Authors: Melike Şahinol, Uğur Kocager, Gülşah Başkavak, Ayşe Berna Uçarol
This blog post explores the increasing significance of Citizen Science and participatory knowledge production in Türkiye. Drawing on discussions from the workshop “Interdisciplinary Pathways of Participatory Knowledge – Methods, Case Studies, and Arts”, it examines how collaborative research practices, digital infrastructures, and interdisciplinary perspectives are reshaping the relationship between science and society.
In March 2026, researchers, artists, and civil society actors gathered to discuss the evolving role of Citizen Science in Türkiye. Rather than treating science and society as separate domains, the presentations and discussions highlighted how knowledge production increasingly depends on collaboration, situated expertise, and civic engagement.
Fig 1. Workshop participants. Emre Sünter, Gülşah Başkavak, Melike Şahinol, Pınar Demircan, Bengü Ergin Balta, Ayşe Berna Uçarol, Eser Epözdemir, Şafak Kılıçtepe, Uğur Kocager (From left to right).
The workshop, held at the Novotel Bosphorus from 10–11 March, was funded through the prize awarded to Dr. Melike Şahinol within the framework of the “Wissen der Vielen” (“Knowledge of the Many”) Citizen Science Award. The award is organized through the initiative “mit:forschen! Gemeinsam Wissen schaffen” by “Wissenschaft im Dialog” and the “Museum für Naturkunde Berlin”, and funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space. Bringing together perspectives from multiple disciplines, the workshop addressed broader questions of participatory knowledge production and the societal role of Citizen Science in Türkiye.
Fig 2. Workshop poster
From Participation to Co-Production
Citizen Science is often understood as involving non-academic participants in research—frequently through data collection or observation. However, the workshop emphasized a wider, more transformative perspective: participatory science as co-production of knowledge, in which citizens actively contribute to shaping research questions, interpreting data, and applying results.
That shift is crucial. It questions traditional hierarchies of knowledge and opens science to multiple forms of expertise—especially experiential and local knowledge. As discussed throughout the workshop, the depth of participation defines the difference: while Citizen Science can involve contribution, participatory science enables shared ownership of knowledge production.
At the same time, this change towards collaborative production takes on added significance in the context of algorithmic systems. As algorithms increasingly mediate how data is collected, classified, and interpreted, their impact extends from everyday applications to the very heart of scientific knowledge production. Citizen-generated data, digital platforms, and AI-driven analytical tools are no longer peripheral but constitutive elements of research processes. This development increases both the possibilities and risks of participatory science: while enabling broader participation and new forms of collaboration, it also raises critical questions about how algorithmic infrastructures shape what is considered knowledge, whose contributions are made visible, and how epistemic authority is redistributed. In this sense, Citizen Science is not only expanding but also entering a new phase where collaborative production takes place in deep socio-technical environments.
In this context, co-production is both an ethical and political commitment, not just a methodological choice. It requires researchers to create open, reflective, and accountable processes and to engage citizens as partners in determining priorities, research methods, and the public use of knowledge.
Citizen Science in Türkiye: Turning Participation into Shared Knowledge
In Türkiye, citizen science is still an emerging field with significant untapped potential. The workshop made clear that its relevance goes far beyond scholarly innovation:
- Citizen science democratizes science, reducing the divide between scientific institutions and society.
- It integrates local and experiential knowledge, especially in fields such as health, environment, and urban life.
- It promotes inclusive research practices, bringing excluded voices into scientific and technological development.
- It leverages digital infrastructures and maker communities, which are rapidly growing in Türkiye.
In a country shaped by complex social-political dynamics and fast technological transformation, these aspects are particularly significant. Citizen Science provides a framework for connecting local realities with global scientific challenges.
A further critical dimension concerns the growing role of everyday technologies that enable citizen science. Smartphones, personal computers, and widely accessible digital platforms have enabled individuals to collect, share, and interpret data in real time, considerably reducing barriers to participation. In Türkiye, where the adoption of mobile technologies and social media infrastructure is high, this creates fertile ground for the expansion of Citizen Scientific applications. However, this technology-related readiness should not be perceived as sufficient participation in knowledge production. The capacity to produce and circulate data does not automatically imply meaningful participation or epistemological recognition. For participation to become genuinely transformative, citizens must also be involved in deciding how data is interpreted, contextualized, and translated into public knowledge. Without attention to concerns such as data management, digital literacy, and the fair distribution of interpretive authority, these processes are likely to reproduce rather than transform existing hierarchies. Therefore, alongside technological enthusiasm, there is an urgent need to critically consider how and under what conditions citizens in Türkiye can truly contribute to and shape knowledge production.
