Citizen Science and the Dimensions of Success

The Interactive Institute for Social Change (IISC) has a model (see figure below) for effective leadership of collaborative efforts that they call the Dimensions of Success. This simple yet powerful model has direct relevance to citizen science.

This model presents three “dimensions” to consider when undertaking collaboration, each of which requires deliberate attention to ensure the success of the endeavor. The dimensions are: 

• Results: to stay engaged and motivated, people need to know that their efforts are worthwhile, that their time and energy are not being wasted. 

• Process: people are often more comfortable when they know what is expected of them, and when they know what they can expect.

• Relationships: people who feel respected, valued, and supported, and feel a sense of belonging are more likely to persist with a challenging endeavor.  

If any one of these dimensions are neglected, the model argues that the collaboration and its success are put at risk. For example, if a project or enterprise puts more focus on good relations among participants at the expense of productivity and results, people may lose interest before results are achieved. If a project has poorly defined processes such that participants are unsure how to contribute, frustration will rise and productivity will suffer and results will be hard to reach. (For more on this model, visit the Interactive Institute for Social Change website and this short article). 

I see a direct link between the dimensions of success model and citizen science projects. A NASA-sponsored citizen science project must have a clearly defined research question or scientific purpose; “results” maps directly to achieving this goal and/ or milestones along the way. Scientific research is often characterized by rigorous protocols, or processes, by which data are consistently obtained, evaluated, and/or analyzed. “Process” in citizen science projects also includes being clear about what is expected of volunteers (e.g., with a Code of Conduct), and being explicit about what volunteers may expect in turn (e.g., how long it takes from initial discovery to publication of results). And finally, social science research is revealing that projects that effectively engage volunteers as valued partners and create opportunities for volunteers to build relationships with each other and with the science team are more productive over time. We can each look to our own lives for evidence that backs this up; think back to your favorite teacher, or the time your best friend asked you for help on a project. Chances are you worked extra hard to help out your friend, or to impress your favorite teacher. 

Consistent with the IISC model, it makes sense that a project that treats volunteers well, engages their individual talents and interests and gives them clear protocols but never produces results would not retain those volunteers for long. Similarly, a project that is purely focused on results, offers clear protocols, but treats volunteers poorly would likely not keep volunteers engaged long enough to produce results. Attending to all the dimensions of success is essential to building a sustainable, productive project. 

Lastly, IISC guidance notes that most leaders tend to naturally focus on one of these three areas. Building a leadership team of people (including volunteers!) with complementary areas of focus, or cultivating practices that help you remember the value of the dimensions you do not naturally focus on, can support your project’s success.

As a young professional, I had thought I was supposed to focus on results. I felt uncomfortable when my colleagues chatted for too long about their lives, or a meeting spent too long saying out an agenda and ground rules; weren’t these things distractions from our work, taking time away from writing proposals or responding to emails or making to do lists? This model was a revelation to me. I could immediately reframe the friendly banter as essential. The scientist in me with deep respect for protocols could easily see new value in documents from meeting agendas to employee handbooks. I was gratified to learn that results weren’t less important than relationships and process, but intertwined with them and mutually beneficial. And most happily, I had permission to be friends with the people I worked with both inside and outside of my organization! I imagine that the changes these ideas brought to my behavior was as welcome to my colleagues as it was to me.

I hope you find this model as revealing and freeing as I did.