That moment when you realize how little you actually know


I like to call it an antipiphany* – that striking realization of the magnitude of what can be known, which reduces what you actually understand to a paltry amount.

I’ve seen it again and again with graduate students: they enroll feeling like smarty-pants, and within a year they are humbled by an antipiphany. Eventually settling into the comfort of not-knowing-it-all, they are motivated for discoveries, open to an epiphany.

Now a study by Aaron Price and Hee-Sun Lee found that participants in a citizen-science project, Citizen Sky, evaluated their own knowledge about science as lower after 6 months in the project compared to when they started the project.

What was the nature of participants’ apparent antipiphany? Through interviews, Price and Lee confirmed that participants developed a greater appreciation for how much they did not know and for how much they could potentially learn.

This appreciation was in conjunction with an increase in positive attitudes towards science. During those same 6 months, participants tended to seek out more science news and even other citizen-science projects. Realizing how little they knew simply drove them to want to know more.

A common message from citizen science projects is an empowering emphasis on the expertise that participants bring to the table. But does that emphasis encourage learning? Price and Lee’s study highlights for me a tightrope to be walked in citizen science: along with the empowering ‘anyone-can-be-an-expert’ message, participants need experiences that lead to an antipiphany, to understand and feel motivated by how much more there is to learn.


How did Citizen Sky, a project with over 6,000 registrants, walk the tightrope? Price and Lee took an in-depth look at project design. They outlined five design principles for citizen science projects.

“Design Principle 1: Use a context where volunteers’ contribution is necessary and meaningful for their scientific inquiry.” 

In other words, citizen science should involve authentic research only, preferably testing hypotheses that could not otherwise be tested without help from the public. In Citizen Sky, participants were monitoring and trying to understand the 5th brightest star (epsilon) in the constellation Auriga. It is too bright for the highly sensitive detectors on most professional telescopes, and that’s why amateur astronomers were needed. Epsilon Aurigae isn’t really one star, but two or more: one supergiant and one (or two) almost dead stars, buried in a cloud of dust. The supergiant and the stars in the dust cloud revolve around each other, and one of these predictable eclipses, between 2009 and 2011, was the focus of the Citizen Sky project.

“Design Principle 2: Provide Internet resources to help volunteers interact with peers and scientists.”

In Citizen Sky, participants could interact by supplying data (brightness estimates of epsilon Aurigae), using web tools to explore everyone’s data, participating in online forums, participating in monthly live chats, and forming collaborative teams focused around mini-research projects.

“Design Principle 3: Actively involve scientists in a role of teaching and communication.”

In Citizen Sky, participants had access to professional researchers through an interactive blog, live chat sessions, and regular feedback, advice, and general support via the project website.

“Design Principle 4: Support participants for analyzing and presenting their own data.”

Authenticity in collecting and analyzing data is a key part of this principle. In Citizen Sky, participants could view graphs of their data superimposed over the data from everyone else. With the help of tutorials, they could explore what it might mean.

“Design Principle 5: Encourage participants to become an active member of a research community.”

Education researchers have long known the value of group work. Citizen Sky had dedicated space where participants could opt to form teams to work on a research project. The project even provided private areas for team members to chat and share documents. Participants formed 23 teams. Each had the intended goal of submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed astronomical journal.

Most citizen-science projects contain one or two of these design features, but Citizen Sky met ALL of these design principles.

Since Citizen Sky offered a veritable tapas menu of a little bit of everything, Price and Lee were able to tease apart which design elements fostered positive changes in participants’ attitudes about science. The answer they found is….

drum roll…



social activities!

If people spent time in the chat sessions with peers and scientists, then they learned more (including learning how much they did not know). Like the adage, you get out what you put in, participants who put energy towards the project gain the most from the project.

Price and Lee suggest that a sense of ownership in the scientific process and its products as well as a sense of community are two essential features of citizen science. People should not feel like anonymous data collectors or data processors. They must know each other. They must be real, just as the research must be real. Involvement only in the act of collecting data for science may not be enough to cause positive changes in attitudes toward science. Participants need to do more. And they need to do it together.

Just when I thought that I understood citizen science, Price and Lee’s results gave me the antipiphany of realizing how much more there is to understand. If we can design our citizen-science projects to bring scientific thinking into everyday conversations, then more people may realize there is so much more to learn. In this way, citizen science can take us one step closer in preparing our society to address complex issues and solve big problems. Just like the humbled graduate students, after antipiphanies in the online world of citizen science, perhaps we’ll all gain a collective e-piphany.

*Anyone know if there is already a word for this realization?


Price, C. A. and Lee, H.-S. (2013), Changes in participants’ scientific attitudes and epistemological beliefs during an astronomical citizen science project. J. Res. Sci. Teach.. doi: 10.1002/tea.21090


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
This entry was posted in Citizen science and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to That moment when you realize how little you actually know

  1. Pingback: The antipiphany: on humility, competence, and serving a second time. | Peace Corps 2.0

  2. Karen says:

    You asked, “Anyone know if there is already a word for this realization?” I think “epiphany” is sufficient. You describe a realization that the world is wider, deeper, and more complex than one has previously realized. Isn’t that an epiphany?

    • Caren Cooper says:

      Sure, epiphany could suffice, especially because the lesson is that we should welcome the realization that the world is more complex than we had thought. But, in reality, when it happens, the emotional response is often different. With an epiphany, we happily exclaim “Eureka!”, but with an antipiphany, we often sigh and mumble “Oy vey.” :)

      • Isn’t the shift we’d like to produce? From thinking of a realisation that there is something one doesn’t know as a negative thing to making that shift feel like a positive thing?

  3. I think this article does a good job of highlighting a lot of the issues that all of us who build and run projects spend a lot of time think about. I’m a bit surprised to see a comment linking Zooniverse projects with ‘grunt work’ – it’s true that the initial task in most of our projects is a simple one, but that’s by design. For starters, any professional will tell you that a lot of science involves the routine as well as the exciting, but we also find that that initial engagement with a simple task encourages many to go and play an active role in our communities – you can see what I think is an excellent example of a vibrant community of citizen scientists over at Planet Hunters, for example.

    I think we go to great lengths to recognise the contributions of all our volunteers – if there are specific things you think we should be doing that we’re not, then do let me know.

    Chris Lintott

  4. “Price and Lee suggest that a sense of ownership in the scientific process and its products as well as a sense of community are two essential features of citizen science. People should not feel like anonymous data collectors or data processors.”

    I agree 100% and it is a sad reflection that so many astronomical projects fail in this respect. Zooniverse projects are almost always disappointing in that they gave me zero sense of ownership and those in charge seem too casual about recognising the many hours that some amateurs spent on “grunt labor”. (Luckily not me!)

  5. Moreno says:

    It reminds me this book:
    Have you read it? Basically, it says that science accumulates ignorance, not knowledge. Science is a never-ending antipiphany! :-)