0.2 citizen-science-communication-trust-2026 2026-10-05 2026-10-06 2 00:05 https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de Europe/Berlin Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-05T11:15:00+02:00 11:15 00:15 Trust has become a central concept in research on science–public relations. It appears in debates on expertise, misinformation, uncertainty communication, public engagement, institutional credibility, open science, risk governance, and the legitimacy of science in democratic societies. Yet the literature does not conceptualize trust in a sufficiently differentiated way. The same term is used to describe justified reliance on experts, confidence in institutions, positive responses to communication strategies, judgments of integrity, willingness to accept policy guidance, and broader relations of recognition or exclusion. The field is therefore rich in insight but uneven in conceptual precision. This paper argues that research on trust in science–public relations has developed along four major perspectives: epistemic, moral–value, communication-effects, and relational–institutional. Each identifies an important dimension of trust, but they operate at different analytical levels and attach the concept to different objects, processes, and evaluative standards. Because they are often discussed as though they address the same question, findings remain difficult to compare and accumulate. The paper has two aims. First, it clarifies how these four perspectives conceptualize trust and what assumptions they make about science, publics, and communication. Second, it develops an analytical framework showing how they differ in both analytical level and conceptualization of trust. The study is based on a narrative review of 161 articles on trust in science, science communication, expertise, public understanding of science, and related fields. The epistemic perspective understands trust as justified reliance under conditions of unequal knowledge. It asks how non-experts can reasonably depend on experts and scientific institutions when they cannot assess the evidence directly. Its focus is competence, reliability, expertise, and warranted deference. Its main contribution is conceptual rigor: it distinguishes trust from mere compliance, liking, or blind faith. The moral–value perspective emphasizes that trust is also shaped by judgments of integrity, fairness, responsibility, respect, and responsiveness to public concerns. Competence matters, but it is not sufficient. Publics also judge how scientific actors handle uncertainty, manage conflicts of interest, communicate values, and engage affected communities. This perspective shows that trust is not only an informational issue but also an ethical and political one. The communication-effects perspective treats trust mainly as an empirical outcome shaped by communication strategies, media environments, source characteristics, and audience dispositions. It examines how framing, uncertainty communication, tone, media exposure, and platform context increase or reduce trust. This perspective provides valuable empirical findings, but often uses a broad operational meaning of trust, treating it as confidence, credibility, support, or favorable orientation. The relational–institutional perspective places trust within wider social, institutional, and political relations. Trust is understood as a socially situated relation shaped by status asymmetries, institutional histories, media logics, power inequalities, and the science–state interface. From this view, publics are not singular, and distrust is not always a deficit. It may be a reasonable response to exclusion, failed accountability, or marginalization. To clarify these differences, the paper develops a two by two framework. The horizontal axis moves from individual and interactional judgment to broader social and institutional relations. The vertical axis moves from normative grounds to empirical processes. The epistemic perspective occupies the upper left quadrant, the moral–value perspective the upper right, the communication-effects perspective the lower left, and the relational–institutional perspective the lower right. The figure therefore shows not just four types of trust research, but four distinct understandings of what trust is and where it is located analytically. The paper’s main contribution is conceptual clarification. It shows that trust in science–public relations does not refer to a single phenomenon. By distinguishing four perspectives within a shared framework, it clarifies where previous scholarship converges, where it diverges, and why findings often remain fragmented. It also offers a more precise vocabulary for specifying what kind of trust is being studied, whose trust is at stake, what its object is, and through what conditions it is formed. In this way, the paper advances greater conceptual precision, stronger theoretical comparability, and more cumulative dialogue in research on trust in science–public relations. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-66-toward-a-clarified-framework-of-trust-in-science-public-relations-four-perspectives-and-their-analytical-implications Research Insights /media/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/submissions/ZUUR93/Trust_Quadran_Y1BF8FI.webp Yingjia HuangZhenyunfeng Zhang en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/ZUUR93/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/ZUUR93/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-05T11:30:00+02:00 11:30 00:15 Citizen science promises to democratise knowledge production, expand environmental monitoring and foster public engagement with science (Irwin, 1995; Hecker et al., 2018; Lewenstein, 2022; Pocock et al., 2017). Its success, however, hinges on trust among citizens, scientists and enabling institutions (Hager et al., 2021). A recurring finding across this literature is that trust is central to whether citizen science projects achieve their aims (Bonn et al., 2018; Hamm et al., 2019). Yet scholarly treatments of trust in citizen science tend toward two reductive framings: trust as a static precondition, something actors either possess or lack before participation begins, or trust as a measurable outcome, whether consolidated or eroded by the experience (Möllering, 2006; Walker et al., 2021). In both cases, trust is collapsed into a single undifferentiated construct, examined at a single point in time and distrust is marginalised as an analytical category (Hamm et al., 2019). Crucially, distrust is not the mere absence of trust but an active orientation with its own dynamics, one that may surface institutional weaknesses, reveal unequal power relations and redirect collaborative trajectories in ways that are as generative as they are disruptive (Van de Walle & Six, 2014; Verhoest et al., 2024; Levis et al., 2024). To address these gaps we propose a processual, multi-dimensional trust framework comprising three dimensions: epistemic (data credibility), relational (interpersonal orientations) and procedural (process legitimacy) to examine how trust dynamics shape and are shaped in citizen science over time. The framework conceptualises trust across these three analytically distinct but practically entangled dimensions. Firstly, epistemic trust considers whether citizen-generated data and scientific knowledge are regarded as credible and actionable by the actors who engage with them, and whose knowledge is treated as counting in shared decisions (Fricker, 2007; Fritz et al., 2022). Epistemic trust concerns not only data quality but the deeper question of whose ways of knowing are recognised and valued within the collaboration. Secondly, relational trust concerns the orientations of trust (positive expectations), distrust (negative expectations) or ambivalence that citizens hold toward scientists and institutional enablers (the public bodies, NGOs, research institutions and funders who host and coordinate participation) and vice versa (Rousseau et al., 1998; Van de Walle & Six, 2014; Wehn & Almomani, 2019; Spadaro et al., 2020). These orientations shape willingness to engage, share information and accept the vulnerabilities that collaboration requires. Relational trust is not stable across time; it is continually renegotiated as actors encounter each other through the work of the project. Thirdly, procedural trust concerns whether actors experience the processes through which collaboration is structured as legitimate, responsive and worth sustained investment (Tyler 1990, 2006; Luhmann, 1979; Giddens, 1990). Tyler’s procedural justice scholarship strengthens the framework by demonstrating that perceptions of voice, neutrality, respectful treatment and trustworthy motives are constitutive of procedural legitimacy and, in turn, of sustained cooperation (Tyler, 1990, 2006). Although these three dimensions are analytically distinguishable, they are entangled: distrust in data may destabilise relational orientations, relational distrust may condition actors’ willingness to engage with the process, and perceived procedural illegitimacy may reciprocally erode both epistemic and relational trust. We illustrate the potential of the proposed conceptual framework through the more4nature context (Wehn & Pfeiffer, 2024), a Horizon Europe initiative fostering collaboration between citizen science initiatives and environmental authorities across four continents, where trust dynamics become observable as they unfold and are renegotiated through structured collaboration over time. By tracing how epistemic, relational and procedural trust evolve between actors in citizen science initiatives and environmental authorities, the paper speaks directly to how mutual trust is created, contested and repaired in citizen science initiatives. It offers a theoretical and methodological contribution for those seeking to move beyond snapshot assessments of trust toward longitudinal accounts of how collaboration is sustained, disrupted and renewed. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-76-trust-as-a-process-not-a-precondition-a-multi-dimensional-framework-for-understanding-trust-dynamics-in-citizen-science Research Insights Rachel Rhiannon Williams en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/9RBDMZ/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/9RBDMZ/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-05T11:45:00+02:00 11:45 00:15 Citizen science is widely regarded as an important practice of public engagement with science, grounded in the assumption that participation naturally generates mutual trust between citizens and scientists. This assumption forms the theoretical basis for the central question posed by the PCST 2026 Berlin Symposium—whether trust in science can be fostered through participation and related science communication. Yet this optimistic narrative, which treats trust as a natural byproduct of participation, obscures a more complex reality: trust is not spontaneously generated but requires continuous production and maintenance as an ongoing achievement. This study aims to reveal a form of labor that has long been overlooked in citizen science—the invisible work performed by project coordinators to sustain trust. The research questions focus on four dimensions: how does the citizen science project coordinator produce and sustain trust in her daily work? What strategies does she employ? What structural constraints does she face? What are the labor characteristics of this trust work? By addressing these questions, this study seeks to bring trust maintenance from the background into the foreground of academic inquiry. The study draws on in-depth fieldwork conducted within a single citizen science project in ChinaAdopting a qualitative research design, the study employs in-depth interviews, work diaries, and WeChat group observation. The project manager responsible for core coordination was tracked over two months, supplemented by interviews with two assisting staff members. . Theoretically, this study draws on three interconnected traditions. Emotional labor theory reveals the affective work coordinators perform to manage participants’ emotional fluctuations. Invisible work theory explains why such labor remains persistently unrecognized institutionally. Studies of scientific practice extend the analytical lens beyond the laboratory, conceptualizing trust maintenance as the infrastructural labor of this emerging field of scientific practice. Integrating these traditions, this study proposes that trust maintenance constitutes a form of labor that is simultaneously emotional and invisible. The research