Tecnologia cívica e ciência comunitária
um novo modelo de participação pública em decisões ambientais
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v13i1.3899Palavras-chave:
Ciência Comunitária, Pesquisa Ambiental, Práticas de Fonte Aberta, Rede de Ciência AbertaResumo
Desde seu inicio, o Public Lab tem sido uma comunidade aberta que desenvolve e usa tecnologias cívicas para enfrentar problemas definidos pela comunidade e questões ambientais também identificadas pela comunidade. Organizada como uma comunidade global sem fins lucrativos com escritórios em vários estados americanos, Public Lab introduz um modelo de ciência comunitária que incorpora práticas de fonte aberta incluindo a colaboração transparente e desenho iterativo, junto com a governança deliberativa democrática e o empoderamento dos participantes pelo fazer (making) crítico apoiado por uma rede de ciência aberta. A ciência comunitária capacita os membros de uma comunidade a coletar, interpretar e aplicar seus próprios dados para efetuar a mudança local para efetuar a mudança local ou participar de movimentos mais amplos de pesquisa ambiental e tomada de decisões. Os autores conceituam uma abordagem em camadas do desenvolvimento de projetos, sendo as camadas delineadas pelo escopo dos objetivos da comunidade e do papel exercido pela ciência comunitária em atingi-los. A Camada 1 inclui a ciência performativa usada para envolver o público, mas sem uma aplicação direta para os objetivos da comunidade. A Camada 2 envolve a ciência comunitária criada e conduzida pelos membros visando objetivos relevantes para a comunidade. A Camada 3 incorpora parceiros institucionais , partindo de dados da comunidade em processo colaborativo visando atingir objetivos com implicações mais abrangentes. Exemplos apresentados de projetos de cada Camada demonstram a versatilidade da ciência comunitária assim como seu potencial de facilitar a participação pública na tomada de decisões ambientais em múltiplos níveis.
Referências
Ashkenas, R. (2015). There’s a Difference Between Cooperation and Collaboration. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2015/04/theres-a-difference-between-cooperation-and-collaboration
Bessette, J.M. (1980). Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government. In R.A. Goldwin & W.A. Schambra (Eds.), How Democratic Is the Constitution? (pp.102-116) Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Bilton, N. (2010). Taking on the Gulf Oil Spill with Kites and Cameras. Retrieved from the New York Times: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/hacking-the-gulf-oil-spill-with-kites-and-cameras/?_r=0
Blair, D. (2014). Coqui BBv1.0. Retrieved from Public Lab: https://publiclab.org/notes/donblair/09-30-2014/coqui-bbv1-0
Christensen, Clayton. (2013). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Cambridge: Harvard Business Review Press.
Clauds, Firas and Mustafa10. (2015). Lessons from Mapping Bourj Al Shamali Refugee Camp in Lebanon. Retrieved from Public Lab: https://publiclab.org/notes/claudsmm/08-23-2015/lessons-from-mapping-bourj-al-shamali-refugee-camp
Coleman, G. (2013). Coding Freedom: The ethics and aesthetics of hacking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Collins, H. (2014). Are we all scientific experts now? Cambridge: Polity Press
D’Ignazio, C. (2016). Environmental Data Comedy Workshop at Middlebury College. Retreived from PublicLab.org: https://publiclab.org/notes/kanarinka/01-22-2016/environmental-data-comedy-workshop-at-middlebury-college
Diebner, H.H. (2006). Performative Science and Beyond: Involving the Process in Research. Vienna: Springer Vienna Architecture.
DigitalGov. (2016). Federal Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science. Retrieved from DigitalGov: https://www.digitalgov.gov/communities/federal-crowdsourcing-and-citizen-science/
DiSalvo, C. (2009). Design and the Construction of Publics. Design Issues, 25(1), 48-63.
Dosemagen, S. (2016). Personal communication with Scott Eustis between April and August 2016.
Eaves, D. (2014). Building Power Through Data Sharing: Issues and opportunities for environmental health and justice funders. Retrieved from Health and Environmental Funders Network: http://www.hefn.org/learn/resource/building_power_through_data_sharing_issues_opportunities_environmental_health_justice
Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Draft EJ 2020 Action Agenda Framework. Retrieved from EPA.gov: http://www3.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ej2020/draft-framework.pdf
Epstein, S. (1995). The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology and Human Values, 20(4), 408-437.
Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, Experts and Environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham: Duke University Press.
Fisher, W.R. (1987). Human Communication as Narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Fortun, K. and Fortun, M. (2005). Scientific Imaginaries and Ethical Plateaus in Contemporary U.S. Toxicology. American Anthropologist 107(1), 43-54.
