Science isn’t the club; academia is.
Normally, when we say “scientist”, we mean “academic scientist”—i.e. someone who does science specifically for the enculturated ideals of academia (e.g. the advancement of common knowledge) using the process of academia (e.g. writing papers and sending them off to journals, attending conferences, etc.)
(You might define “academic scientist” in other ways, with something about a treadmill of papers and grants, but I would point out that any definition of academic science has to include tenured science professors, who aren’t subject to the same forces.)
Since academia (i.e. the global cooperation of academics to further knowledge by writing, reading and reviewing papers) is seen, by academics, as an unalloyed good, they see scientists who don’t take part in said academia to be doing something strange, something perhaps sub-optimal for the furthering of scientific knowledge.
And I feel like that’s maybe true, but also often misjudged: many “citizen scientists” are actually academic scientists. They may not be funded by a university or submit papers to Nature, but they collaborate and are in constant communication with people who do, such that their work isn’t advancing the boundaries of science any less optimally than their own work is.
Just the first example off the top of my head: Destin Sandlin, who some might call a “citizen scientist” (he’s a YouTuber who does science journalism but also often his own scientific experiments) works more heavily with “academic scientists” to do his experiments, than most University grad students ever even bother to do. He might be a “travelling” scientist instead of belonging to any particular institution, but he’s certainly an academic through-and-through.
Then repeat the whole process except instead of a PhD, it’s tenure.
It’s purely a membership based organization. It’s a federation of treehouses with a rope ladders.
The Universities were, originally, just cloisters of academic scientists doing research (and sharing lab space), that you—as another academic scientist—would visit to exchange knowledge. And, guess what? Universities are still that. You don’t need to have a Ph.D (or the desire to gain one) to travel to any random University campus, walk into a research laboratory, and exchange knowledge with the people there. The core function of academia still goes on, though it is encircled by the parasite of credentialism. Or you can avoid Universities, and just work with academics directly through academic organizations, like one of the many Royal Societies in the Commonwealth, or through “industrial-academic partnership” organizations like the IETF.
Academia still exists even at the heart of purely-industrial think tanks, and government organizations, as long as they hire people with the enculturated mindset of academia. You think you can’t just walk into NASA, or Boston Dynamics, and ask their research scientists stuff? You can. Because they’re academic scientists, and so they will exchange knowledge with you (as another academic scientist) and consider it part of their vocation, whether it counts as paid job-hours or not.
I don't think there's anything demeaning or low-class in being a "citizen scientist" or an amateur (which means someone who does something for the love of it, "ama"). And I think it's proper to give respect to those who have gone the distance to become professional scientists. Certainly the few scientists I've been honored to meet pretty much are on a different level than us amateurs.
Like most words it covers an inexact group of things often relevant to the context it’s used. From the context we can understand ‘citizen scientist’ to mean some curious old/young person in their garage (not literally always their garage) doing it for fun. Which itself doesn’t have to exclude the professionals with a side project.
Strangely enough, I have been unable to find their definition for Citizen Management Consultants...
I hear you, but I'm curious why "citizen" sounds diminutive to your ear. Alternatives I've heard people use are "amatuer", "non-professional" or "backyard" scientist which all have a negative connotation to me. Honestly, I think using "citizen scientist" is to differentiate themselves from non-scientists who claim to be performing science:
1. Professional Scientists (professionals educated in a particular field of science) 2. Citizen Scientists (people attempting to do science, who recognize they are not professionals) 3. Self-described "scientists" (people ignore scientific method and reject science conflicting with their beliefs: industry lobbyists, homeopaths, flat-earthers, etc)
By making space for second-class members it means you can more easily have a club of people trying to do science (#1 and #2) and exclude #3 who seek to hijack science for their own personal purposes.
Lets call things by their name. Citizen scientists is just another euphemism for precariat.
Citizen scientist seems to me to denote that one is actually a scientist despite lacking credentials unlike the 5000 other crackpots. To call someone who has no credentials a scientist would be misleading thus the term has utility and meaning.