finds that the coordinator’s trust maintenance work comprises three interconnected forms of labor. First, technical interpretation labor refers to the communicative work performed to bridge the expertise gap between scientists and the public. The central challenge lies in the incomplete translatability of professional knowledge, requiring the coordinator to navigate between scientific rigor and public comprehensibility. Second, emotional labor refers to the affective work performed to manage participants’ emotional fluctuations. The central challenge lies in the individual variability and unpredictability of emotional experiences, requiring the coordinator to respond to participants’ anxieties and expectations on a one-to-one basis. Third, expectation management labor refers to the coordination work performed to balance scientific goals with public expectations. The central challenge lies in the difficulty of aligning these two sets of objectives, requiring the coordinator to continuously negotiate between dual responsibilities. These three forms of labor interweave in practice, collectively constituting the infrastructural foundation that enables citizen science projects to function The theoretical contributions of this study are threefold. First, it reconceptualizes trust as an achievement requiring ongoing labor to maintain, rather than a natural precondition for collaboration. Second, it reveals the invisible character of trust maintenance labor and its institutional causes. Third, it deepens understanding of the emotional dimension of science communication, demonstrating that emotion management critically affects project success. Practically, this study suggests that citizen science project designs should acknowledge the resource demands of trust maintenance work, develop evaluation mechanisms that recognize invisible labor, and incorporate emotion management into professional training. Methodologically, it demonstrates the value of combining in-depth interviews, work diaries, and WeChat group observation for capturing emotional interactions and invisible labor in science communication. The central finding of this study responds to the core question posed by the PCST 2026 Berlin Symposium: trust can indeed be fostered through participation, but this fostering is not automatic. It requires coordinators to invest continuous, invisible, and often underappreciated everyday labor. Bringing this labor into academic view is not only a faithful representation of citizen science practice but also a deepening of the mission of science communication—science communication is not merely the transmission of knowledge but the maintenance of relationships, the production of trust, and the cultivation of public emotions. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-26-invisible-trust-work-how-citizen-science-project-coordinators-manage-trust-behind-the-scenes Research Insights Jin Zhou en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/8MUGFR/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/8MUGFR/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-05T13:30:00+02:00 13:30 00:15 Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Individuals with lower income or experiencing financial hardship face a significantly higher risk of developing CVD. However, there is a lack of in-depth insight into their experiences with CVD, and specific attention to women is essential. It is difficult to gain in-depth insight into experiences with financial hardship if you have not experienced this yourself. Moreover, people with financial hardship do not always trust institutions and professional scientists enough to participate in research and share their full story. Citizen science with people with this lived experience gives the opportunity to build knowledge on cardiovascular health among people experiencing financial hardship. In the “In a Heartbeat” project, nine citizen scientists with lived experience and five professional scientists work together as equal partners. The presenter, a certified expert by experience, is also the first author of the peer-reviewed study protocol, marking a milestone in recognizing citizen science and experiential knowledge as equally valued sources of knowledge and possibilities for growth for the citizen scientists and professional scientists. Objective: The study aims to understand the relationship between CVD and financial hardship to enable earlier recognition and prevention among both women and men. In our citizen science study, we unravel the mechanisms and contexts through which financial problems lead to the development and late recognition of CVD. This contribution focuses on the communicative and relational dimensions: the role of citizen scientists—including as co-project leader and first author—and how trust, reciprocity, language choices, and shared ownership/authorship shape participation and confidence in science. Methods: The project builds on a long-term collaboration with 8 of the 9 citizen scientists (in a citizen advisory group in the Netherlands) where mutual trust grew, leading members to “climb the participation ladder” to become co-researchers. Additionally, a certified expert by experience (the presenter of this abstract) became interested in doing citizen science in the area of women’s health and heart disease. A funding call for citizen science in cardiovascular health allowed us to work together with this team of nine citizen scientists and five professional scientists. The main data are collected through qualitative lifeline interviews conducted in duos (citizen–professional), where shared lived experience helps with gaining trust and openness of interviewees. Weekly meetings utilize methods like photo elicitation, design thinking, and a dynamic learning agenda. We deliberately invest in accessible language and regular evaluations that explicitly address issues of trust, power, recognition, and safety. Results: Data collection through qualitative lifeline interviews began in November 2025 and is expected to end by mid-2026. Consequently, some preliminary results about financial hardship and cardiovascular health will be shared during the symposium. Furthermore, by the time of the conference, we will have completed four rounds of individual and group evaluations with both the citizen scientists and professional scientists. Based on these evaluations, and enriched by the lived experiences and stories of the presenting author—a certified expert by experience—we will share insights into the citizen science process. We will focus on how trust, participation, and inclusive communication were fostered within this collaborative partnership, highlighting both successes and practical challenges. Conclusions: Toward the end of the study in 2027, the project will yield concrete recommendations for individuals experiencing financial hardship, health and social professionals, health promoters, and policymakers to improve the early recognition and prevention of CVD. In all our analyses and recommendations, we will consider sex and gender differences. Our study could eventually contribute to a reduction in health inequalities. Simultaneously, the project offers deep insights into how participatory research can strengthen the bond between citizens and science, specifically when working with communities that often have low trust in institutional research. We will share lessons on which communication strategies, support structures, and authorship practices—such as the milestone of a citizen scientist serving as first author—allow individuals in vulnerable situations to participate meaningfully and safely as knowledge producers in their own right. By presenting these experiences at the PCST Symposium, we aim to foster a dialogue on how inclusive science communication can build trust and equity with communities that usually remain unheard. We intend to leave room for audience questions and discussion, enabling a collaborative learning experience during the session. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-39-building-knowledge-on-cardiovascular-health-and-financial-hardship-experiences-of-a-citizen-scientist Practice Insights Dagmar NiewoldGera Nagelhout en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/HSGJK9/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/HSGJK9/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-05T13:45:00+02:00 13:45 00:15 The prevalence of mental health problems among children and adolescents has increased substantially in recent years, while access to evidence-based prevention and early intervention remains limited. Digital approaches offer considerable potential to provide scalable, low-threshold, and flexible support. However, many interventions fail to reflect young people’s lived experiences, which can limit engagement and reduce trust. Participatory approaches that actively involve target groups in knowledge production are therefore key to ensuring that interventions are relevant, trusted, and effectively used. This contribution presents the development of the Youth Mental Health (YMH) online platform GUSTAPH (www.gustaph.org) as an example of participatory, citizen science-informed innovation in digital mental health prevention. Developed within the German Center for Mental Health (DZPG), GUSTAPH provides accessible, evidence-based psychoeducational content and self-guided interventions for children and adolescents, complemented by tailored material for parents as well as educational and psychological professionals. The platform is designed for integration into everyday contexts such as schools and families, supporting early and autonomous responses to psychological stress. A central feature of the project is the systematic involvement of children and adolescents as co-creators throughout the development process. Building on principles of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI), young people are actively engaged in needs assessments, prioritization processes, and iterative feedback loops. At the same time, parents as well as educational and psychological professionals (e.g., teachers, school staff, and school psychologists) are included as additional stakeholders to ensure contextual relevance and feasibility in real-world settings. For example, participatory data (e.g., N = 730 adolescents) from a participatory school survey identified key needs related to school stress, emotional challenges, and accessible mental health information, directly shaping the platform’s modular structure and content. In this approach, young people are positioned as experts of their own lived experiences. This is particularly relevant in the context of mental health, where stigma and barriers to help-seeking persist. Co-creation is expected to strengthen trust in both the platform and the communicated content, thereby facilitating engagement, acceptance, and ultimately the effectiveness of preventive interventions. The project is complemented by the project BE-WELL (starting mid-2026), a participatory initiative to develop a digital school-based monitoring system that captures students’ well-being and visualizes aggregated data via dashboards for educational professionals. Drawing on international data infrastructures (e.g., from Wales), BE-WELL aims to provide actionable insights into risk and protective factors in everyday school life. The dashboards are co-designed with young people and school staff and are intended to inform prevention and early intervention strategies in educational settings. A key innovation lies in the linkage between BE-WELL and GUSTAPH: while BE-WELL identifies needs and patterns at the group level, GUSTAPH provides directly accessible, evidence-based prevention and intervention options that can be implemented by students, parents, and professionals. This integration illustrates how participatory data infrastructures and co-created communication platforms can jointly support trust-building, knowledge translation, and actionable mental health promotion. Overall, GUSTAPH demonstrates how participatory approaches in digital mental health development can enhance relevance, trust, and communication. By linking participatory monitoring and intervention systems, it highlights the potential of co-created digital ecosystems to bridge research, practice, and lived experience in preventive mental health care. