results.
Citizen science needs the provision of adequate infrastructures to support communication, (online)
training, storage of data collected, to offer analysis and standardize program evaluation [4]. Appropriate
technology helps citizen science projects. Internet and smartphones are fundamental tools to facilitate
the participation, but they are not a warranty of data quality and training is needed for the correct use
120
of these technologies in citizen science tasks [34]. The success of participatory approaches, as
crowdsourcing and citizen science, does not rely only on technological advances, but also on the
capacity to engage people and foster cooperation and coordination between participants and
stakeholders around common community concerns [17,18].
4. A socio-technical perspective for Citizen science
The integration of citizen science into a socio-technical system represents a yet unexplored research
topic. Given the previous context, possible research scenarios include analysis of the interactions
between people, technologies and the external environment [35]. In particular, research on the topic of
citizen science from a socio-technical perspective can be useful to deepen the motivations and human
behaviors of the participants within a community of researchers and volunteers, the methods of internal
organization and alignment of aims and processes, and finally the contribution of digital technologies
to support research activities [36]. The integration of citizen science into socio-technical perspectives
constitutes a long and challenging research path in absence of solid reference studies. Here, it is only
possible to trace some research input, which must be followed not only by theoretical reflections but
above all empirical case studies. Studies on open-source communities and software projects can offer
initial insights on the collaboration between volunteers and personal motivations within small
organizations with targeted and specific goals [37,38], according to inductive analysis methods in
search of general and replicable categorizations from single case studies [37,38].
A socio-technical perspective, in short, can be functional to understand the changes at the
organizational level in the modalities of participatory science and the changes both in behavioral and
cultural terms (social learning, professionalization of volunteers, greater awareness of social and
environmental issues) and in technological terms (use of digital tools in scientific research, new models
for collecting and analyzing data from voluntary observations, development of management platforms,
digital technologies to direct operational activities).
Socio-technical perspectives can also help to study and understand citizen science communities as
work system that relies on human, informational and technical infrastructure [36]. Participants (experts
and non-experts) collect data, process and exchange information for knowledge co-production, finding
new forms of interaction and cooperation with the support of digital platforms as recruitment and
communication tools. As a work system, a citizen science community interacts within a specific
environment given by geographical, ecosystem and socio-cultural conditions that affect behaviors and
choices with the support of information and digital technologies.
Categories proposed by Alter (2020) such as unity of purpose and compatibility between the
participants, alignment of roles and tasks to be performed, sharing of responsibilities, exchange and
continuous access of information and interoperability with technologies [36] can represent the pillars
for the proper systemic functioning of an organized citizen science community. In this regard, definition
of a research design suitable to solve societal and environmental challenges, identification of target
groups active in a specific context, social pattern analysis and definition of shared standard protocols
of research among experts and volunteers could represent a roadmap towards unity of purpose,
alignment of processes and tools modeling at the base of the socio-technical functioning of a citizen
science organization [3].
A community active in citizen science can also be interpreted as a univocal and congruent system
of values, in which research objectives are aligned with personal and collective needs [35,39]. The
purpose of citizen science can be addressed towards the joint optimization of its social and technical
components to ensure the efficiency and validity of research work in connection with social goals and
collective satisfaction [35]. On the one hand, the research goals must correspond with collective needs
to find scientific solutions to collective problems. On the other hand, the participation of volunteer
citizens must be favored by easy access to information and by the assignment of tasks that are easy and
intuitive to carry out using non-intrusive and everyday technologies such as smartphones and personal
mobile devices [35].
To measure the functioning of a socio-technical system within a citizen science community, it would
be useful to carry out environmental and socio-cultural context analysis to identify strengths and
weaknesses, causes of potential conflict, legal and cultural obstacles to participation [39]. Context
121
analysis is also useful to identify behavioral and socio-cultural patterns to evaluate the conditions of
collaboration and cooperation between volunteers and between them and team of coordinating experts
[39]. Finally, at the technological level, the context analysis would help to understand any changes and
benefits; understand if technologies help in problem-solving problems or create issues; whether they
help overcome cognitive biases that threaten the validity and reliability of citizen science approach to
scientific research [39].
5. References
[1] R. Bonney, C.B. Cooper, J. Dickinson, S. Kelling, T. Phillips, K.V. Rosenberg, J. Shirk, Citizen
science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience
59 (2009), 977–984. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9
[2] W. Buytaert, Z. Zulkafli, S. Grainger, L. Acosta, T.C. Alemie, J. Bastiaensen, B. De Bièvre, J.
