Members of the public participate in scientific research in many different contexts, stemming from traditions as varied as participatory action research and citizen science. Particularly in conservation and natural resource management contexts, where research often addresses complex social–ecological questions, the emphasis on and nature of this participation can significantly affect both the way that projects are designed and the outcomes that projects achieve. We review and integrate recent work in these and other fields, which has converged such that we propose the term public participation in scientific research (PPSR) to discuss initiatives from diverse fields and traditions. We describe three predominant models of PPSR and call upon case studies suggesting that—regardless of the research context—project outcomes are influenced by (1) the degree of public participation in the research process and (2) the quality of public participation as negotiated during project design. To illustrate relationships between the quality of participation and outcomes, we offer a framework that considers how scientific and public interests are negotiated for project design toward multiple, integrated goals. We suggest that this framework and models, used in tandem, can support deliberate design of PPSR efforts that will enhance their outcomes for scientific research, individual participants, and social–ecological systems

Gray, S. A., S. Gray, J. L. De Kok, A. E. R. Helfgott, B. O'Dwyer, R. Jordan, and A. Nyaki. 2015. Using fuzzy cognitive mapping as a participatory approach to analyze change, preferred states, and perceived resilience of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 20(2): 11.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07396-200211

Ecologically oriented citizen‐science experiences engage the public in learning while facilitating the achievement of robust scientific program goals. Evaluation of learning outcomes has become increasingly prioritized, requiring citizen‐science program managers to understand key issues in evaluation. We argue that citizen science can have other, more far‐reaching community‐level outcomes, which have received less attention but warrant consideration for continued programmatic improvement.

Citizen science has generated enthusiasm among environmental and conservation biologists. Although citizen science–generated data have enabled a number of research questions to be addressed, there is a growing interest in studying the process and outcomes of citizen science. The unifying focus of research on citizen science is the discovery of the socioscientific outcomes of expert–nonexpert partnerships that involve collecting authentic scientific data. Example areas of study include the modes of participant involvement, how identity in the context of authentic data may differ from that of informal science education, and factors of individual and community learning in the project context. On the basis of the unique development of theoretical ideas, we propose that research on citizen science should be acknowledged as a distinct discipline.