Profound equity challenges persist in efforts to promote community engagement with science, with the intersecting effects of multiple pandemics—racial and economic injustice, COVID‐19, and climate change, among others. A public distrust of science, the historical lack of inclusion of multiple voices and perspectives in decision‐making around scientific issues and in the production of scientific understandings, a lack of transparency of how science is done, including insights into who controls the agenda, whose knowledge counts, and who benefits, all shape how or why communities may—or may not—engage in science and/or the scientific enterprise. Consequently, a significant divide exists between the scientific community and many members of local communities. This has impacts in both directions. Scientists do not necessarily understand the needs, interests, and knowledge of people and communities, nor have they typically been educated or encouraged to support community‐engagement as part of their scientific efforts. Many different communities may not understand, trust or engage with the scientific enterprise, for historicized and self‐protecting reasons. For example, communities of Color, and low‐income communities have powerful historical reasons for this distrust, as these communities have been often ignored or oppressed by the scientific community in de‐humanizing and harmful ways. The field of science education is both partly responsible for these problems but is also key to addressing them.

The goal of the special issue is to generate understandings of and discourses around the possibilities for community‐driven science within science education contexts—what it is, what it looks like, what people learn, how it is practiced, and its implications for democratizing the knowledge, practice and discourses of science and science education. We use “community‐driven science” as an umbrella term to call attention to the opportunities that people have, collectively, to engage with science, in their local contexts, in ways that position them as critical stakeholders in the processes and outcomes of science. While this is often termed “citizen science” or “community science,” we see community‐driven science specifically as work in which stakeholders are involved in the scientific process from early on as co‐owners of a research agenda that is for the wellbeing of the community and its members. This work can take many forms: from pre‐service science teachers learning to use local environmental justice issues as contexts for learning (Varelas et al., 2018), to young people in a summer program collecting water quality data at their local creek and presenting to their city council (Ballard et al., 2017), to “fence‐line” organizations using their own air monitoring samples to fight a chemical plant (Ottinger, 2010), to youth organizing through STEM investigations to transform local injustices through place‐based scientific inquiry (Morales‐Doyle, 2017) and engineering design (Nazar et al., 2019). These examples encapsulate potential possibilities and historically embedded vulnerabilities of the communities in which this kind of work takes place. Specifically, community‐driven science in immigrant and communities of Color recognizes their vulnerabilities with, toward, and of science, but also seeks to mobilize knowledge inherent in the community.

While a goal of this special issue is to develop deeper understandings of the variations in and possibilities for community‐driven science, we offer an initial framing based on the literature. First and foremost, community‐driven science is of and for the wellbeing of communities and their members. It involves a wide range of people—youth, adults, and/or combinations—working on questions and problems that are authentic to both the disciplines of science and to communities, where data generation and analysis can potentially lead to answering those questions or problems (Morales‐Doyle, 2017). Science participation is of, within, and for communities (Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2010). Second, community‐driven science supports participants in learning about science and community and the ways in which they intersect through the concerns at hand (Birmingham et al., 2017; Van Wart et al., 2020).

These and many other efforts give rise to questions about equity‐related and justice‐related concerns around community participation in science that the field of science education grapples with and that we hope this special issue will examine: How can the ways in which communities may participate in and use science be integrated with science education approaches toward promoting more just social futures for all (Upadhyay et al., 2020)? Why or how should communities participate in science, especially given its inequitable history of participation and impact (Bang et al., 2016)? How might people be supported in their potential roles as users, producers and critics of science, in ways that center their local and cultural knowledge and practices? How may efforts to engage communities in science become more anti‐racist? What are the implications of work on these issues for equity, justice, science teaching and learning, and participation? These questions shine light on how and why the field of science education may be concerned with understanding equity‐centered approaches to community participation in science, especially in communities historically and unfairly silenced, and its impact on people's learning and participation.

