Validity of Citizen Science: A qualitative and arts-based evaluation from the perspectives of citizens, academics, artists and ICT-specialists

Increasingly, academics and non-academics collaborate in citizen science projects. However, less attention is paid to the experiences of the validity of citizen science projects for all involved. This study gained insight into the validity experience based on the perspectives of all actively involved people in a Dutch citizen science study focusing on social innovation in public spaces. An evaluation design was used as a methodology, which contained a variety of qualitative and arts-based methods, including sessions, observations, and an open questionnaire. Six validity types of the International Collaboration of Participatory Health Research (ICPHR) were used, namely participatory, intersubjective, contextual, catalytic, empathic, and ethical validity. The results showed that stakeholders' validity-related experiences were 1) diversity in methodological approaches and timelines, 2) academic funding procedure and practice, 3) experiences of responsibility and ownership, and 4) increased empathy of all those actively involved. Experiences of validity of processes in citizen science could differ from the experiences of the outputs and outcomes of a project. Finally, this evaluation shows how qualitative and arts-based methods through the lens of validity could help exchange perspectives on the process of citizen science and (in)directly contribute to increasing empathy for each other's perspectives and approaches.