the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 29 Sep 2026
Co-designed citizen science insights for geoscientists: making sense of complex relations
Abstract. Citizen science can expand data collection and connect research with society, but involving non‑scientific stakeholders introduces complex relations that challenge conventional geoscientific practice. This paper examines these dynamics through the lens of ISOSCAN, an interdisciplinary project that co‑designed a citizen science programme for collecting stable water isotope samples across Scandinavia. Co-design workshops, prototype testing and the analysis of five vignettes (short narratives) authored by scientists were used to uncover these complex relations. Three themes emerged: epistemic tensions between scientific precision and diverse stakeholder objectives; mutual learning that reshapes disciplinary assumptions and practical protocols; and the centrality of trust and iterative processes over strict methodological control. We make sense of the complex relations and offer insights into how co-designed citizen science can promote interdisciplinarity and methodological innovation in geoscience.
- Preprint
(953 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Nov 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5504', Christine Yiqing Liang, 21 Oct 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 278 | 94 | 44 | 416 | 55 | 49 |
- HTML: 278
- PDF: 94
- XML: 44
- Total: 416
- BibTeX: 55
- EndNote: 49
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Janne Liburd
Ann Eileen Lennert
Benjamin Fischer
Andrea L. Popp
Mahaut de Vareilles
Costijn Zwart
Harald Sodemann
As scientists increasingly work with citizens and other stakeholders, collaboration becomes more valuable, but also more challenging. The example of the ISOSCAN research project on water forecasting shows how co-designing research activities can foster learning, trust, and new ways of thinking about scientific work, thereby benefiting research outcomes and the scientists involved. Tensions between different perspectives can become opportunities for reflection, learning and innovation.
As scientists increasingly work with citizens and other stakeholders, collaboration becomes...
Referee report for egusphere-2026-5504
Manuscript title: Co-designed citizen science insights for geoscientists: making sense of complex relations
General comments
This manuscript presents a well-structured qualitative investigation into the complex relations of co-designing a geosciences citizen science initiative. It’s honestly so refreshing to see a take on citizen science that explores the candid side like power dynamics and methodological compromises instead of just the sanitised optics version. The authors thoughtfully apply a qualitative reflexive thematic analysis to their five geoscientist vignettes to examine the genuine tensions, anxieties, and power relations that emerge when natural scientists work with citizen scientists.
The paper's primary strength lies in its theoretical contribution: it convincingly demonstrates that while co-design requires navigating significant operational complexity and "productive discomfort," it ultimately acts as a catalyst for epistemic innovation and vastly expands empirical reach. The manuscript is very well-written, theoretically grounded, highly relevant to modern interdisciplinary practice, and above all, really genuine. I recommend this manuscript for publication subject to minor structural reorganisations (clarifying the distinction between the project's case context in Section 3 and the paper's vignette methodology in Section 4) and minor technical corrections.
Specific comments
33-35 I appreciate that the authors are making the statement that citizen science is widely recognised as a useful data collection tool but it’s a bit of a citation dump. Just a recommendation, but I suggest culling down to a few of the most cited or representative to improve readability.
96 “professional citizen” sounds a bit like someone who’s profession is to be a citizen. I think I understand what you mean (as in a citizen who does the task as a profession, or a professional scientist), but it sounds ambiguous when worded like that.
178 because Section 3 was titled Co-designing citizen science... and Section 4 was titled Data and method: Using vignettes, a reader could think (I did, anyways) "Wait, are the workshops the method, or are the vignettes the method?" It was a bit confusing for me. Maybe Section 3 could be renamed to make it clear to readers that it is the case context and not the methods.
365 I just quickly checked this reference since it was a preprint and the DOI link says there is a journal article based on the preprint – is the information you cite also in the journal article? If so, it is probably better to cite the final published article
Technical corrections
53 “…remake and influence interpretive practices…”
82 the term citizen science is not a strictly defined… what? (missing a word or extra a)
171 pp. 231-232
173 “It aims to ensure…of interpretation.” This sentence sounds awkward to me
177 “that” is written two times
263 and 396 double line breaks
364 no space between page and number in the citation
413 “…citizen scientists’ surface snow and water samples.”
432 “Cognizant of the study limitations of only involving five geoscientists and a limited number of co-design participants…”