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-79-co-creating-digital-youth-mental-health-prevention-participation-communication-and-trust-in-the-development-of-the-gustaph-platform Research Insights Telse Nagler de-formal false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/CLJZBY/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/CLJZBY/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-05T14:00:00+02:00 14:00 00:15 Socioeconomically disadvantaged youth face elevated risks of poor physical, mental, and social health, contributing to persistent socioeconomic health inequalities across the life course (Hoebel & Müters, 2024; Lampert et al., 2013; WHO, 2025). Addressing such inequalities early is critical to breaking cycles of disadvantage, and schools are a key setting for doing so. Evidence-based school health promotion can be a powerful lever, particularly when implemented as whole-school approaches that engage adolescents within their wider school and community environments (Barry et al., 2017; Goldberg et al., 2019; Lekamge et al., 2025). However, whole-school health promotion is not simply a matter of delivering ready-made interventions. Rather, it requires evidence-informed and context-sensitive school development in which health promotion becomes embedded in everyday routines, relationships, and organizational culture. This is challenging, as schools often face competing demands, limited resources, and diverse student needs. To initiate, support, and reflect on such structural change, external expertise is frequently valuable. Scientists working at the interface of science and practice can take on this role within participatory research projects by contributing scientific expertise, co-designing interventions, supporting implementation processes, monitoring and feedback of effects, and deriving recommendations for wider dissemination in the fields of science, policy and practice (e.g., Sjölund et al., 2022). In participatory research and development projects between science and practice, trust between stakeholders and within schools may not only be an outcome of a successful joint venture but also represents a relevant prerequisite for successful collaboration (Holzer et al., 2024). This contribution is part of a larger project that aims to develop, implement, and evaluate a one-year whole-school health intervention in disadvantaged secondary schools in Vienna. Within an ongoing preparatory study, we are currently examining implementation conditions, with a particular focus on trust relations within schools and between schools and researchers. We ask: (1) Which trust relationships are perceived as relevant for school-based health promotion? (2) What fosters or undermines trust in health-related communication within schools? (3) What conditions do school actors identify for trustful collaboration with researchers? Data are currently collected in three secondary schools in Vienna, all of them characterized by an above-average proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. We conduct qualitative group interviews with students and teachers, and individual interviews with school leaders. Interviews are conducted on site, transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Preliminary results indicate that trust between students and teachers, as well as trust between practitioners and researchers, are particularly salient themes in the context of school-wide evidence-based health promotion. This for example relates to students reporting reluctance to discuss sensitive health issues with teachers when they fear that personal information may be passed on, or when they perceive certain issues as private and outside the school’s remit. This points to tensions between adolescents’ need for confidentiality and schools’ safeguarding responsibilities. When it comes to trust between researchers and practitioners, teachers and school leaders particularly emphasized that trust depends strongly on perceived credibility and practical relevance of scientific content. Researchers are expected to understand the realities of everyday school life, including time pressure, resource constraints, and cumulative burdens in disadvantaged contexts. Participants stress that schools are willing to engage in research when expected efforts are proportionate to tangible benefits for students, staff, or school development. Scientific activities perceived as self-serving or detached from practice may undermine trust. While first insights already offer relevant practical implications for collaborative intervention projects between researchers and schools in the field of health promotion, data collection will be ongoing until mid of May 2026. Analyses will expectedly be completed by September 2026, for full results addressing all research questions to be presented at TiCS. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-78-trust-in-school-based-participatory-science-for-health-promotion-potentials-and-reservations-in-socioeconomically-disadvantaged-school-contexts Research Insights Sina Ludwig en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/VCVJ8K/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/VCVJ8K/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-05T14:15:00+02:00 14:15 00:15 Authors: Marina Presas1, Antoni Caimari 1, Joan Serrano1, Silvia Orte1, Alejandro Heres1, Sílvia Chafino1, Dorota Komar1, Cedric Moulin2, Leonie Miserez2, Annick Bogaerts2, Roland Devlieger2 , Carmen Freire3, Inés Velasco4, Marta Ocaña5, Paula Sol Ventura5, Alicja Baska6, Michał Ciebiera7, Lisa Moussaoui8, Maryse Ledent9, on behalf of the HYPIEND core-investigators 1 Department of Biotechnology, Eurecat, Centre Tecnològic de Catalunya, Biotechnology Area, Reus, Spain 2 Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium 3 Department of Legal Medicine, Toxicology and Physical Anthropology, University of Granada (UGR), Granada, Spain 4 Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Germans Trias i Pujol Research Institute (IGTP), Barcelona, Spain 5 Department of Paediatrics, Germans Trias i Pujol Research Institute (IGTP), Barcelona, Spain 6 School of Public Health, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education (CMKP), Warsaw, Poland 7 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education (CMKP), Warsaw, Poland 8 Health Psychology, University of Geneva Faculty of Psychology and Education, Geneva, Geneva, 1205, Switzerland 9 Risk and health impact assessment, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) represent a complex and largely invisible environmental health risk, increasingly associated with adverse developmental and metabolic outcomes. Communicating these risks to the public poses significant challenges due to scientific uncertainty, low awareness, and the difficulty of translating evidence into actionable behaviours. In this context, fostering trust in science is essential to enable meaningful citizen engagement and behavioural change. This contribution presents HYPIEND, a European multicentre intervention as a practice-based case study at the intersection of citizen engagement, public communication, and trust-building. The project involves approximately 325 pregnant women and their infants from Poland, Spain and Belgium in the perinatal study, as well as a complementary school-based intervention reaching 550 children aged 6–8 years, their families, and educational communities, across 38 schools in Spain and Belgium. While primarily designed as a health intervention, HYPIEND integrates a comprehensive communication and engagement strategy targeting both participants and the broader public. This includes educational workshops for pregnant women, families and schools, communication materials (e.g., infographics, brochures and guidelines), social media campaigns and ongoing personalised follow-up. Public-facing communication activities complement these actions, raising awareness of EDCs and empowering citizens beyond the direct study participants. These elements have been designed to translate complex scientific evidence into accessible, actionable knowledge, while supporting sustained engagement over time. A central component of this strategy is a digital health platform, developed by Eurecat, designed to support behaviour change through personalized and interactive communication. The platform, available as both a mobile application for pregnant women and families and a web-based tool for researchers, uses a gamified system that recommends “missions” based on user choices and habits, alongside motivational messages explaining the importance of behavioural change and reinforcement strategies to sustain habits over time. It provides personalised advice on environmental health and EDC exposure prevention, integrating educational and interactive content. The intervention is grounded in a psycho-social framework called Health Action Process Approach (HAPA)(see ref. 1) and moves beyond information provision towards enabling agency, participation, sustained engagement, and translating complex scientific evidence into practical, everyday decisions (see ref. 2). From a citizen science perspective, HYPIEND can be understood as a participatory model in which citizens actively contribute through behavioural changes, data generation, and continuous interaction with the research process. In the prepubertal study, the inclusion of school staff, pupils and families further strengthen the community-based nature of this participation. This practical insight presents the strategy followed and aims to discuss key challenges and lessons learned derived from the design and implementation of the communication strategy, focusing on: (1) how different communication formats (digital tools, face-to-face interactions, and visual materials) support understanding and engagement; (2) the role science communication for building trust; and (3) challenges related to communicating uncertainty and invisible risks. The HYPIEND project, coordinated by Eurecat, has received funding from the Horizon Europe programme under grant agreement No. 101137440. Funded by the European Union. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-71-communicating-invisible-risks-building-trust-through-citizen-engagement-in-the-hypiend-intervention-on-endocrine-disruptors Practice Insights Marina Presas Quintana en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/SBQAMU/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/SBQAMU/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-05T15:30:00+02:00 15:30 00:15 Participation in science communication is often proposed as a strategy to enhance public trust in science (Gascoigne et al., 2022; Kappel & Holmen, 2019). However, empirical evidence on the participation-trust link remains scarce and mixed (Bedessem et al., 2021, 2023). Moreover, the field lacks a theoretical understanding of why and how participation might affect trust. This results in a practical dilemma for science communicators and citizen science practitioners, who must allocate resources without knowing which participatory features are most likely to build trust. To address this gap, the present contribution explores psychological distance as a potential mechanism that mediates participation's effects on trust. According to Construal Level Theory, perceived psychological distance – the subjective experience of removal from an entity along social, temporal, spatial or hypothetical dimensions – shapes how we mentally represent that entity (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Recent work on Psychological Distance to Science (PSYDISC) shows that lower perceived PSYDISC is linked to more favourable science evaluations and higher trust (Većkalov et al., 2024; Rutjens & Hornsey, 2025). We explore if participatory practices within science communication – specifically, co-design of science communication materials – may enhance trust precisely by reducing PSYDISC. Co-design requires participants to actively transform abstract scientific content into concrete representations in a setting of shared decision-making (Gascoigne et al., 2022), which leads to a shift in construal from abstract to concrete regarding scientific content (hypothetical distance) and reframes scientists from distant experts to collaborators (social distance). Given the bidirectional relationship between PSYDISC and construal level, this could bring science closer, thereby potentially increasing perceptions of trustworthiness (on the dimensions of expertise, benevolence, integrity) and trust, conceptualised as willingness to be vulnerable (Besley & Tiffany, 2023; Hendriks et al., 2015; Mayer et al., 1995). While field evidence from citizen science suggests that direct collaboration can reduce psychological distance and foster trust (Vegt et al., 2023), no experimental research has yet systematically examined whether: (a) psychological distance causally affects