Open Science Hardware for Citizen Science in the Global South (Indonesia, Thailand, and Nepal)

• In Event: 30.034 - The Ecology of Citizen Science: An Opportunity for Learning

Abstract

Objectives
The OCSDNET study conducted between 2015-2016 in Indonesia, Thailand and Nepal (the Global South) focused on using open hardware, DIY (Do-It-Yourself) and DIWO (Do-It-With-Others) approaches for CS engagement. We organized and followed six workshops of various sizes with over 120 participants who built open source science instruments. Our objective was to understand how learning to build infrastructure for research (instruments) influences the understanding and appropriation of science in the Global South. We found evidence that experience of instrument building supported inclusive, interdisciplinary and critical approaches to science and technology: Improving communication between amateurs and experts, supporting cooperation between formal and informal institutions of research, integration of scientific practices and tools with traditional crafts and indigenous knowledge and empowerment of local communities and projects.


Perspectives
Research on Do-It-Youself biology (Durrett & Field 2011; Kuznetsov et al. 2012) and related practices of bioart (Bureaud et al. 2014) is converging with calls for eScience, Open Science, Open Access and Open Data (Neylon, Cameron & Wu 2009; Molloy 2011; Uhlir & Schröder 2007). Attempts are made to reduce cost of experimental research, increase reproductibility and access to science through building low cost customizable laboratory equipment (Pearce 2014; Landrain et al. 2013). Merging hackerspace and makerspace infrastructure with open science goals (open data, open access, online collaboration) creates unique opportunities for citizen scientists, and scientists from developing countries to take part in alternative global research networks (Kera 2012; Kera 2014).
Most discussions on research and technology innovation in the Global South reproduce various forms of epistemic violence (Forero-Pineda 2006; Guédon 2008; Holmgren & Schnitzer 2004), which echo discussions on the deficit model in science (Freeman & Perez 1988; Byerlee & Fischer 2002; Forero-Pineda 2006). DIY and open source practices for building open science infrastructure cerate opportunities for changing this perception of a deficit, which needs to be bridged (Warschauer 2004; Strover 2003; Young 2001).

Approach and data sources
Participant observation with structured interviews and surveys were analyzed using the para-ethnography framework (Marcus 2007) where subjects are treated as collaborators and partners in research. In this method theoretical agendas are reshaped collaboratively.

Results
Participants of this study gained direct experience with production of scientific data and knowledge (Figure 2). They extended the use of science instruments to serve various emancipatory, aesthetic and even philosophical goals.


Figure 2 Participants in workshops
Significance
The democratized and low tech approach to science infrastructure goes hand in hand with support of diversity, horizontal relations and collaboration, new definition of impact and changing the culture of science, which all start with new approaches to education. This gives new meaning to the statement “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits” (United Nations, 1997). The right to science is transforming into direct participation in the creation and definition of scientific research, its goals, even reflecting directly upon its benefits and policy. Making this a great example of putting ‘Knowledge to Action: Achieving the Promise of Equal Educational Opportunity’.

Authors

• Denisa Kera, Arizona State University

• Hermes Huang

• Irene Agrivine

• Stefania Druga, Hackidemia