[pvaldes]

I find the term "citizen scientist" really annoying. Either you are a scientist or you aren't. If you do science you are a scientist. Point. No need to add any other adjetive. Science should not act like a club with first class and second class members.

[derefr]

> Science should not act like a club with first class and second class members.

Science isn’t the club; academia is.

Normally, when we say “scientist”, we mean “academic scientist”—i.e. someone who does science specifically for the enculturated ideals of academia (e.g. the advancement of common knowledge) using the process of academia (e.g. writing papers and sending them off to journals, attending conferences, etc.)

(You might define “academic scientist” in other ways, with something about a treadmill of papers and grants, but I would point out that any definition of academic science has to include tenured science professors, who aren’t subject to the same forces.)

Since academia (i.e. the global cooperation of academics to further knowledge by writing, reading and reviewing papers) is seen, by academics, as an unalloyed good, they see scientists who don’t take part in said academia to be doing something strange, something perhaps sub-optimal for the furthering of scientific knowledge.

And I feel like that’s maybe true, but also often misjudged: many “citizen scientists” are actually academic scientists. They may not be funded by a university or submit papers to Nature, but they collaborate and are in constant communication with people who do, such that their work isn’t advancing the boundaries of science any less optimally than their own work is.

Just the first example off the top of my head: Destin Sandlin, who some might call a “citizen scientist” (he’s a YouTuber who does science journalism but also often his own scientific experiments) works more heavily with “academic scientists” to do his experiments, than most University grad students ever even bother to do. He might be a “travelling” scientist instead of belonging to any particular institution, but he’s certainly an academic through-and-through.

[erikpukinskis]

Academia is a patrilineal network. It has nothing to do with conferences or journals (which exist outside of academia). It’s a simple matter of whether you can convince a committee of past PhDs to declare that you too have earned a PhD. That earns you the right to be on a PhD committee for someone else, and to be hired as “an academic”.

Then repeat the whole process except instead of a PhD, it’s tenure.

It’s purely a membership based organization. It’s a federation of treehouses with a rope ladders.

[derefr]

People confuse academia with credentialism. Credentialism is a parasite that has long infested academia (ever since nobles wanted to send their children to study under the famous Greek philosophers) and now presents as its face. But academia existed long before Universities gave out credentials; in fact, long before Universities had undergraduate programs.

The Universities were, originally, just cloisters of academic scientists doing research (and sharing lab space), that you—as another academic scientist—would visit to exchange knowledge. And, guess what? Universities are still that. You don’t need to have a Ph.D (or the desire to gain one) to travel to any random University campus, walk into a research laboratory, and exchange knowledge with the people there. The core function of academia still goes on, though it is encircled by the parasite of credentialism. Or you can avoid Universities, and just work with academics directly through academic organizations, like one of the many Royal Societies in the Commonwealth, or through “industrial-academic partnership” organizations like the IETF.

Academia still exists even at the heart of purely-industrial think tanks, and government organizations, as long as they hire people with the enculturated mindset of academia. You think you can’t just walk into NASA, or Boston Dynamics, and ask their research scientists stuff? You can. Because they’re academic scientists, and so they will exchange knowledge with you (as another academic scientist) and consider it part of their vocation, whether it counts as paid job-hours or not.

[carapace]

I share your egalitarian spirit, but I you're a little off here.

I don't think there's anything demeaning or low-class in being a "citizen scientist" or an amateur (which means someone who does something for the love of it, "ama"). And I think it's proper to give respect to those who have gone the distance to become professional scientists. Certainly the few scientists I've been honored to meet pretty much are on a different level than us amateurs.

[mattnewton]

It’s useful to talk about people who are self funded/ directed vs people who are part of an institution like a corporation or university.

[pvaldes]

Why is this so necessary currently? Nobody describes Einstein as a citizen scientist even when its main contributions were self funded. Describing Darwin, Mendel or Tesla as citizen scientists would be plain ridiculous. Science is not a religion, is a tool.

[dmix]

It’s pretty informal. I believe you’re reading too far into it.

Like most words it covers an inexact group of things often relevant to the context it’s used. From the context we can understand ‘citizen scientist’ to mean some curious old/young person in their garage (not literally always their garage) doing it for fun. Which itself doesn’t have to exclude the professionals with a side project.

[mellosouls]

This has also now spread to the world of software development, in the context of large management consultancies selling services to companies that want software without those pesky expensive Devs.

Strangely enough, I have been unable to find their definition for Citizen Management Consultants...

https://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/citizen-developer/

[inflatableDodo]

'Citizen Developer' sounds a bit like a corporate euphemism for a guard job at a gulag for political dissidents.

[devxpy]

How do you define an expensive developer though? I mean in academia you have paperwork to prove it, but what are the criteria for distinct here?

[notpeter]

> Either you are a scientist or you aren't. If you do science you are a scientist. Point. No need to add any other adjective. Science should not act like a club with first class and second class members.

I hear you, but I'm curious why "citizen" sounds diminutive to your ear. Alternatives I've heard people use are "amatuer", "non-professional" or "backyard" scientist which all have a negative connotation to me. Honestly, I think using "citizen scientist" is to differentiate themselves from non-scientists who claim to be performing science:

1. Professional Scientists (professionals educated in a particular field of science) 2. Citizen Scientists (people attempting to do science, who recognize they are not professionals) 3. Self-described "scientists" (people ignore scientific method and reject science conflicting with their beliefs: industry lobbyists, homeopaths, flat-earthers, etc)

By making space for second-class members it means you can more easily have a club of people trying to do science (#1 and #2) and exclude #3 who seek to hijack science for their own personal purposes.

[pvaldes]

Sounds right "citizen politician", "citizen journalist", "citizen dishwasher" or "citizen greengrocer"?. The opposite term to citizen is foreigner/immigrant. Should we start describing scientist in terms of foreigner and non-foreigner scientists? Related to where? The city that holds the headquarters of the scientific journal?

Lets call things by their name. Citizen scientists is just another euphemism for precariat.

[michaelmrose]

Science often requires if no other resource extensive time and it comes to pass people out there will pay you to invest your time in it only if you are a first class member as attested to by a degree and position. Most of the people who are indeed first class end up as first class members.

Citizen scientist seems to me to denote that one is actually a scientist despite lacking credentials unlike the 5000 other crackpots. To call someone who has no credentials a scientist would be misleading thus the term has utility and meaning.