trust, (b) participation reduces psychological distance, or (c) distance reduction mediates participation's effects on trust. With two complementary preregistered experiments we aim to test these proposed pathways. Study 1 (*N* = 1,442) employed a 2×2 between-subjects vignette design manipulating social distance (scientist engaging with public vs. only with scientists) and hypothetical distance (research findings presented as applicable vs. theoretical). Results indicated that reduced hypothetical distance was associated with higher perceived expertise (*F* (1, 1438) = 9.71, *p* = .002; *d* = 0.16) and an increased willingness to be vulnerable (*F* (1, 1436) = 23.78, *p* < .001, *d* =.26). Neither social distance framing, nor an interaction between both dimensions showed significant effects. These findings suggest differential relevance of distance dimensions for trust, highlighting perceived applicability as key. Study 2 (ongoing, target *N* = 800) extends this approach from vignettes to a simulated participatory context. Following a baseline assessment, participants complete an online intervention one week later, collaborating with a fictional scientist to co-design communication materials about antimicrobial resistance. We manipulate social and hypothetical distance in a 2×2 design across eight scientist profiles. The design combines a pre-post intervention with four embedded process measures after every co-design task to track the trajectory of psychological distance. This enables a process-oriented mediation analysis to test whether changes in psychological distance account for changes in trust. Together, these studies contribute both to the theoretical advancement and practical application of participatory science communication. Theoretically, we seek to better understand how participation relates to trust by focusing on its potential to reduce psychological distance as one underlying mechanism enhancing trust. Practically, this line of research could inform evidence-based design principles for participatory initiatives. For example, if reducing hypothetical distance proves crucial in the intervention study, practitioners could strategically enhance trust by using targeted participatory tasks that emphasize the concrete relevance and tangibility of science. This would move beyond the assumption that participation alone builds trust toward understanding which features actually drive this effect. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-40-bringing-science-closer-to-build-trust-in-participatory-science-communication Research Insights Jane Martha Momme en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/7ANKKQ/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/7ANKKQ/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-05T15:45:00+02:00 15:45 00:15 As science communication shifts toward participatory paradigms, citizen science is promoted as a mechanism for building public trust in science. However, emerging empirical evidence suggests that participation alone produces uneven outcomes, strengthening relational dimensions of epistemic trust, such as benevolence and integrity, while leaving perceptions of expertise and credibility comparatively underdeveloped (Momme et al., 2025). This discrepancy reveals a structural gap in citizen science: the communicative processes through which trust is constructed remain theoretically fragmented and conceptually underdeveloped. This paper addresses this gap by conceptualising the communicative identity of citizen science projects as brand voice and positioning it as a central mechanism in trust formation. Drawing on Brand Concept Management theory (Park et al., 1986), placemaking scholarship, and participatory science communication research (Newman & Beets, 2023; Haywood et al., 2024), the paper develops the Place-Anchored Brand Voice (PABV) framework. This conceptual model comprises three interrelated components: (1) place-resonant narrative, which embeds scientific activity within local ecological and cultural meanings; (2) inclusive communicative register, which enables recognition of participants as co-producers of knowledge; and (3) institutional transparency signals, which render scientific processes accessible and accountable to public scrutiny. The paper argues that when brand voice is deliberately grounded in the place-based identities of participating communities, it functions not merely as a communication strategy but as a structural mechanism of participatory governance within citizen science infrastructures. In this capacity, it enables citizen science projects to address the multidimensional architecture of epistemic trust, including expertise, integrity, benevolence, openness, and dialogue orientation (Hendriks et al., 2015; Reif et al., 2024). By integrating communication, place, and participation, the framework advances a reconceptualisation of citizen science in which trust emerges not as a by-product of participation, but as an outcome of strategically designed communicative infrastructures. The contribution of this paper is twofold. Theoretically, it extends research on trust in science by introducing brand voice as an analytically distinct and operationalisable construct within participatory science communication. Practically, it provides a framework for designing citizen science initiatives that align communicative practices with principles of co-production and community engagement, while also identifying the risks of performative “place-washing” where communicative identity is not supported by genuine participatory governance. To the author’s knowledge, this paper represents one of the first attempts to conceptualise brand voice as a trust-building mechanism in citizen science. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-28-the-brand-voice-of-citizen-science-placemaking-community-engagement-and-the-architecture-of-trust Research Insights Jūlija Prata en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/7PCHDJ/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/7PCHDJ/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-05T16:00:00+02:00 16:00 00:15 Developing trust in science begins early, shaped by how young learners experience scientific processes and see themselves as participants in knowledge production. This presentation examines how citizen science can support the development of STEM identity and trust among elementary-aged learners (ages 8–11), using OCEAN Kids, a citizen science activity podcast about nurdles and microplastics, as a case study. OCEAN Kids integrates narrative audio storytelling with hands-on participation in scientific investigation through partnerships with Tumble Science podcast for kids and Nurdle Patrol. The project was supported by the National Academies’ Gulf Research Program through its 2024 Environmental Literacy for Community Resilience initiative, which funds place-based education efforts designed to help communities in the U.S. Gulf Coast region respond to environmental challenges. This region has been significantly impacted by climate change and environmental disasters, including oil spills, and the program was designed to support community resilience by engaging learners in locally relevant environmental investigation and action. The design of OCEAN Kids reflects four core goals: to broaden participation in science learning, increase awareness of microplastic pollution and empathy toward environmental issues, connect student observations to local environmental challenges, and position students as active contributors to scientific discovery and environmental stewardship. Findings from an external evaluation across pilot and field-test phases (11 classrooms; approximately 230 students) highlight a central insight: OCEAN Kids is most effective when it is experienced as an immersive, purpose-driven, hands-on citizen science program. When the program’s secret-agent narrative, real-world nurdle investigations, and teacher facilitation come together, student engagement is exceptionally high. When those elements are missing or constrained, particularly when the audio is missing, engagement drops sharply. Classroom observations documented deep engagement, collaboration, and conceptual understanding, with students actively participating in scientific practices and identifying as contributors to real-world research. Across implementations, the program demonstrated strong potential to build knowledge of plastics pollution, foster environmental stewardship, and connect learners to authentic scientific work. Students developed the ability to link local observations to broader environmental systems and began to understand science as a collaborative, iterative process. Audio storytelling played a key role as an accessible, screen-free medium that supported imagination, focus, and shared learning experiences, extending participation beyond the classroom. Students frequently brought their learning into the home, prompting family discussions and early behavior changes, suggesting potential for broader trust-building within communities. At the same time, findings underscore that engagement—and by extension, trust-building—is highly sensitive to design and context. When hands-on participation or narrative cohesion was reduced, engagement declined. This presentation will examine both what worked and what did not within U.S. classroom implementations, offering practice-based insights into the role of communication design in shaping participation and trust. It concludes with a set of best-practice principles for engaging elementary-aged learners in citizen science, with implications for researchers and practitioners seeking to foster trust through participatory science communication. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-46-building-trust-early-stem-identity-audio-storytelling-and-elementary-participation-in-citizen-science Practice Insights Sara Robberson Lentz en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/X8ZSSX/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/X8ZSSX/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-05T16:15:00+02:00 16:15 00:15 In rare disease research, citizens living with a condition are often positioned as contributors of data, yet less frequently recognised as producers and contributors of scientific knowledge. This raises important questions: how to ensure that research agendas are relevant for patients, and how is trust built between those who live with a condition and those who study it? In this context, patient organisations may act as key intermediaries, using participatory approaches to translate lived experience into collective priorities while challenging traditional boundaries between academia, real-life stories and meaningful participation. SMA Europe is an umbrella organisation of 30 European patient organisations for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a rare and progressive neuromuscular condition. SMA Europe drives initiatives in research, advocacy, evidence generation, awareness raising, and capacity building to represent and communicate the needs of the community. One of the key examples is the Priority Setting Partnership project, which used the James Lind Alliance approach to identify the most pressing unanswered questions about SMA from the perspective of citizens living with SMA, their caregivers and health and social care professionals. A transdisciplinary SMA expert panel subsequently translated these community-defined priorities into research areas with the highest translational relevance. This initiative represents the first European-wide, community-led initiative to define research priorities in SMA and reflects a growing shift toward inclusive governance in rare disease research. A subsequent communications campaign, co-created with community stakeholders, was then launched to raise awareness of the identified research priorities across public and professional audiences, build a feedback loop with study participants, and stimulate engagement from funders, researchers, and institutions to act on these priorities. If citizens with rare conditions are to shape and contribute to research, they must also be able to critically engage with it. In rare diseases, accessible accounts of scientific progress remain limited, and communication often lacks patient-driven narratives. This creates a dilemma: how can trust be fostered if knowledge remains unevenly distributed? How can we expect our citizens to truly and actively contribute to the research and science environment if we do not provide the necessary tools for them to bridge the knowledge breach? To address this challenge, SMA Europe developed The Rolling Story of SMA, a participatory storytelling project that speaks of the history of SMA research and its key scientific and therapeutic milestones in a lay and accessible language. Co-created with patients, families, SMA Europe funders and researchers, the project brings together multiple perspectives into a shared narrative that connects history and lived experience with scientific development and life-changing treatments that are available nowadays. The video and project behind it fund a base for an open and evolving conversation about what has been already gained for all the citizens who live with SMA and what is yet to be achieved. This contribution grounds patient storytelling as a form of citizen science, in which patients and patient organisations act as knowledge producers and active contributors. It further positions narrative as a communication tool and structure that translate complex scientific evidence and data into socially meaningful and accessible knowledge. These approaches strengthen trust through authenticity, representation, raising awareness and legitimacy. At the same time questions about whose stories should be included, how they are curated, and how they interact with widely established and accepted forms of evidence are raised for further discussion and debate. By bringing together priority setting and participatory storytelling, SMA Europe’s case study invites discussion on the role of narrative in shaping evidence ecosystems. It offers a model for rare disease communities, NGOs, and scientific institutions, while examining both the potential and boundaries of storytelling as a tool for citizen science and trust-building. