Participatory research: a tool for restoring trust in science

Scru­tin­ising insects on wind­screens, identi­fy­ing birds in gar­dens… Par­ti­cip­at­ory research pro­jects are on the rise. What sets them apart? They involve sci­ent­ists and civil soci­ety act­ors in the pro­duc­tion of sci­entif­ic know­ledge. In 2025, the Éthique en com­mun com­mit­tee issued a detailed opin­ion on the subject¹.

Yes, cer­tainly, as par­ti­cipants in these pro­jects often change their per­cep­tion of sci­ence. Some stud­ies show that their trust increases in a reasoned and sus­tain­able way thanks to a bet­ter under­stand­ing of the sci­entif­ic meth­od, and of the uncer­tain­ties and lim­it­a­tions inher­ent in all sci­entif­ic work.

The rela­tion­ship between soci­ety and sci­ence is com­plex. It is char­ac­ter­ised by a shift between fas­cin­a­tion and mis­trust, as the Cov­id-19 crisis has so clearly illus­trated. But the rise of mis­in­form­a­tion – on health and cli­mate issues – seems to reveal a real divide between sci­entif­ic insti­tu­tions and a sec­tion of the public.

Advances in our under­stand­ing high­light the need for us to change our beha­viour in many areas, such as cli­mate sci­ence. How­ever, the pub­lic­a­tion of sci­entif­ic reports high­light­ing the dangers of our life­styles is not always well received.

Cit­izen sci­ence offers a dir­ect exper­i­ence of the know­ledge-pro­duc­tion pro­cess; no oth­er form of sci­entif­ic com­mu­nic­a­tion can fully rep­lic­ate this.

Sci­ent­ists at the Nation­al Museum of Nat­ur­al His­tory have car­ried out a but­ter­fly sur­vey based on act­ive cit­izen par­ti­cip­a­tion. Their study shows that some par­ti­cipants not only learnt to identi­fy spe­cies but also changed their prac­tices by sig­ni­fic­antly redu­cing the use of pesti­cides in their gar­dens fol­low­ing this experience². Sim­il­arly, when res­id­ents of an urb­an neigh­bour­hood take part in meas­ur­ing tem­per­at­ures on their streets, they become both pro­du­cers of sci­entif­ic data and dir­ect wit­nesses to cli­mate change.

Par­ti­cip­at­ory research is not a passing fad or a mere data-col­lec­tion tech­nique. It is an invit­a­tion to fun­da­ment­ally rethink the rela­tion­ship between soci­ety and sci­ence, which has for too long been viewed as a one-way flow – from the spe­cial­ist to the layperson.

Ori­gin­ally, it was seen as a means of over­com­ing the dif­fi­culties of data col­lec­tion in cer­tain dis­cip­lines, such as the nat­ur­al sci­ences. For ento­mo­lo­gists, it would simply be impossible to carry out cer­tain research without a net­work of volun­teers.

How­ever, our report high­lights sev­er­al mile­stones that have legit­im­ised and amp­li­fied a pro­gress­ive insti­tu­tion­al move­ment: the cre­ation of the Charter for Par­ti­cip­at­ory Sci­ence and Research in 2017³, the intro­duc­tion of the ‘Sci­ence with and for Soci­ety’ label, and so on. We see the same dynam­ics at an inter­na­tion­al level, as demon­strated by the United Nations’ recog­ni­tion in 2024 of every human being’s right to par­ti­cip­ate in science⁴. Sci­ent­ists are chan­ging their atti­tude: today, it is no longer pos­sible to evade the pub​lic’s questions.

Con­tem­por­ary chal­lenges are becom­ing increas­ingly com­plex, encom­passing a wide range of factors – social, eco­nom­ic, tech­nic­al and envir­on­ment­al. Remain­ing con­fined to a research labor­at­ory is not enough to grasp this com­plex­ity. Par­ti­cip­at­ory research brings to light issues linked to cit­izens’ con­cerns.

This not only enables the pro­duc­tion of action­able know­ledge, use­ful for trans­form­ing the world, but also helps to com­bat a well-doc­u­mented struc­tur­al bias. Indeed, sci­entif­ic agen­das are largely shaped by indus­tri­al interests, and cer­tain top­ics remain in the blind spot of research. I am think­ing, for example, of geoen­gin­eer­ing, a highly explor­at­ory sub­ject but one sup­por­ted by very wealthy found­a­tions. Par­ti­cip­at­ory research breaks through this logic.

Yes, it is fully part of a move­ment towards the demo­crat­isa­tion of research. I am cur­rently work­ing on pro­mot­ing domest­ic elec­tric cook­ing in Africa as an altern­at­ive to the use of wood and char­coal. The use of these tra­di­tion­al fuels has harm­ful impacts on health, agri­cul­tur­al pro­ductiv­ity, biod­iversity and the envir­on­ment in gen­er­al. Yet, so far, sci­ent­ists have not suc­ceeded in rais­ing suf­fi­cient aware­ness among either the pub­lic or decision-makers about the scale of this prob­lem. Involving cit­izens in research pro­jects on this issue would not only help to raise col­lect­ive aware­ness but also to bet­ter doc­u­ment the impacts, par­tic­u­larly on the most mar­gin­al­ised com­munit­ies. Such an approach could also help to per­suade decision-makers to make this issue one of their pri­or­it­ies for action.

By provid­ing evid­ence linked to cit­izens’ con­cerns, par­ti­cip­at­ory research can also help shift decision-makers’ per­cep­tions. Thus, as the Eth­ics Com​mit​tee’s report high­lights, par­ti­cip­at­ory sci­ence and research con­trib­ute to the ongo­ing devel­op­ment of the pub­lic interest and the prop­er func­tion­ing of democracy.

Yes, we have iden­ti­fied sev­er­al cat­egor­ies of risk. The first is that of mutu­al exploit­a­tion. On the one hand, sci­ent­ists may be temp­ted to form oppor­tun­ist­ic part­ner­ships with organ­isa­tions in order to raise funds, without genu­inely involving those organ­isa­tions in the pro­ject. On the oth­er hand, interest groups may use par­ti­cip­at­ory research to obtain sci­entif­ic back­ing for a pre­de­ter­mined pos­i­tion. The pro­lif­er­a­tion of research pro­jects at the loc­al level can also frag­ment the research agenda.

It is also essen­tial to take cer­tain pre­cau­tions with regard to the com­munit­ies involved. Par­ti­cip­at­ory research can some­times repro­duce, or even exacer­bate, pre-exist­ing inequal­it­ies. This is par­tic­u­larly the case when people from dis­ad­vant­aged back­grounds do not have a firm grasp of the lin­guist­ic codes or sci­entif­ic con­cepts used in dis­cus­sions. Their views may then be dis­missed by research­ers, even though they offer genu­ine insight into their lived exper­i­ences and environment.

Par­tic­u­lar care must be taken in the Glob­al South, where power imbal­ances cre­ate a sig­ni­fic­ant risk of the appro­pri­ation or plun­der­ing of know­ledge. Indi­gen­ous know­ledge con­sti­tutes a resource in its own right. It is there­fore essen­tial to estab­lish mech­an­isms guar­an­tee­ing its recog­ni­tion, pro­tec­tion and the equit­able shar­ing of bene­fits arising from its use.

Finally, par­ti­cip­at­ing in a research pro­ject takes time. How­ever, for com­munit­ies that are already vul­ner­able, the time spent on research may rep­res­ent a loss of income or a missed oppor­tun­ity for work. It is there­fore neces­sary to con­sider appro­pri­ate forms of com­pens­a­tion and recog­ni­tion for participants.

Interview by Anaïs Marechal