Bhusal, J. Clark, A. Dewulf, et al., Citizen science in hydrology and water resources: Opportunities
for knowledge generation, ecosystem service management, and sustainable development. Front.
Earth Sci., 2 (2014), doi:10.3389/feart.2014.00026.
[3] A. Spasiano, S. Grimaldi, A.M. Braccini, F. Nardi, Towards a Transdisciplinary Theoretical
Framework of Citizen Science: Results from a Meta-Review Analysis. Sustain. 13 (2021), 7904.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147904.
[4] G. Newman, J. Graham, A. Crall, M. Laituri, The art and science of multi-scale Citizen science
support. Ecol. Inform. 6 (2011), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2011.03.002
[5] C.N. Knapp, R.S. Reid, M.E. Fernández-Giménez, J.A. Klein, K.A. Galvin, Placing
transdisciplinarity in context: A review of approaches to connect scholars, society and action.
Sustain. 11 (2019), 4899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184899
[6] F. Nardi, C. Cudennec, T. Abrate, C. Allouch, A. Annis, T. Herman Assumpção, A.H. Aubert, D.
Berod, A.M. Braccini, W. Buytaert, et al., Citizen s AND HYdrology (CANDHY):
Conceptualizing a transdisciplinary framework for citizen science addressing hydrological
challenges. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2020, doi:10.1080/02626667.2020.1849707.
[7] A. Voinov, N. Kolagani, M.K. McCall, P.D. Glynn, M.E. Kragt, F.O. Ostermann, S.A. Pierce, P.
Ramu, Modelling with stakeholders—Next generation. Environ. Model. Softw., 77 (2016), 196–
220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.11.016
[8] J. van de Gevel, J. van Etten, S. Deterding, Citizen science breathes new life into participatory
agricultural research. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 40 (2020), doi:10.1007/s13593-020-00636-
1.
[9] J.L. Dickinson, J. Shirk, D. Bonter, R. Bonney, R.L. Crain, J. Martin, T. Phillips, K. Purcell, The
current state of Citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Front.
Ecol. Environ. 10 (2012), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1890/110236
[10] A. Commodore, S. Wilson, O. Muhammad, E. Svendsen, J. Pearce, Community-based
participatory research for the study of air pollution: A review of motivations, approaches, and
outcomes. Environ. Monit. Assess. 189 (2017), 378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6063-7
[11] R. Crain, C. Cooper, J.L. Dickinson, Citizen Science: A tool for integrating studies of human and
natural systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39 (2014), 641–665. 10.1146/annurev-environ-
030713-154609
[12] E. Villaseñor, L. Porter-Bolland, F. Escobar, M.R. Guariguata, P. Moreno-Casasola,
Characteristics of participatory monitoring projects and their relationship to decision-making in
biological resource management: A review. Biodivers. Conserv. 25 (2016), 2001–2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1184-9
[13] T. Ignat, P. Ayris, I.L.I. Juan, S. Reilly, B. Dorch, T. Kaarsted, A.K. Overgaard, Merry work:
Libraries and Citizen science. Insights: UKSG J. 31, (2018), doi.org/10.1629/uksg.431.
[14] M.S. Reed, A. Graves, N. Dandy, H. Posthumus, K. Hubacek, J. Morris, C. Prell, C.H. Quinn, C.
H., L.C. Stringer, Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural
122
resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (2009), 1933–1949.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001
[15] N. Kankanamge, T. Yigitcanlar, A. Goonetilleke, M. Kamruzzaman, Can volunteer crowdsourcing
reduce disaster risk? A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, 35 (2019), 101097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101097
[16] M. Modaresnezhad, L. Iyer, P. Palvia, V. Taras, Information Technology (IT) enabled
crowdsourcing: A conceptual framework. Information Processing and Management, 57 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102135
[17] T.H. Assumpção, I. Popescu, A. Jonoski, D.P. Solomatine, Citizen observations contributing to
flood modelling: Opportunities and challenges. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22(2018),
1473–1489. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1473-2018
[18] J.P. de Albuquerque, B. Herfort, A. Brenning, A. Zipf, A geographic approach for combining
social media and authoritative data towards identifying useful information for disaster
management. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 29 (2015), 667–689.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2014.996567
[19] M.F. Goodchild, Citizen s as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJ. 69 (2007), 211–
221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y
[20] C. Ruzol, D. Banzon-Cabanilla, R. Ancog, E. Peralta, Understanding water pollution management:
Evidence and insights from incorporating cultural theory in social network analysis. Global
Environmental Change, 45 (2017), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.009
[21] S. Uddin, Social network analysis in project management - A case study of analysing stakeholder
networks. Journal of Modern Project Management, 5 (2017), 106–113.