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-38-building-trust-through-story-and-active-participation-patient-narratives-in-citizen-science-and-rare-disease-research-communication Practice Insights Emilia DebskaFederica Fontana en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/GTDASK/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/GTDASK/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-05T11:00:00+02:00 11:00 00:15 Citizen Science wird im wissenschafts- und gesellschaftspolitischen Diskurs seit einigen Jahren zunehmend als möglicher Schlüssel zur Stärkung des Vertrauens in Wissenschaft diskutiert. Der zentrale Gedanke besteht darin, dass die Beteiligung an wissenschaftlichen Prozessen Transparenz schafft, Einblicke in die Logik wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisgewinnung ermöglicht und wissenschaftliche Entscheidungen dadurch nachvollziehbarer macht. Gleichzeitig mangelt es bislang häufig an empirischen Befunden darüber, unter welchen Voraussetzungen solche Beteiligungsangebote tatsächlich vertrauensfördernd wirken. Die Daten des Wissenschaftsbarometers 2024, mit dem Wissenschaft im Dialog seit 2014 bevölkerungsrepräsentativ Einstellungen in der Bevölkerung gegenüber Wissenschaft und Forschung erhebt, liefern hierzu wertvolle Einsichten. Sie zeigen eine deutliche Diskrepanz zwischen der generellen Befürwortung von Bürgerbeteiligung und der tatsächlichen Bereitschaft, sich aktiv an wissenschaftlichen Prozessen zu beteiligen (siehe Abbildung 1). Während rund zwei Drittel der Befragten angeben, dass Bürgerinnen und Bürger stärker in die Festlegung wissenschaftlicher Forschungsthemen einbezogen werden sollten, ist die Zahl derjenigen, die sich vorstellen können, selbst an Projekten teilzunehmen oder an Dialogformaten mitzuwirken, deutlich geringer. Die Teilnahmebereitschaft ist zudem in verschiedenen Bevölkerungsgruppen unterschiedlich stark ausgeprägt. Männer geben häufiger als Frauen an, aktiv an Forschungsprojekten teilnehmen zu wollen, und auch die formale Bildung spielt eine entscheidende Rolle: Vor allem hochgebildete Personen zeigen ein deutlich höheres Interesse an aktiver Beteiligung, während Befragte mit niedriger oder mittlerer formaler Bildung vergleichsweise zurückhaltend sind. Dies weist darauf hin, dass Citizen-Science-Angebote für bestimmte Gruppen leichter zugänglich oder attraktiver erscheinen und dass bestehende gesellschaftliche Ungleichheiten auch in partizipativen Formaten reproduziert werden können. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser Befunde wird deutlich, wie wichtig es ist, partizipative Formate so zu gestalten, dass sie für alle Bevölkerungsgruppen anschlussfähig und attraktiv sind – insbesondere, wenn das Ziel darin besteht, Vertrauen in Wissenschaft und Forschung insgesamt zu stärken. Denn auch hier zeigt das Wissenschaftsbarometer deutliche Unterschiede zwischen verschiedenen Bevölkerungsgruppen. Besonders deutlich treten diese abermals zwischen Befragten mit hoher und niedriger formaler Bildung zutage. Daraus ergibt sich die Frage, inwieweit aktuelle Partizipationsformate potentiell in erster Linie für Bevölkerungsgruppen interessant sind, die ohnehin schon ein hohes Vertrauen in Wissenschaft aufweisen - während Bevölkerungsgruppen mit geringerem Vertrauen bei Citizen Science Projekten möglicherweise außen vor bleiben. Die Ergebnisse des Wissenschaftsbarometers liefern damit eine wichtige empirische Grundlage, um mögliche Zusammenhänge zwischen Bürgerbeteiligung und Vertrauen zu diskutieren. Sie verdeutlichen, dass Citizen Science über ihre Rolle als Instrument der Wissensproduktion hinaus auch ein strategisches Potenzial für Vertrauensbildung besitzt – vorausgesetzt, Beteiligungsformate werden so konzipiert, dass sie für alle bzw. diverse Bevölkerungsgruppen attraktiv und anschlussfähig sind. Für die Gestaltung von Citizen-Science-Projekten bedeutet dies, partizipative Formate nicht nur als Einladung zur Mitwirkung zu verstehen, sondern als Kommunikations- und Vertrauensinstrument, das gezielt unterschiedliche Bevölkerungsgruppen erreichen und in dem wissenschaftliche Prozesse transparent und nachvollziehbar vermittelt werden können. Werden Citizen Science Formate auf diese Weise auf diese Weise eingesetzt und zielgruppengerecht konzipiert, können sie nicht nur Wissen generieren, sondern auch aktiv dazu beitragen, Vertrauen in Wissenschaft in der Gesellschaft zu stärken. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-60-preaching-to-the-choir-empirische-befunde-aus-dem-wissenschaftsbarometer-zum-zusammenhang-von-burgerbeteiligung-und-vertrauen-in-wissenschaft Research Insights /media/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/submissions/P9PD3M/Abbildung_1_-_HM9VBeG.webp Bastian Kremer de-formal false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/P9PD3M/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/P9PD3M/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-05T11:15:00+02:00 11:15 00:15 Citizen-Science-Förderung und besonders die enge Verknüpfung von Forschung und Bildung nehmen in Österreich seit vielen Jahren eine besondere Rolle ein. Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Frauen, Wissenschaft und Forschung fördert der OeAD mit den Sparkling-Science-Programmen Projekte, in denen wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen mit Schulen und mit Partnern aus Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft zusammenarbeiten, um gemeinsam neue Forschungsergebnisse zu gewinnen. Die Themen der geförderten Sparkling-Science-Projekte sind vielfältig, mit Schwerpunkten in Natur-, Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften sowie in der Lehr-Lernforschung. Besonders stark vertreten sind Projekte mit gesellschaftsrelevanten Fragestellungen, etwa Klimawandel, kulturelles Erbe oder neue Lernformen. Viele Projekte arbeiten dabei interdisziplinär oder erschließen Forschungsfelder, die in anderen Programmen nur eingeschränkt förderbar sind. Bereits im ersten Förderprogramm „Sparkling Science“ wirkten von 2007 bis 2019 mehr als 107.000 Personen aus 200 Forschungseinrichtungen, 535 Schulen und 185 Partnerorganisationen aus Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in insgesamt 299 Forschungsprojekten an aktuellen wissenschaftlichen Fragestellungen mit. Mit „Sparkling Science 2.0“ wurde 2021 ein Nachfolgeprogramm etabliert, das die strukturelle Verankerung partizipativer Forschung im österreichischen Wissenschaftssystem weiter vorantreibt. Zugleich sollen die Projekte der neuen Schiene noch mehr Menschen einen positiven Zugang zu Forschung eröffnen, indem neben Schülerinnen und Schülern vermehrt auch weitere Citizen Scientists eingebunden werden. Die insgesamt 61 Projekte, die mit 21 Mio. Euro gefördert wurden, erreichen eine beachtliche thematische und institutionelle Breite. Insgesamt werden voraussichtlich mehr als 110.000 Personen eingebunden, darunter über 80.000 Schülerinnen und Schüler sowie rund 38.000 weitere Citizen Scientists. Der Beitrag stellt die Ergebnisse der im Herbst 2025 veröffentlichten Evaluierung von „Sparkling Science 2.0“ in den Mittelpunkt und legt einen Fokus auf das Thema Vertrauen. Die Evaluation zeigt, dass die aktive Beteiligung von insbesondere jungen Menschen und Schulen Forschung zugänglicher macht und die Wahrnehmung wissenschaftlicher Arbeit stärken kann. Sie liefert damit wichtige Hinweise darauf, unter welchen Bedingungen Partizipation vertrauensfördernd wirkt. Gleichzeitig wird deutlich, dass Vertrauen kein automatischer Effekt partizipativer Formate ist. Entscheidend sind vielmehr transparente Kommunikation, klare Rollen, gegenseitige Anerkennung und eine sorgfältige Einbettung der Projekte in schulische und wissenschaftliche Strukturen. Wo Erwartungen an Mitgestaltung nicht eingelöst werden oder die Beiträge der Teilnehmenden zu wenig sichtbar bleiben, kann die vertrauensbildende Wirkung von Partizipation abgeschwächt werden. Der Beitrag diskutiert diese Befunde im Hinblick auf die Frage, wie Forschungsförderung wirkt und wie diese evidenzbasierten Erkenntnisse auf die Gestaltung von Citizen-Science-Initiativen übertragen werden können. Damit adressiert er sowohl die Forschungs- als auch die Praxisperspektiven des Symposiums. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-44-citizen-science-als-vertrauensraum-erkenntnisse-aus-der-evaluierung-von-sparkling-science-2-0 Research Insights Petra Siegele de-formal false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/P8NJLN/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/P8NJLN/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-05T11:30:00+02:00 11:30 00:15 Gemeinsam neues Wissen zu schaffen bedeutet mehr als das Zusammentragen von Daten oder die gemeinsame Auswahl von Methoden. Koproduktion von Wissen setzt gegenseitiges Vertrauen zwischen allen beteiligten Akteur:innen voraus. In diesem Beitrag wird untersucht, wie Vertrauen in Citizen-Science-Projekten entsteht, sich verändert und welche institutionellen Strukturen diesen Prozess unterstützen können. Als Fallbeispiel dient das sogenannte 1000 Bäume Projekt, das vom Exzellenzcluster TERRA der Universität Tübingen, dem Landratsamt Reutlingen und lokalen Obst- und Gartenbauvereinen initiiert wurde. Ziel des Projekts ist es, im Rahmen einer groß angelegten Aufforstung die Wirkung von Pflanzenkohle auf die Klimaresilienz von Streuobstwiesen zu erforschen. Dies ist das erste im institutionellen Rahmen des Public Engagement Hub der Universität Tübingen begleitete Citizen Science Projekt. Der Hub, bestehend aus Mitgliedern mit Expertise zu Citizen Science, Wissenschaftskommunikation und Public Engagement begleiten das Projekt methodisch und moderativ. Citizen Science versteht sich als Ansatz, wissenschaftliche Wissensproduktion zu öffnen und lokales Erfahrungswissen gleichberechtigt einzubeziehen. Dieses Ideal stößt jedoch im Projektalltag auf komplexe soziale Dynamiken. Während sich Forschende um wissenschaftliche Standards und Datenqualität sorgen, hinterfragen Praxispartner:innen die Relevanz oder Praktikabilität der Forschung in Bezug auf ihre praktischen Erfahrungen, Bedarfe oder täglichen Herausforderungen. Der erste Teil unseres Beitrags beschreibt, wie die unterschiedliche Akteurslogiken im 1000 Bäume Projekts für den Aufbau von Vertrauen produktiv bearbeitet werden. Wir argumentieren, dass sich Vertrauen gerade dort entwickelt, wo Differenzen sichtbar bleiben und gemeinsam bearbeitet werden. Zudem argumentieren wir, dass Vertrauen Zeit und Kontinuität braucht: Über dem 1000 Bäume Projekt als Citizen-Science-Projekt steht das Commitment, dass der dialogische Kontakt zwischen der Universität Tübingen und den lokalen Wiesenbewirtenden über das Projektende hinaus Bestand haben soll. Im zweiten Teil unseres Beitrags wenden wir den Blick intensiv auf die Universität: Vertrauen muss auch innerhalb der Wissenschaft selbst entstehen. Forschende, die in leistungsorientierten Forschungsstrukturen arbeiten, begegnen