Gehrke, G., Warren, J., Dosemagen, S., Blair, D. (2015). Intended Purposes for Different Tools and Techniques. Retrieved from Public Lab: https://publiclab.org/notes/gretchengehrke/10-07-2015/intended-purposes-for-different-tools-and-techniques
Gulf Restoration Network. (2015). The Fight Against the RAM Coal Export Terminal. Retrieved from Gulf Restoration Network: http://healthygulf.org/our-work/energy-climate-change/coast-not-coal
Hoffman, K. (2011). From Science Based Legal Advocacy to Community Organizing: Opportunities and obstacles to transforming patterns of expertise and access. In G. Ottinger and B.R. Cohen (Eds.), Technoscience and Environmental Justice (pp.41-62). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Howe, J. (2006). The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Retrieved from Wired: http://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/
Interdisciplinary Laboratory for Art Nature and Dance. (2012). iLab Residency Archive. Retrieved from iLab: http://www.ilandart.org/ilab/higher-ed/
Kavis, M. (2015). Forget big data-- small data is driving the Internet of Things. Retrieved from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikekavis/2015/02/25/forget-big-data-small-data-is-driving-the-internet-of-things/#2715e4857a0b2cc03ad9661b
Kinsella, W.J. (2004). Public Expertise: A foundation for citizen participation in energy and environmental decisions. In S.P DePoe, J.W. Delicath and M.F.A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and Participation in Environmental Decision Making (pp. 83-95). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kelty, C. (2008). Two Bits: The cultural significance of software. Durham: Duke University Press.
Kuhn, T. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
McClintock, A. (2012). Slow Violence and the BP Spill Crisis in the Gulf of Mexico: Militarizing Environmental Catastrophe. Hemispheric Institute E-Misferica. Volume 9.1-9.2. Retrieved from: http://hemisphericinstitute.org/hemi/en/e-misferica-91/mcclintock
Ottinger, G. (2011). Rupturing Engineering Education: Opportunities for transforming expert identities through community-based projects. In G. Ottinger and B.R. Cohen (Eds.), Technoscience and Environmental Justice (pp. 229-249). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Phillips, M. (2010). Photographers say BP restricts access to oil spill. Retrieved from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/photographers-say-bp-restricts-access-oil-spill-72849
Peters, J. (2010). Efforts to limit the flow of spill news. Retrieved from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/us/10access.html?pagewanted=all
Pollock. (2013). Forget Big data, small data is the real revolution. Retrieved from Open Knowledge Blog: http://blog.okfn.org/2013/04/22/forget-big-data-small-data-is-the-real-revolution/
Preston, E. (2015). Handmade Boats Bring Citizen Science to the Mystic River. Retrieved from the Boston Globe: http://www.betaboston.com/news/2015/09/16/handmade-boats-take-tour-of-citizen-science/
Ratto, M. (2011). Critical Making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. The Information Society 27(4), 252-260.
Resnick, M., Berg, R., Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond Black Boxes: Bringing transparency and aesthetics back into science. Journal of the Learning Sciences 9(1), 1-21.
Saraceno, T. (2016). Aerocene. Retrieved from: http://www.aerocene.com/
Shirk, J. L., Ballard, H. L. Wilderman, C. C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Minarchek, M., Lewenstein, B. V., Krasny, M. E., and Bonney, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society 17(2): 29.
Sutter, J.D. (2010). Citizens Monitor Gulf Coast after Oil Spill. Retrieved from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/06/crowdsource.gulf.oil/index.html
Toyama, K. (2015). Geek Heresy: Rescuing social change from the cult of technology. New York: PublicAffairs.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. (2015). Consent Decree: Gulf Restoration Network, et al. v. United Bulk Terminals Davant, LLC - Case 14-cv-00608. Retrieved from: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9TzfQJ7Qw4GcHdFMkVzM1NXbkxJV1p5bXo0aHp6RnIzS2p3/view
Warren, J. and Dosemagen, S. (2011). Reimagining the Data Lifecycle. Retrieved from Public Lab: https://publiclab.org/notes/warren/07-01-2014/reimagining-the-data-lifecycle
Warren, J. (2013). The Promise of ‘Small’ Data. Retrieved from TechPresident: http://techpresident.com/news/24176/backchannel-promise-small-data
Williams, R., Kilaru, V., E. Snyder, A. Kaufman, T. Dye, A. Rutter, A. Russell, and H. Hafner. (2014). Air Sensor Guidebook. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Wisconsin DNR. (2016). DNR funds volunteer monitoring efforts. Retrieved from Wisconsin DNR: http://dnr.wi.gov/news/Weekly/Article/?id=3672
Wylie, S., Kirk, J., Dosemagen, S., and Ratto, M. (2014). Institutions for Civic Technoscience: How Critical Making is Transforming Environmental Research. The Information Society, Special issue: Critical Making as Research Program. 30(2),116-126.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2025 Shannon Dosemagen, Gretchen Gehrke
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Autores que publicam na Liinc em Revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
Autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional, que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
Consulte a Política de Acesso Livre e Autoarquivamento para informações permissão de depósitos de versões pré-print de manuscritos e artigos submetidos ou publicados à/pela Liinc em Revista.
Liinc em Revista, publicada pelo Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia, é licenciada sob os termos da Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional – CC BY 4.0 
