关键词: 公众科学, 欧文, 伯尼, 知识生产方式

Abstract: Since the concept of “citizen science” was put forward in the mid-1990s, it has gradually become a new research field. However, the question of "what is citizen science" remains an open one in academia because of the various forms and traditions in the field. This article identifies and compares two major approaches to citizen science, respectively represented by Rick Bonney’s practice-based tradition and Alan Irwin’s politically oriented approach. More specifically, the paper traces the origins of each approach and discusses their content, background, theoretical assumptions, as well as policy impacts. The practice-based citizen science originated from pragmatic reflections of a particular form of scientific practices in which the lay public and amateurs are recruited to execute pre-designed research projects. Based on a “deficit model”, it originally aims at facilitating scientific research by expanding its scope and lowering its cost, as well as improving the citizen participants’ scientific literacy. This practice-based approach has become a way of promoting science education and encouraging citizens to contribute to science, particularly in the United States. In contrast, the politically oriented citizen science was embedded in the theoretical reflections over technoscientific controversies and problematic science policies. It builds on a “dialogue model”, with the aim to explore the proper relationship between science and the wider society. Primarily popular in the European Union, this approach has been playing an important role in advancing the democratization of science and acknowledging citizens’ unique expertise and rights regarding technoscientific affairs. Despite the historical divergences between the two approaches, recent years have witnessed significant attempts to integrate these traditions. Such efforts have benefited from the increasing communications and encounters among scholars of both traditions, along with the growing institutional support to citizen science projects from both government agencies and research organizations. While we do not attempt to unify the definitions and approaches in citizen science, we argue that what characterizes “citizen science” is the novel mode of knowledge production in which citizens are participating as agents, rather than as objects, labor, or instrument. The term “agents” has two-fold implications: first, it acknowledges the participating citizen scientists’ unique expertise, skills, and creativity, and therefore recognizes their impacts and contributions to scientific research; second, it highlights that citizens are active rather than passive participants in citizen science projects, who are not purely the “means” but also the “ends”. Drawing on this new understanding of citizen science, the paper also explores the importance and key points of developing citizen science in China. Against China’s current sociotechnical background, citizen science projects have significant potential to contribute to knowledge production, science education, and technoscientific governance, among others. Citizen science is still in an emerging and preliminary stage in China, which has significant space for further development and professionalization and will benefit from organized promotion among scientists as well as citizens. Moreover, citizen science projects can join forces with the Chinese government’s long-term efforts in science popularization and enforce each other. Lastly, the development of citizen science in China should also be considered within the broader framework of science and technology governance and serve as a tunnel through which marginalized social groups and the general public can have their voices in the decision-making process.