transdisziplinären Projekten häufig mit Skepsis, etwa im Hinblick auf die wissenschaftliche Qualität oder Publikationsfähigkeit. In unserer Arbeit im Public Engagement sehen wir auch, dass ein weiterer Vertrauensfaktor Gelingensbedingung für transdisziplinäre Forschung ist: das Vertrauen der Wissenschaftler:innen in die eigene Fähigkeit zum gesellschaftlichen Dialog. Wenn Forschende kein Vertrauen in ihre eigenen kommunikativen Fähigkeiten haben, entsteht die Sorge, einen gesellschaftlichen Dialog nicht angemessen moderieren zu können und zum Beispiel unvorhersehbare Fragen nicht beantworten zu können oder die Dynamik der Diskussion zu verlieren. Citizen Science erfordert also nicht nur Vertrauen seitens der Öffentlichkeit in Forschung, sondern auch das Vertrauen der Forschung in ihre eigene Offenheit gegenüber Gesellschaft. Der Public Engagement Hub der Universität Tübingen unterstützt diesen doppelten Vertrauensprozess institutionell. Er ist ein Bindeglied zwischen Wissenschaft und außeruniversitärer Gesellschaft und begleitet ko-kreative Prozesse methodisch und moderierend. Das 1000 Bäume Projekt verstehen und begleiten wir im Public Engagement Hub als sogenanntes Ko-Kreations-Team. In diesen Ko-Kreations-Teams arbeiten Vertreter:innen der Forschung, des Public Engagement Hubs und zivilgesellschaftlicher Initiativen gemeinsam. Diese Struktur entlastet Forschende von sozialer Moderationsarbeit und schafft gleichzeitig Räume, in denen sowohl Wissenschaftler:innen als auch Praxispartner:innen zu Teilnehmenden werden und sich so besser auf Augenhöhe begegnen können. Zugleich werden Wissenschaftler:innen im Verlauf dieser Kooperation schrittweise in die praktischen und kommunikativen Dimensionen transdisziplinärer Arbeit eingeführt. So entsteht auf wissenschaftlicher Seite schrittweise das Vertrauen in die eigene Fähigkeit, Dialog- und Partizipationsprozesse zu gestalten. Vertrauen ist in Citizen-Science-Projekten ist kein statischer Zustand, sondern ein fortlaufender sozialer Prozess. Am Beispiel des 1000 Bäume Projekts zeigt sich, dass Vertrauen weder selbstverständlich gegeben noch alleinige Voraussetzung gelingender Kooperation ist. Gegenseitiges Vertrauen aller Beteiligten ist vielmehr das Ergebnis gemeinsamer Ko-Kreation. Der institutionell begleitete Ko-Kreationsprozess ist dabei nicht nur Vehikel für das Vertrauen in (transdisziplinäre) Wissenschaft, sondern zugleich auch Vehikel für das Vertrauen von Wissenschaftler:innen in die eigene Fähigkeit, transdisziplinär zu forschen. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-68-vertrauen-als-facilitator-citizen-science-im-1000-baume-projekt-zwischen-exzellenzcluster-und-obst-und-gartenbauvereinen Practice Insights Gloria KoepkeOliver Häußler de-formal false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/MSXYZ7/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/MSXYZ7/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-05T13:30:00+02:00 13:30 00:15 How can we ensure effective communication in a citizen science project that addresses a societally controversial topic? This is the central science communication question guiding the CitizenELF project - ELF referring to Extreme Low Frequency radiation, a form of electromagnetic radiation. Our research focuses specifically on magnetic fields generated by high‑voltage power lines. Citizens living near such infrastructure often express concern about the potential long‑term health effects of exposure. Although the Flemish government applies the precautionary principle and aims to limit exposure, there is currently no concrete dataset describing the actual radiation levels in the proximity of these power lines. With this project, we aim to map the real situation without provoking unnecessary anxiety or mistrust. Commissioned by the Flemish Department of Environment, the CitizenELF study is carried out by Scivil, the Flemish Knowledge and Research Center for Citizen Science, in collaboration with Ghent University and Imec. The project invites residents living within 100 meters of a high‑voltage transmission line to participate. Participants receive accessible information and a plug‑in sensor that collects measurements automatically for at least one week. Apart from filling in a short questionnaire, no further action is required. From a citizen science perspective, the tasks are intentionally designed to be inclusive and easy for everyone. From a science communication standpoint however, the project presents two key challenges: Trust and sensitivity. While no causal relationship has been proven between ELF radiation and health effects, a statistical association has been observed between prolonged exposure near high‑voltage lines and childhood leukemia. This finding underpins the Flemish precautionary policy to avoid long‑term exposure above 0.4 µT, especially around children’s facilities (schools, daycares, residential areas). Public debate on new power lines has been intense in recent years, with campaigns using emotionally charged slogans such as “No against leukemia.” This context illustrates a significant level of public concern and low trust - requiring careful, transparent, and empathetic communication. Reaching the right audience. Effective science communication begins with a clearly defined target group. However, our target is based solely on geographical proximity rather than demographic characteristics: anyone living within 100 meters of a power line. This results in a highly diverse and unpredictable audience, making it challenging to tailor messages or identify accessible communication channels. Reaching this dispersed group demands creative and location‑specific strategies. In our presentation, we will outline our communication strategy with a focus on these two challenges. As the project officially launches in the summer of 2026, we aim to share early insights, experiences, and lessons learned from the first round of citizen measurements. While it will be too early to assess long‑term changes in trust, we hope to offer practical guidance and inspiration to colleagues working on similarly sensitive or complex topics. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-41-measuring-without-alarm-engaging-citizens-in-electromagnetic-radiation-research Practice Insights Steve Bers en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/JGRVT3/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/JGRVT3/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-05T13:45:00+02:00 13:45 00:15 1. Context: AI in critical care research Artificial intelligence (AI) is being increasingly integrated into clinical research and care, including in resource-limited settings. I explore how these developments challenge existing models of participation, communication and trust, drawing on practice-based work at OUCRU Vietnam. I argue that AI-enabled clinical research in critical care creates a form of constrained participation, in which patients contribute to knowledge production but cannot meaningfully engage with or understand it. OUCRU is based at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases (HTD), a tertiary hospital for infectious diseases in southern Vietnam. Its intensive care unit (ICU) operates under significant constraints, including high patient loads and limited monitoring equipment. Tetanus, for instance, has a mortality rate of 30 to 40 per cent globally and requires continuous monitoring and rapid intervention, placing substantial pressure on clinical staff. In response, OUCRU has developed an affordable, wearable monitoring device that continuously captures patients' vital data, and uses an algorithm to detect early signs of deterioration and alert clinicians. 2. Constrained participation and trust Patients enrolled in this research contribute continuous streams of vital data that inform both clinical decisions and knowledge production. Their contribution constitutes a form of participation in scientific research, albeit one that is passive and mediated by clinical care. This raises important questions about what counts as participation in such data-intensive research. In this setting, participation is true but highly constrained: patients are severely ill, often unconscious, and consent is typically provided by family members. Clinicians and researchers, who are responsible for communicating with patients and families, are not always equipped to explain the "black box", how algorithmic systems function or what their limitations are. This challenge is intensified by Vietnamese culture where patients and families defer strongly to medical authority and have limited reference points for understanding AI. Trust, in this case, is shaped by necessity and structural dependence rather than informed engagement. 3. AI disclosure Unlike auxiliary diagnostic tools, AI technologies in ICUs do not simply generate data but actively shape clinical decisions. This has direct implications for patients' autonomy and dignity (Montanari Vergallo et al., 2025). Thus, the use of AI must be adequately communicated, even when full understanding is proven challenging. The question is how much information to communicate, and how. One approach is to match the obligation to inform to the level of risk on patient safety, where higher risk systems require more extensive explanation. However, simply providing more information is not sufficient. Transparency alone does not build trust; information must be intelligible and accessible to those who need to act on it (O’Neill, 2018). In this setting, the gap between what the technology does and what patients and families can meaningfully understand remains significant. 4. The role of science communication I would argue that science communication has a critical role in addressing this gap. At OUCRU, communication has traditionally focused on translating complex research findings to make them accessible and support public trust in science. However, in the context of AI in clinical research, communication becomes a condition for ethical practice rather than a final step. The challenge is to develop forms of explanation that are accurate, accessible, and usable within the realities of critical practices. This requires moving upstream, from disseminating results to shaping how research is explained and understood at the point of participation. 5. Practice contribution I propose a practice-based inquiry into how AI is currently communicated to patients and families across several OUCRU clinical studies, with the aim to develop practical guidance for clearer and more responsible communication during consent and care discussions. This includes identifying what information is necessary, how it can be explained in plain language, and developing practical tools such as communication scripts, checklists, and training for healthcare workers that can be integrated into clinical practice. By examining a setting where participation is constrained but stakes are high, this work contributes to a broader discussion on citizen science, communication, and trust. It argues that as AI becomes more prominent in research and care, new communication practices are needed to support understanding and maintain trust throughout the research process and beyond. