Interfacing participation in citizen science projects with conversational agents
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15346/hc.v8i2.114Keywords:
chatbots, citizen science, engagement, machine learning, communicationAbstract
This paper assesses the use of conversational agents (chatbots) as an interface to enhance communication with participants in citizen science projects. After developing a study of the engagement and motivations to interact with chatbots, we explored our results. We based our analysis on the current needs exposed in citizen science literature to assess the opportunities. We found that chatbots are great communication platforms that can help to engage participants as an all-in-one interface. Chatbots can benefit projects in reducing the need for developing an exclusive app while it can be deployed on several platforms. Finally, we establish design suggestions to help citizen science practitioners to incorporate such platforms to new projects. We encourage the development of more advanced interfaces through the incorporation of Machine Learning to several processes.References
Amato, F., Marrone, S., Moscato, V., Piantadosi, G., Picariello, A., & Sansone, C. (2017). Chatbots meet ehealth: Automatizing healthcare. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1982, 40–49.
Androutsopoulou, A., Karacapilidis, N., Loukis, E., & Charalabidis, Y. (2019). Transforming the communication between citizens and government through AI-guided chatbots. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.10.001
Attridge-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107085301
Bickmore, T., & Cassell, J. (2005). Social Dialogue with Embodied Conversational Agents. In J. C. J. van Kuppevelt, L. Dybkjær, & N. O. Bernsen (Eds.), Advances in Natural Multimodal Dialogue Systems (pp. 23–54). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3933-6_2
Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Følstad, A. (2017). Why people use chatbots. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 10673 LNCS, pp. 377–392). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_30
Brenton, P., von Gavel, S., Vogel, E., & Lecoq, M.-E. (2019). Technology infrastructure for citizen science. In Citizen Science (pp. 63–80). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv550cf2.12
Celino, I., Calegari, G. R., & Fiano, A. (2016). Towards Talkin’Piazza: Engaging citizens through playful interaction with urban objects. In 2016 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2) (pp. 1–5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISC2.2016.7580809
Cvitanovic, C., van Putten, E. I., Hobday, A. J., Mackay, M., Kelly, R., McDonald, J., … Barnes, P. (2018). Building trust among marine protected area managers and community members through scientific research: Insights from the Ningaloo Marine Park, Australia. Marine Policy, 93(May), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.010
Eitzel, M. V, Cappadonna, J. L., Santos-Lang, C., Duerr, R. E., Virapongse, A., West, S. E., … Jiang, Q. (2017). Citizen Science Terminology Matters: Exploring Key Terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.96
European Commission. (2019). Building Trust in Human-Centric Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-building-trust-human-centric-artificial-intelligence
Gajendar, U. (2016). Empathizing with the smart and invisible. Interactions, 23(4), 24–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/2935195
Goebel, R. (2012). Intelligent Virtual Agents. In Y. Nakano, M. Neff, A. Paiva, & M. Walker (Eds.), 12th International Conference, IVA 2012, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, September, 12-14, 2012. Proceedings (Vol. 7502). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33197-8
Haklay, M. (2013). Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. In Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice (Vol. 9789400745, pp. 105–122). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2_7
Haklay, M. (2019). Participatory citizen science. In Citizen Science (pp. 52–62). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv550cf2.11
Heritage, J. (1991). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Wiley.
Hubal, R. C., Fishbein, D. H., Sheppard, M. S., Paschall, M. J., Eldreth, D. L., & Hyde, C. T. (2008). How do varied populations interact with embodied conversational agents? Findings from inner-city adolescents and prisoners. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1104–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.03.010
Independent High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. (2019). Definition of AI: Main Capabilities and Disciplines. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/ai-alliance-consultation/guidelines
Io, H. N., & Lee, C. B. (2018). Chatbots and conversational agents: A bibliometric analysis. IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2017–Decem, 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2017.8289883
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800109
Kieslinger, B., Schäfer, T., Heigl, F., Dörler, D., Richter, A., & Bonn, A. (2018). Evaluating Citizen Science: Towards an open framework. In Citizen Science - Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy (p. in press).