The review process for the special issue will take place in two stages. In Stage 1, authors will submit an extended abstract that describes key dimensions of the proposed manuscript, including a summary of the manuscript's approach (conceptual analysis, philosophical inquiry, quasi‐experimental study, case study, historical analysis, etc.) and/or methods, as well as findings and implications. This extended abstract should not exceed 1000 words. (References, tables, and figures are not subject to the word limit.) The special issue guest editors will review the extended abstracts submitted in order to invite full manuscript submissions. The review will be guided by the potential of proposed manuscripts to be relevant, advance understanding of science teaching and learning, and have substantial impacts on the field, which are standard criteria for all JRST reviews. We solicit manuscripts based upon empirical data—qualitative, quantitative, or both—situated in classrooms, communities, and/or informal learning environments or that offer important theoretical or conceptual insights for the field of science education. In addition to these basic criteria, the guest editors will consider the extent to which manuscripts do one or more of the following: (a) extend the current work on community‐driven science in science education in new directions, (b) introduce new perspectives, conceptual or methodological, from other fields to the corpus of science education literature on community‐driven science, and (c) inform policy by connecting policy and community‐driven science.

在促进社区参与科学的努力中，深远的平等挑战仍然存在，这与多种流行病（种族和经济不公，COVID-19和气候变化等）的交叉影响相伴而生。公众对科学的不信任；历史上在围绕科学问题进行决策时以及在产生科学理解方面缺乏多种声音和观点，缺乏对科学方法的透明度，包括对由谁控制议程，由谁负责的见解知识至关重要，谁受益，这一切都决定着社区如何（或可能不）参与科学和/或科学事业的方式或原因。因此，科学界与当地社区的许多成员之间存在着巨大的分歧。这对两个方向都有影响。科学家不一定了解需求，利益，对人和社区的了解，通常也没有对其进行教育或鼓励以支持社区参与，这是其科学努力的一部分。由于历史悠久和自我保护的原因，许多不同的社区可能不理解，信任或与科学企业互动。例如，有色人种社区和低收入社区有这种不信任的强大历史原因，因为科学界经常以非人性化和有害的方式忽视或压迫这些社区。科学教育领域既是造成这些问题的部分原因，也是解决这些问题的关键。由于历史悠久和自我保护的原因，许多不同的社区可能不理解，信任或与科学企业互动。例如，有色人种社区和低收入社区有这种不信任的强大历史原因，因为科学界经常以非人性化和有害的方式忽视或压迫这些社区。科学教育领域既是造成这些问题的部分原因，也是解决这些问题的关键。由于历史悠久和自我保护的原因，许多不同的社区可能不理解，信任或与科学企业互动。例如，有色人种社区和低收入社区有这种不信任的强大历史原因，因为科学界经常以非人性化和有害的方式忽视或压迫这些社区。科学教育领域既是造成这些问题的部分原因，也是解决这些问题的关键。

本期专刊的目的是在科学教育背景下，就社区驱动型科学的可能性产生理解和讨论，即它是什么，它看起来像什么，人们学到什么，如何实践它及其对民主化民主的意义。科学和科学教育的知识，实践和论述。我们使用“社区驱动的科学”作为总称来唤起人们对人们在当地环境中集体参与科学的机会的关注，这些机会将他们定位为科学过程和成果中的关键利益相关者。虽然这通常被称为“公民科学”或“社区科学”，社区及其成员的福祉。这项工作可以采取多种形式：从职前科学教师学习，以利用当地环境正义问题作为学习的背景（Varelas等人，2018年），到暑期计划中的年轻人，在其当地小溪收集水质数据并展示到其市议会（Ballard et al。，2017），使用自己的空气监测样本与化工厂战斗的“围栏”组织（Ottinger，2010），通过STEM调查进行组织的青年，以通过场所改变当地的不公正行为-基于科学的探究（Morales‐Doyle，2017年）和工程设计（Nazar等人，2019年）。这些示例封装了开展此类工作的社区的潜在可能性和历史上嵌入的漏洞。具体而言，移民和有色人种社区中的社区主导型科学认识到了他们与科学有关的脆弱性，也寻求动员社区内在的知识。