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-86-communicating-ai-in-critical-care-trust-and-participation-under-constraint Practice Insights Trang Nguyen en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/XG9SRA/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/XG9SRA/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-05T14:10:00+02:00 14:10 00:15 **Hintergrund:** Vertrauen in wissenschaftliche Prozesse und Ergebnisse stellt eine grundlegende Bedingung moderner Gesellschaften dar (Kohring 2010; Lahusen et al. 2024; Luhmann 2001). Neue Technologien prägen medizinische Entscheidungsprozesse und fungieren immer häufiger als Entscheidungshilfen (Budnik 2025; Lahusen et al. 2024). Insbesondere aufgrund algorithmusbasierter Technologien nehmen wissenschaftliche Komplexität, Intransparenz und epistemische Asymmetrien zu (Steinfath et al 2016; Myskja and Steinsbekk 2020). Unter diesen Bedingungen gewinnt Vertrauen in seiner orientierenden und komplexitätsreduzierenden Funktion an Bedeutung (Budnik 2025; Hartmann and Offe 2001; Luhmann 2001; Schmidt 2021). Vertrauen ermöglicht die Annahme wissenschaftlich-technischer Ergebnisse trotz begrenzter epistemischer Zugänglichkeit und wird damit zu einer wesentlichen Voraussetzung von Handlungsfähigkeit und Autonomie (Budnik 2025; Hartmann and Offe 2001; Kohring 2010). Im klinischen Alltag zeigt sich diese Dynamik besonders deutlich, da wissenschaftliche Evidenz in diagnostische Entscheidungen überführt wird. An dieser Stelle setzt das internationale Forschungsprojekt Stracyfic (https://bioinformatics.umg.eu/research/projects/stracyfic/) an, das ein neues Diagnosetool für Mukoviszidose entwickelt, um eine algorithmusbasierte Entscheidungshilfe bereitzustellen. Unser ethisches Teilprojekt (https://www.haw-hamburg.de/forschung/forschungsprojekte-detail/project/project/show/stracyfic/) untersucht dabei die im Entwicklungs- und Implementierungsprozess entstehenden Vertrauensdynamiken. **Methode:** Der Beitrag folgt einem empirisch-ethischen Forschungsansatz. Grundlage ist eine systematische Literaturrecherche zu klinischen Vertrauensdynamiken bei der Implementierung neuer Technologien, die in die Entwicklung der Interviewleitfäden sowie in die qualitative Inhaltsanalyse einfließt. Die empirische Datenerhebung erfolgt durch halbstrukturierte Interviews (Froschauer and Lueger 2003; Hopf 2012) mit Patient:innen und medizinischem Fachpersonal, die an der Anwendung des neuen Diagnosetools in Partnerkliniken in Deutschland, Belgien, Frankreich und Italien beteiligt sind. Die Interviews werden dabei explizit als Form aktiver Beteiligung verstanden, um die Perspektiven, Erfahrungen und normative Einschätzungen der Betroffenen dieser neuen Technologie in den Forschungsprozess zu integrieren. **Ergebnisse:** Die vorläufigen Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Vertrauen und Autonomie zentral im Umgang mit wissenschaftlich generierten Erkenntnissen im klinischen Alltag sind, die in technologiegestützten Entscheidungsprozessen zur Anwendung kommen. Sie werden durch ein komplexes Zusammenspiel verschiedener Faktoren geprägt. Insbesondere Kommunikation und Informationsflüsse zwischen wissenschaftlich-medizinischem Fachpersonal und Patient:innen erweisen sich als zentrale Vermittlungsinstanzen von Vertrauen und Autonomie auf interpersonaler, technischer und institutioneller Ebene. Interpersonale Interaktionen stärken dabei Vertrauen in handelnde Akteur:innen und fungieren als emotionale und relationale Anker. Zugänglichkeit und Verfügbarkeit von Expert:innen werden als grundlegende Voraussetzung von Vertrauen beschrieben. Autonomie wird maßgeblich durch epistemische Kompetenz bzw. Gesundheitskompetenz gestärkt, die partizipative Entscheidungsprozesse ermöglicht und zugleich vertrauensbildend wirkt. Auf institutioneller Ebene werden funktionierende Koordinationsprozesse, transparente Kommunikation zwischen Akteur:innen sowie wissenschaftliche Validierungs- und Evidenzstrukturen als zentrale Bedingungen von Vertrauen identifiziert. Insgesamt zeigt sich, dass Vertrauen in wissenschaftlich-technische Ergebnisse nicht auf einzelne Technologien oder Akteur:innen reduzierbar ist, sondern aus einem systemischen Zusammenspiel aus sozialen Beziehungen, institutionellen Rahmenbedingungen und wissenschaftlichen Praktiken entsteht. Es manifestiert sich als Systemvertrauen in Evidenz, Validierung und professionelle Standards. **Schlussfolgerung:** Unsere Forschung zeigt, dass partizipative Forschungsansätze unter den durch neue Technologien und damit zunehmenden komplexen Bedingungen wissenschaftlicher Prozesse notwendig sind, um Vertrauensdynamiken zu stabilisieren und damit Autonomie und Handlungsfähigkeit sicherzustellen. Dieser Partizipationsanspruch realisiert sich im Kontext medizinisch- wissenschaftlicher Strukturen durch transparente und kontinuierliche Informationsvermittlung, dialogorientierte Kommunikationsstrukturen sowie die aktive Einbindung von Patient:innen in Forschungs- und Entscheidungsprozesse. Ebenso bedeutsam sind stabile Beziehungen zwischen medizinischem Fachpersonal und Patient:innen, die Stärkung der Gesundheitskompetenz sowie verlässliche institutionelle und wissenschaftliche Rahmenbedingungen. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-49-vertrauensdynamiken-im-umgang-mit-wissenschaftlicher-evidenz-bei-der-implementierung-neuer-technologien-im-klinischen-alltag-eine-empirisch-ethische-analyse Practice Insights Lea Wiedemann de-formal false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/ZEZ9DX/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/ZEZ9DX/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-05T14:25:00+02:00 14:25 00:15 Was macht es mit dem Vertrauen in Wissenschaft, wenn Bürger:innen aktiv in die Aufbereitung wissenschaftlicher Evidenz eingebunden werden? Der Beitrag stellt das Mitmachangebot von KLARpsy als praxisnahes Beispiel für eine partizipative Wissenschaftskommunikation vor, die zentrale Prinzipien von Citizen Science auf den Prozess der Kommunikation von Forschungserkenntnissen überträgt. KLARpsy veröffentlicht auf der Website klarpsy.de wöchentlich ein bis zwei KLARpsy-Texte. Ein KLARpsy-Text ist eine allgemeinverständliche Zusammenfassung einer psychologischen Übersichtsarbeit mit Metaanalyse. Die Texte werden von erfahrenen Wissenschaftler:innen in Zusammenarbeit mit Personen ohne psychologischen Hintergrund (“Testleser:innen”) verfasst. Ergänzt wird das Angebot durch das KLARpsy-Wörterbuch, in dem Fachbegriffe aus der Psychologie allgemeinverständlich erklärt werden und das an den entsprechenden Stellen mit den KLARpsy-Texten verknüpft ist. KLARpsy ist ein Angebot des Leibniz-Instituts für Psychologie (ZPID) und hat zum Ziel, der interessierten Öffentlichkeit die psychologische Forschung zugänglich zu machen. KLARpsy ermöglicht Beteiligung entlang mehrerer Stufen: Bürger:innen können als Testleser:innen Texte auf ihre Verständlichkeit prüfen und Begriffe für das KLARpsy-Wörterbuch vorschlagen. Zudem können sie Themen vorschlagen, zu denen Texte veröffentlicht werden sollen. Diese Formen der Beteiligung dienen der kooperativen Vermittlung evidenzbasierter psychologischer Erkenntnisse und der gemeinsamen Erschließung der wissenschaftlichen Psychologie. Der Beitrag berichtet die Rationale und die Erfahrungen aus dem seit 2023 bestehenden Angebot und argumentiert, dass dieses Modell auch als Citizen Science verstanden werden kann: Bürger:innen wirken an der Bedeutungskonstruktion wissenschaftlicher Evidenz mit, ohne selbst Forschung im engeren Sinne durchzuführen. Anhand konkreter Erfahrungen aus der Umsetzung wird die Bedeutung von Transparenz (beispielsweise durch klare Evidenzstandards) und iterativen Feedbackprozessen für die veröffentlichten Inhalte gezeigt. Gleichzeitig werden Spannungsfelder diskutiert, etwa zwischen Offenheit für Beteiligung und Sicherung wissenschaftlicher Qualität sowie zwischen Teilhabe und epistemischer Autorität. Daran anschließend wird die Frage besprochen, wie sich diese Art der Beteiligung auf das Vertrauen sowohl der aktiv beteiligten Bürger:innen als auch der rezipierenden Bürger:innen auswirkt. Mit der Praxisreflexion soll ein Gespräch darüber angestoßen werden, wie Wissenschaftskommunikation über die bloße Bereitstellung verständlicher Informationen hinausgehen kann; wie durch die Einbeziehung der Adressat:innen womöglich zusätzlich Vertrauen in den gesamten wissenschaftlichen Prozess gesteigert werden kann; und wie man den Begriff "Citizen Science" ganzheitlich verstehen und auch auf die späteren Phasen des Forschungsprozesses anwenden kann. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-72-mitmachen-verstehen-vertrauen-ein-partizipativer-ansatz-der-wissenschaftskommunikation-im-kontext-psychologischer-forschungserkenntnisse Practice Insights Marlene Bodemer de-formal false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/FSJLHJ/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/FSJLHJ/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-05T15:30:00+02:00 15:30 00:15 Citizen scientists form a growing and increasingly visible group of actors in contemporary knowledge production (Mazumdar et al., 2018; Pocock et al., 2017). This is reflected both in the expansion of projects, platforms, and institutions operating under the label of citizen science, as well as in its increasing recognition as a distinct and legitimate mode of knowledge production rather than a marginal extension of conventional science (Berti Suman and Alblas, 2023; Eitzel et al., 2017). At the same time, the relationship between science and society has become complex; scientific work is increasingly conducted ‘in public,’ making processes of uncertainty, disagreement, and revision visible to wider audiences, while many science-related issues are closely intertwined with values, identities, and political debates (Degeling et al., 2025; Rekker, 2021). Moreover, science is deeply embedded in governance and everyday life, shaping how problems are defined and which responses are considered legitimate (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994; Turnhout et al., 2020). As a result, debates about science involve both questions of evidence and how knowledge is produced, evaluated, and used (Jasanoff, 2011; Ottinger, 2010). Although this context is sometimes described in terms of a post-truth era (Berti Suman & Alblas, 2023, Davies and Mah, 2020), overall trust in science remains relatively high, albeit increasingly uneven across groups and issues (Cologna et al., 2022; Rutjens et al., 2018). Against this backdrop, citizen science is frequently associated with the promise of strengthening trust in science and science-society relations through participation (Bedessem et al., 2023; Hessels & Brouwer, 2019). However, in contexts where science is closely intertwined with policy debates and local conflicts, such as in environmental policy-relevant science, the relationship between participation and trust remains complex and contested (Wynne, 2006). Moreover, trust in science is not a singular or uniform construct, but varies across domains and dimensions and is shaped by individuals’ worldviews and social contexts (Hendriks et al., 2016; Lewandowsky et al., 2013; Rutjens & Hornsey, 2025). To address these complexities and advance empirical understanding of how citizen scientists relate to science, this paper presents findings from a mixed-method PhD project examining how participation in environmental citizen science in the Netherlands relates to socially robust knowledge, psychological distance to science and trust in science. The project integrates three qualitative case studies of citizen sensing initiatives in contested local contexts (e.g., air quality, noise, and environmental exposure) with two quantitative studies: a survey comparing citizens with and without citizen science experience (N = 763), and a focused analysis within this sample examining environmental citizen science participants’ perspectives on (citizen) science and different forms of (dis)trust (N = 450). Conceptually, the study combines the STS framework of socially robust knowledge (Nowotny, 2003) with the social psychological concept of psychological distance to science (Većkalov et al., 2024). This approach enables an analysis of how participatory practices shape both knowledge production and citizens’ experiential relationship to science. Across studies, findings show that participation in citizen science reduces psychological distance to science by making research processes more tangible, locally embedded, and socially accessible. This experiential proximity is closely linked to trust in specific projects, methods, and actors. At the same time, participation does not automatically translate into higher generalized trust in science. Instead, trust emerges as relational and context-dependent, shaped by transparency, perceived fairness, opportunities for meaningful involvement, and the extent to which citizen-generated knowledge is recognized within scientific and policy contexts, echoing previous research (Ottinger, 2010; Berti Suman & Alblas, 2023). Furthermore, even in politically salient and conflict-driven projects, citizen scientists do not position themselves in opposition to science. Rather, they tend to value scientific expertise while seeking to complement it with local, experiential knowledge. Citizen science thus produces knowledge that is both scientifically credible and socially meaningful, while reshaping relationships between citizens, scientists, and institutions. These results suggest that trust in (citizen) science should be understood as both a possible outcome of participation, as well as an enabling condition and a dynamic that can be strengthened or undermined over time. In sum, this research project contributes empirical insights into how participatory practices can shape trust in science in real-world contexts, and highlights the importance of institutional responsiveness in realizing the potential of citizen science. