2,125
Views
45
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Citizen Science and Democracy: Participatory Water Monitoring in the Marcellus Shale Fracking Boom

Pages 88-110 | Published online: 30 Sep 2016
 

Abstract

Projections—the way that people collectively talk about the future—shape action in the present. This sociological observation has implications for citizen science initiatives that aim to confront powerful industries and produce social change. When people participate in citizen science associations—such as watershed monitoring organizations, the subject of this study—their actions and democratic sensibilities are affected by the ways that organizers and other volunteers project the future uses of the environmental data they are collecting. In this case, hundreds of people are participating in volunteer watershed monitoring groups in response to the “fracking” boom in the northeastern United States. Most of these efforts emphasize the collection of “baseline” data, which they view as essential to future efforts to hold polluters accountable. However, these projects tend to channel public concern about fracking toward future scientific controversies, instead of political action now to prevent pollution. Furthermore, baseline watershed monitoring efforts reinforce the epistemology of regulatory agencies, rather than generating alternative forms of knowledge about watershed health. Organizers actively work to convince volunteers that their work has meaning and that they are being empowered, but future-oriented data collection is often at odds with volunteers’ current-day motivations. Scholars and activists have often heralded citizen science as a way to radically democratize environmental governance; however, to achieve this, citizen science must project futures that stimulate transformative actions in the present.

Acknowledgements

Simona Perry contributed to the early stages of this research, including conceptualization of the project and the design and administration of the survey of watershed groups. Kirk Jalbert assisted with data collection, including participant observation and interviews, as well as analysis of survey data. I am tremendously grateful for their significant contributions, which made possible the analysis presented in this paper. I also wish to thank the organizers of and participants in the When Nature and Numbers (Don’t) Meet Workshop, held in Madison, Wisconsin, in 2014, for offering insightful feedback on an early version of this paper and encouragement to develop it further. I also thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editors of this special issue for their insightful and constructive feedback.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Data about monitoring groups’ activities is presented by FracTracker on an interactive map here: http://maps.fractracker.org/latest/?webmap=4ae61ecb0b4645ba9fa531e0890a2f6a.

2 To maintain the confidentiality of informant identities, people quoted in this paper are identified with a code number, which consists of the date of the interview or field observation, followed by an identifying number.

Additional information

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under [grant number 1126235].

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 286.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.