尽管本期专刊的目的是加深对社区驱动科学的变化和可能性的理解，但我们还是根据文献提供了初步的框架。首先，社区驱动的科学属于社区及其成员的福利。它涉及范围广泛的人员（青年，成年人和/或组合），他们研究的问题和问题对科学学科和社区都是真实的，在这些问题和问题中，数据生成和分析有可能导致回答这些问题或问题（莫拉莱斯·道尔（Morales-Doyle），2017年）。科学参与是社区的，社区内的和社区的（Calabrese Barton＆Tan，2010年）。其次，社区驱动的科学支持参与者学习科学和社区以及他们如何通过眼前的关注点相交（伯明翰等，2017；范·沃特等，2020）。

这些努力以及其他许多努力引起了有关社区参与科学的公平相关和正义相关问题的问题，科学教育领域对此进行了努力，我们希望这一特殊问题能够得到研究：社区如何参与？并将科学与科学教育方法相结合，以促进所有人享有更公正的社会未来（Upadhyay等人，2020年）？社区为何或如何参与科学，特别是鉴于其参与和影响的历史不平等（Bang等人，2016年）？如何以集中他们的本地和文化知识与实践的方式来支持人们作为科学的使用者，生产者和批评家的潜在角色？促使社区参与科学活动的努力如何变得更加反种族主义？在这些问题上进行的工作对于公平，正义，科学教与学以及参与有什么意义？这些问题揭示了科学教育领域如何以及为什么会与如何理解以公平为中心的社区参与科学，特别是在历史上和不公正地沉默的社区中参与以及其对人们的学习和参与的影响有关。

特刊的审查过程将分两个阶段进行。在第一阶段，作者将提交一份扩展的摘要，描述拟议手稿的主要方面，包括手稿方法的摘要（概念分析，哲学探究，准实验研究，案例研究，历史分析等）和/或方法，以及发现和暗示。此扩展摘要不得超过1000个字。（参考文献，表格和图形不受字数限制。）特刊来宾编辑将审查所提交的扩展摘要，以邀请完整的手稿投稿。审查将以拟议手稿的潜在相关性为指导，加深对科学教学的理解，并对领域产生重大影响，这是所有JRST审核的标准条件。我们根据教室，社区和/或非正式学习环境中的经验数据（定性，定量或两者兼有）征求手稿，这些经验数据为科学教育领域提供重要的理论或概念见解。除这些基本标准外，客座编辑还将考虑手稿在以下方面的作用：（a）在新的方向上扩展当前有关科学教育的社区驱动科学的工作，（b）介绍新的观点概念或方法论，从其他领域到关于社区驱动科学的科学教育文献集，以及（c）通过将政策与社区驱动科学联系起来为政策提供信息。或两者-位于教室，社区和/或非正式学习环境中，或为科学教育领域提供重要的理论或概念见解。除这些基本标准外，客座编辑还将考虑手稿在以下方面的作用：（a）在新的方向上扩展当前有关科学教育的社区驱动科学的工作，（b）介绍新的观点概念或方法论，从其他领域到关于社区驱动科学的科学教育文献集，以及（c）通过将政策与社区驱动科学联系起来为政策提供信息。或两者-位于教室，社区和/或非正式学习环境中，或为科学教育领域提供重要的理论或概念见解。除这些基本标准外，客座编辑还将考虑手稿在以下方面的作用：（a）在新的方向上扩展当前有关科学教育的社区驱动科学的工作，（b）介绍新的观点概念或方法论，从其他领域到关于社区驱动科学的科学教育文献集，以及（c）通过将政策与社区驱动科学联系起来为政策提供信息。