Kullenberg, C., & Kasperowski, D. (2016). What is citizen science? - A scientometric meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 11(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147152
Luger, E., & Sellen, A. (2016). “Like Having a Really Bad PA.” In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’16 (pp. 5286–5297). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858288
Lynch, M. (1994). Scientific practice and ordinary action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625473
Moore, R. J. (2018). Studies in Conversational UX Design. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95579-7
Okamoto, M., Yang, Y., & Ishida, T. (2001). Wizard of Oz Method for Learning Dialog Agents. In M. Klusch & F. Zambonelli (Eds.), Cooperative Information Agents V: 5th InternationalWorkshop, CIA 2001 Modena, Italy, September 6--8, 2001 Proceedings (pp. 20–25). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44799-7_3
Paikari, E., & Van Der Hoek, A. (2018). A framework for understanding chatbots and their future. Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering, 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3195836.3195859
Partala, T., Surakka, V., & Lahti, J. (2004). Affective Effects of Agent Proximity in Conversational Systems. In Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-computer Interaction (pp. 353–356). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1028014.1028070
Peters, C. B., Zhan, Y., Schwartz, M. W., Godoy, L., & Ballard, H. L. (2017). Trusting land to volunteers: How and why land trusts involve volunteers in ecological monitoring. Biological Conservation, 208, 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.029
Piccolo, L. S. G., Mensio, M., & Alani, H. (2019). Chasing the Chatbots. In Studies in Computational Intelligence (Vol. 342, pp. 157–169). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17705-8_14
Piccolo, L. S. G., Roberts, S., Iosif, A., & Alani, H. (2018). Designing chatbots for crises: A case study contrasting potential and reality. Proceedings of the 32nd International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference, HCI 2018. https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/HCI2018.56
Portela, M., & Granell-canut, C. (2017). A new friend in our Smartphone ? Observing Interactions with Chatbots in the search of emotional engagement. In Proceedings of Interacción ’17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3123818.3123826
Preece, J. (2016). Citizen Science: New Research Challenges for Human–Computer Interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7318(June), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1194153
Ruijten, P. A. M., Midden, C. J. H., & Ham, J. (2016). Ambiguous Agents: The Influence of Consistency of an Artificial Agent’s Social Cues on Emotion Recognition, Recall, and Persuasiveness. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(9), 734–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1193350
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Victoria (Vol. 1). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. In Language (Vol. 50, pp. 696–735). Linguistic Society of America. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/412243
Sangati, F., Abramova, E., & Monti, J. (2018). DialettiBot: A telegram bot for crowdsourcing recordings of Italian dialects. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2253.
Schröter, M., Kraemer, R., Mantel, M., Kabisch, N., Hecker, S., Richter, A., … Bonn, A. (2017). Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities. Ecosystem Services, 28, 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.017
Sharma, N., Greaves, S., Siddharthan, A., Anderson, H. B., Robinson, A., Colucci-Gray, L., … van der Wal, R. (2019). From citizen science to citizen action: Analysing the potential for a digital platform to cultivate attachments to nature. Journal of Science Communication, 18(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18010207
Shaw, B. J., Draux, H., García Martín, M., Martin, J., & Bieling, C. (2017). Contributions of citizen science to landscape democracy: potentials and challenges of current approaches. Landscape Research, 42(8), 831–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1385750
Shirk, J., Ballard, H. H. L., Wilderman, C. C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., … Bonney, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: a framework for intentional design. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04705-170229
Skarlatidou, A., Hamilton, A., Vitos, M., & Haklay, M. (2019). What do volunteers want from citizen science technologies? A systematic literature review and best practice guidelines. Journal of Science Communication, 18(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18010202
Skjuve, M. B., & Brandtzæg, P. B. (2018). Chatbots as a new user interface for providing health information to young people. In Y. Andersson, U. Dalquist, & J. Ohlsson (Eds.), Youth and news in a digital media - Nordic-Baltic perspectives (pp. 59–66).
Spiers, H., Swanson, A., Fortson, L., Simmons, B. D., Trouille, L., Blickhan, S., & Lintott, C. (2019). Everyone counts? Design considerations in online citizen science. Journal of Science Communication, 18(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18010204
Starkey, E., Parkin, G., Birkinshaw, S., Large, A., Quinn, P., & Gibson, C. (2017). Demonstrating the value of community-based (‘citizen science’) observations for catchment modelling and characterisation. Journal of Hydrology, 548, 801–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.019
Surmenok, P. (2016). Chatbot Architecture. Retrieved September 9, 2016, from https://medium.com/@surmenok/chatbot-architecture-496f5bf820ed#.29q6brn2u
Tallyn, E., Fried, H., Gianni, R., Isard, A., & Speed, C. (2018). The Ethnobot. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’18 (pp. 1–13). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174178
Tavanapour, N., Poser, M., & Bittner, E. A. C. (2019). Supporting the Idea Generation Process in Citizen Participation - Toward an Interactive System With a Conversational Agent As Citizen Participation - Toward an Interactive. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), 1–17.
Vallabh, P., Lotz-Sisitka, H., O’Donoghue, R., & Schudel, I. (2016). Mapping epistemic cultures and learning potential of participants in citizen science projects. Conservation Biology, 30(3), 540–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12701
Wallace, R. S. (2009). The Anatomy of A.L.I.C.E. In R. Epstein, G. Roberts, & G. Beber (Eds.), Parsing the Turing Test: Philosophical and Methodological Issues in the Quest for the Thinking Computer (pp. 181–210). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6710-5_13
Zamora, J. (2017). I’m Sorry, Dave, I’m Afraid I Can’t Do That. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction - HAI ’17 (Vol. 41, pp. 253–260). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3125739.3125766
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Human Computation
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