Ultimately, the future of Citizen Science in Türkiye will depend not only on the availability of digital tools or participatory methods, but on the willingness to imagine science as a shared civic space. When citizens are acknowledged not only as data providers but also as co-thinkers, interpreters, and problem-solvers, Citizen Science gains a wider democratic role. It can become an infrastructure for knowledge production that is socially grounded and technologically informed. It can also respond more effectively to the complexities of everyday life.
A Workshop Across Disciplines
The two-day program reflected the interdisciplinary character of Citizen Science itself. Sessions ranged from epistemological questions of knowledge production to applied case studies in health, disability, and disaster contexts.
The program brought together participants from diverse institutional and disciplinary backgrounds. Following Melike Şahinol’s opening speech, the first day featured presentations by Pınar Demircan on epistemic justice in Citizen Science, Emre Sünter on science communication through microalgae-focused participatory ecologies, Gülşah Başkavak on women’s health and the politicization of bodily experiences in medical knowledge production, and Şafak Kılıçtepe on disability, digital health, and the socio-technical construction of participatory knowledge. The afternoon sessions broadened the discussion to disaster contexts and emerging technologies; Ayşe Berna Uçarol spoke on the limits and politics of participatory knowledge in post-earthquake Hatay, while Uğur Kocager discussed the transition from Citizen Science to participatory algorithms and community-centered artificial intelligence.
Fig 3. Dr. Kılıçtepe while giving her presentation.
Fig 4. Kocager, while giving his presentation.
On the second day, Eser Epözdemir offered an artistic perspective regarding inclusivity in art from both producers‘ and experiencers‘ viewpoints, while Melike Şahinol positioned Citizen Science and participatory science inside broader socio-technical frameworks and future trends. These contributions demonstrated the workshop’s broad engagement with epistemology, health, disability, disaster studies, art, science and technology studies, and artificial intelligence.
Fig 5. Dr. Sünter while reviewing Epözdemir’s presentation materials.
The discussions engaged with fundamental questions:
- Who produces knowledge—and whose knowledge is recognized as legitimate?
- How do everyday experiences become scientific, social, or even political knowledge?
- What socio-technical infrastructures enable participation?
Presentations addressed a wide range of topics including science communication, women’s health, digital health and disability, disaster response, and community-centered AI. Taken together, these contributions demonstrated that Citizen Science is not confined to a single discipline or method. Rather, it operates at the intersection of urgent societal issues, participatory research practices, and emerging technological infrastructures.
Beyond Science: The Role of Arts and Future Perspectives
A distinctive feature of the workshop was its strong engagement with artistic perspectives. Art was not treated as an add-on, but as a method of inquiry and participation. It enables alternative ways of expressing experience, engaging diverse participants, and considering the limits of scientific frameworks.
The final sessions turned toward the future: What will Citizen Science look like in the years to come?
Key themes of the workshop included collaborations between science and art, the development of community-centered approaches to AI, and emerging participatory research methods that seek to involve citizens more directly in the production of knowledge. Discussions focused not only on interdisciplinary experimentation, but also on the social and political dimensions of participation, expertise, and technological innovation.
The discussions also showed that citizen science is not a fixed model of research participation, but an evolving field shaped by technological innovation, social change, and new forms of collaboration. In this context, artistic practices play an important role by challenging conventional boundaries between expertise, creativity, and public engagement. Rather than reducing participation to data collection alone, such approaches expand how knowledge can be produced, communicated, and experienced collectively.
Fig 6. Workshop participants followed Epözdemir’s presentation.
Building Networks and Lasting Impact
One of the workshop’s most significant outcomes was the formation of new interdisciplinary networks. Researchers and practitioners from different fields came together to exchange ideas, discuss future collaborations, and initiate a joint publication project.
The planned edited volume will bring together theoretical and empirical perspectives on citizen science and participatory research. It aims to contribute to ongoing international debates on co-produced knowledge while highlighting current developments and research initiatives in Türkiye.
Citizen Science as a Bridge
The workshop demonstrated that citizen science is more than a research method. It creates spaces where scientific expertise, local experience, and public participation intersect in new ways. Throughout the event, discussions highlighted how participatory research is increasingly shaped by technological change, interdisciplinary collaboration, and broader societal concerns.
In the context of Türkiye, these approaches prompt important discussions about the role of public engagement in knowledge production and the social responsibilities of research. Rather than treating citizens merely as study or sources of data sources, citizen science foregrounds collaboration, shared expertise, and collective inquiry.
The workshop ultimately showed that citizen science is not only about producing knowledge differently but also about reconsidering how science relates to society, participation, and public life.
Fig 7. Workshop participants having dinner at the end of the first day.
Fig 8. Workshop program (2 pages)
Schreibe einen Kommentar