Biodiversity citizen science—the volunteer monitoring of flora and fauna—is an activity that gathers people with varying interests in nature to report sighted species to standardised information systems. Knowledge interests include for example amateur botany, butterfly monitoring and birdwatching. The data that these reports amount to are subsequently used for research and policy purposes alike.

When I explored this empirical setting as part of my doctoral studies, I found a site imbued with information practices such as observing, identifying and reporting species. But also, one where participants’ reputations are tied to being able to correctly classify and report found species. Even though participation in biodiversity citizen science—in theory—can be done by anyone, there are high stakes among the engaged participants when it comes to how soft values are formed. As in most settings in which newcomers set their foot, the perceived risk of being at fault might risk scaring off the interested novice.

While it does not take much to get started as a participant, continued involvement seems to be a tougher nut to crack. The number of participants has increased due to technical innovations, but recent research finds that there are still great age and gender imbalances in the participant pool. This study exposes an overrepresentation of participants who identify as male in these projects, which have implications both when it comes to who is considered trustworthy, and even regarding which species are being reported. As per the study, the information systems used to report and document species occurrences reinforce these values. So, while there has been a clear increase in new, non-male participants, many newcomers stagnate in their participation.

To mitigate the decrease in activity among these new participants, information systems for the volunteer reporting of species observations could to a larger extent make visible paradata on how species are observed and identified in practice. Implicit knowledge about observation methods can thereby be disclosed and learning thresholds can be lowered. This in turn can drop entrance barriers for new participants, make knowledge in formation transparent and eventually prompt participant diversity.

In my own research on how species observations are translated to species reports in information systems, it was found that data on how observations are carried out are scarce at best and invisible at worst. This is an issue because the methods that have been used to observe, identify and submit species are often concealed for new participants. One example would involve the many physical doings performed in the field when identifying wildflowers. These activities include kneeling on the ground, twisting and turning buds and roses, and comparing characteristics among peers. While such doings may turn out to be integral to the unambiguous distinction of species, they are seldomly recorded in the information systems.

There is a great potential in prompting practitioners to register the breadth of fieldwork activities to an increasing extent. By doing so, the methods recorded in the reported data can be highlighted and emphasised from the platform side. This, in turn, can demystify activities occurring in the setting and enable a new and hopefully more diverse set of participants. What is more, paradata reported by committed participants could be leveraged to illuminate what is important when identifying certain species. Details of particular interest previously submitted could hence be viewed in retrospect by newcomers and inform the work that is to come. Essentially, it is a question of outreach and to be able to consider new uses for the data already at hand.

Finally, an important point to keep in mind is that there is no uniformity among information systems that are used for recording species observations. Some of these serve to provide national coverage of species sightings; others serve to cover sightings across the whole planet. Yet others combine data from the two former platforms, as well as from solely scientific sources. The data submitted and maintained by these information systems are highly granular and comprehensive in scale. Making use of the knowledge transformed to and imbued in the submitted reports could serve learning purposes by creating, for instance, new platforms for newcomers to learn how to carry out work. The abundance of data is important for our understanding of biodiversity. The gist of it is that the data’s bits and pieces could also be used to provide ground for newly initiated participants to continue to be engaged with the activity at hand.

At the end of the day, it is crucial for citizen science projects to sustain the motivation and interest of their participants, and especially of their new recruits. I would argue that by offering participants previously registered paradata as a means to continue learning through observing could help ensure that newcomers remain active in the community. Volunteers engaged in biodiversity citizen science provide present-day species data that shape our understanding of flora and fauna. It should be in everyone’s interest to ensure that all participants—and especially those new to the setting—are able to contribute to the volunteer-painted picture of Earth’s biodiversity.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Wout Dillen for thorough and helpful comments on the article manuscript.