https://doi.org/10.19255/JMPM01310
[22] W. Williamson, K. Ruming, Using Social Network Analysis to Visualize the Social-Media
Networks of Community Groups: Two Case Studies from Sydney. Journal of Urban Technology,
23 (2016), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2016.1197490
[23] Y. Huang, Q. Wu, Y. Hou, Examining Twitter Mentions Between Police Agencies and Public
Users through the Lens of Stakeholder Theory. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International
Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o '17). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 2017, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3085228.3085316
[24] D. Bojovic, C. Giupponi, Understanding the dissemination and adoption of innovations through
social network analysis: geospatial solutions for disaster management in Nepal and Kenya. Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management, 63 (2020), 818–841.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1614435
[25] D. Frigerio, P. Pipek, S. Kimmig, S. Winter, J. Melzheimer, L. Diblíková, B. Wachter, A. Richter,
Citizen science and wildlife biology: Synergies and challenges. Ethology 124 (2018), 365–377.
https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12746
[26] B. Hollow, P.E.J. Roetman, M. Walter, C.B. Daniels, Citizen science for policy development: The
case of koala management in South Australia. Environmental Science and Policy, 47 (2015), 126–
136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.007
[27] S. Brouwer, P. van der Wielen, M. Schriks, M. Claassen, J. Frijns, Public participation in science:
The future and value of citizen science in the drinking water research. Water (Switzerland), 10
(2018), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10030284
[28] L. Basco-Carrera, A. Warren, E. van Beek, A. Jonoski, A. Giardino, Collaborative modelling or
participatory modelling? A framework for water resources management. Environmental Modelling
and Software, 91 (2017), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.014
[29] J. Le Coz, A. Patalano, D. Collins, N.F. Guillén, C.M. García, G.M. Smart, J. Bind, A. Chiaverini,
R. Le Boursicaud, G. Dramais, I. Braud, Crowdsourced data for flood hydrology: Feedback from
recent citizen science projects in Argentina, France and New Zealand. Journal of Hydrology, 541
(2016), 766–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.07.036
[30] F.R. Adler, A.M. Green, Ç.H. Şekercioğlu, Citizen Science in ecology: A place for humans in
nature. Ann. New York Acad. Sci.,1469 (2020), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14340
[31] C. Conrad, K. Hilchey, A review of Citizen Science and community-based environmental
monitoring: Issues and opportunities. Environ. Monit. Assess., 176 (2011), 273–291.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5
123
[32] V.J. MacPhail, S.R. Colla, Power of the people: A review of Citizen Science programs for
conservation. Biol. Conserv., 249 (2020), 108739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108739
[33] J. Minet, Y. Curnel, A. Gobin, J.P. Goffart, F. Mélard, B. Tychon, J. Wellens, P. Defourny,
Crowdsourcing for agricultural applications: A review of uses and opportunities for a farmsourcing
approach. Comput. Electron. Agric., 142 (2017), 126–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.08.026
[34] M. Andrachuk, M. Marschke, C. Hings, D. Armitage, Smartphone technologies supporting
community-based environmental monitoring and implementation: A systematic scoping review.
Biol. Conserv., 237 (2019), 430–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.026
[35] S. Sarker, S. Chatterjee, X. Xiao, A. Elbanna, The sociotechnical axis of cohesion for the IS
discipline: its historical legacy, MIS Quart., 43 (2019), DOI: 10.25300/MISQ/2019/13747
[36] S. Alter, Dimensions of Integration in Sociotechnical Systems, in: Proceedings of the 6th
International Workshop on Socio-Technical Perspective in IS Development (STPIS 2020), 2020.
[37] W. Scacchi (2005). Socio-technical interaction networks in free/open source software development
processes. In Software process modeling (pp. 1-27). Springer, Boston, MA.
[38] A. Nolte, I. Jahnke, I. A. Chounta, T. Herrmann. Supporting Collaboration in Small Volunteer
Groups with Socio-Technical Heuristics. In Proceedings of 16th European Conference on
Computer-Supported Cooperative Work-Exploratory Papers. European Society for Socially
Embedded Technologies (EUSSET), 2018.
[39] S.H. Appelbaum, S. H. (n.d.). Socio-technical systems theory: an intervention strategy for
organizational development, Manag. Dec., 35 (1997) 452–463, doi: 10.1108/00251749710173823
124