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-43-citizen-science-and-trust-in-contested-environmental-contexts-insights-from-a-multi-study-phd-project Research Insights Kirsten VegtLaurens Hessels en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/EZJXZS/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/EZJXZS/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-05T15:45:00+02:00 15:45 00:15 Citizen Science Communication Strategies in Urban Water and Freshwater Ecosystem Projects Cecília Guerra (1), Luísa Cardoso (2), Tiago Peralta (3), Bruno B. Castro (4) Sara C. Antunes (5) (1) Sciences Faculty, University of Porto, cguerra@fc.up.pt (2) Engineering Faculty, University of Porto,up202402328@edu.fe.up.pt (3) Engineering Faculty, University of Porto, up201905013@edu.fe.up.pt (4) Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology (CBMA), Department of Biology of the University of Minho, brunocastro@bio.uminho.pt (5) Sciences Faculty, University of Porto, scantunes@fc.up.pt Abstract Citizen science has emerged as a key approach to bridging scientific knowledge production and societal engagement, fostering trust, co-creation, and shared responsibility in addressing environmental challenges. Grounded in dialogical models of science communication (Bucchi & Trench, 2008; Burns et al., 2003) and broader reflections on public engagement with science (Wynne, 1992), this contribution presents and critically reflects on the citizen science strategies implemented in two Portuguese research projects, URBAnWat3r and 2QUA. Both projects address pressing water-related challenges, including the impacts of urbanization on aquatic biodiversity [1] and the sustainability of lentic freshwater ecosystems, particularly reservoirs [2]. Central to their approach is the development of participatory science communication (SciCom) plans grounded in citizen science principles and co-creation practices (Roche et al., 2020). These plans are supported by a design thinking methodology (Mota, Sá and Guerra, 2025), which enables iterative development, fosters stakeholder involvement, and enhances responsiveness to local contexts (Baharuddin et al., 2023). The overarching goal of both projects is to actively involve citizens as co-creators of knowledge rather than passive recipients. In URBAnWat3r, local stakeholders (e.g., schools, municipalities, water management entities, and community groups) will participate in SciCom co-design sessions. Video-based approaches have been shown to be effective in enhancing public engagement with environmental science topics (Ferreira et al., 2023). Therefore, the interaction with local stakeholders will inform the development of an interactive digital toolkit comprising a PDF that integrates three explanatory videos (up to 1 minute each). These materials are designed to communicate the ecological risks of inadequate stormwater management by translating complex scientific data into accessible and engaging formats. Ultimately, the toolkit aims to encourage reflection on everyday practices, fostering increased environmental awareness, and promoting behavioural change. In parallel, the 2QUA project engages local communities (e.g., teachers, students and policymakers) in the co-design and use of an immersive 3D virtual environment that represents the biodiversity of the Aguieira reservoir. This digital tool enables users to interactively explore species, habitats, and ecological processes, thereby supporting experiential learning and fostering an emotional connection with local freshwater ecosystems. The virtual environment is complemented by open-access biodiversity datasets and visual materials, reinforcing principles of transparency and accessibility. Such SciCom approaches reflect current trends in sustainability-oriented science communication, particularly in fostering environmental and sustainability literacy (Aung et al., 2025). The involvement of society in both projects serves multiple and interconnected purposes. First, it enhances the relevance and effectiveness of science communication by aligning tools and messages with the needs, experiences, and contexts of their target audiences. Second, it strengthens trust in science through transparency, participation, and shared ownership of knowledge production. Third, it promotes long-term engagement and behavioural change, as citizens become more aware of their roles and responsibilities in promoting environmental sustainability. This contribution examines how different digital formats (interactive video-based communication and immersive 3D environments) influence public engagement with science and trust in scientific knowledge. It further explores the opportunities and limitations associated with these approaches, particularly regarding digital accessibility and inclusivity. Ultimately, this work contributes to ongoing discussions on the role of citizen science communication in supporting knowledge co-production, strengthening relationships between science and society, and fostering more sustainable interactions with aquatic ecosystems. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-53-citizen-science-communication-strategies-in-urban-water-and-freshwater-ecosystem-projects Practice Insights /media/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/submissions/GUTMS8/Funding__g34g_BxVN6Y2.webp Cecília GuerraTiago ParaltaBruno CastroSara Cristina AntunesLuisa Cardoso en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/GUTMS8/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/GUTMS8/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-05T16:00:00+02:00 16:00 00:15 Khim Cathleen Saddi 1, Gaia Proietti 2, Kacper Malec 3, and Salvatore Manfreda 1 1 Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale (DICEA), Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy; 2 UNESCO Chair in Water Resources Management and Culture, University for Foreigners of Perugia, Perugia, Italy; 3 Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Gdańsk University of Technology, Gdańsk, Poland. Citizen-led initiatives tackling global challenges such as environmental monitoring are growing in recent years, especially when the citizen scientists are also direct stakeholders (e.g., in water quality). Currently, the confidence of the scientific community in these projects where data are collected, generated, or analyzed by citizen scientists still remains low. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a citizen science research framework to elevate scientific merit of citizen science research by the citizen for the citizen. In this work, we expanded and enriched the RiverWatch initiative by co-designing, and co-creating knowledge with three partner communities in their local rivers, while also promoting a global citizen science observatory in river plastic pollution. RiverWatch is a citizen science initiative that was developed to create a virtual observatory to monitor pollution in the Sarno River in Italy. A web app has been developed that allows users to collect image data of plastic debris flowing in rivers, tag the type of plastic (e.g., plastic bottle, bags, etc.), and report simple turbidity levels using their smartphones. Building a rich image database was key to training accurate, generalizable AI models for plastic detection and enhancing their accuracy and generalizability across diverse environmental contexts. We engaged the citizen scientists in three phases: 1) data collection using the RiverWatch web app (co-creation), 2) technical and design improvement of the RiverWatch web app (co-design), and 3) development of the Riverwatch Citizen Science Data Quality Framework for river monitoring (co-development). The overarching goal is to increase scientific merit of citizen science projects and empower citizens to support decision-makers in water management, building on previous work and advancements in river water quality monitoring and citizen science of RiverWatch project. Keywords: Citizen Science, plastic pollution, AI models, CS quality citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-92-citizens4rivers-a-citizen-observatory-advancing-river-pollution-monitoring Practice Insights Khim Cathleen SaddiGaia Proietti en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/FMD9XU/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/FMD9XU/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-05T16:15:00+02:00 16:15 00:15 (Der Vortrag kann auf Deutsch oder Englisch gehalten werden) Participation has become a key normative principle of contemporary urban planning. Planning processes are expected not only to produce technically sound solutions, but also to enhance transparency, legitimacy, and responsiveness to citizens’ needs. In practice, however, meaningful participation often remains difficult to achieve. One reason is that planning proposals are usually communicated through maps, technical drawings, or other abstract representations that are difficult for non-experts to interpret. This limits citizens’ ability to imagine future spatial situations, evaluate alternatives, and contribute informed feedback at stages when decisions are still open to influence. This talk examines whether low-cost virtual reality (VR) applications based on existing digital planning data can improve communication in participatory planning and, in doing so, foster trust in planning-related knowledge and evaluation processes. The talk presents a practice-oriented research approach at the interface of participation, communication, and trust. Empirically, it draws on two connected components: a stakeholder-based requirements analysis with experts from urban planning and participation practice (N = 20), and a case study on a VR-supported participation process accompanying the redesign, before and after implementation, of a public basketball area in Chemnitz, Germany (N = 99). Particular attention is paid to the potential of this low-threshold approach for groups that are often difficult to address through conventional planning formats, including people with impairments as well as more volatile participant groups such as children and adolescents. The study investigates how immersive visualization can be embedded in routine planning workflows, how citizens perceive this form of communication before and after implementation, and how such tools shape the relationship between expert planning knowledge and citizens’ experiential perspectives. The findings suggest that immersive visualization can reduce abstraction barriers and create a shared point of reference for communication between planners and citizens. Even comparatively simple VR models based on routine CAD data helped participants understand spatial proposals, assess design elements, and articulate more concrete feedback. In this sense, VR did not merely function as a visualization technology, but as a communicative interface through which planning knowledge became more accessible, discussable, and evaluable. From a trust perspective, this is significant because trust did not primarily emerge as trust in technology itself, but rather as situated trust in the comprehensibility, fairness, and relevance of the participation process. Participants were better able to relate planning proposals to their own everyday experience and to judge the plausibility of planning-related evidence. At the same time, the study also highlights the limits of immersive participation. Trust is not automatically produced by digital innovation. It depends on low-threshold usability, transparent communication about what virtual models can and cannot represent, institutional compatibility with existing planning routines, and the visible uptake of citizens’ contributions. The post-implementation evaluation is particularly important in this regard: by comparing the VR simulation with the realized environment, the study shows that immersive representations can support early-stage understanding very well, while also revealing where expectations, realism, and built outcomes diverge. This makes VR relevant not only as an anticipatory participation tool, but also as an instrument for post-implementation reflection and participatory learning. The paper contributes to current debates on participation, communication, and trust by showing how low-cost immersive tools can mediate between scientific or expert-based planning practices and public evaluation. More broadly, it argues that trust in participatory planning is strengthened not by technological sophistication alone, but by communicative formats that make knowledge more understandable, procedures more transparent, and citizens’ perspectives more meaningfully integrated into evaluation and decision-making. In this sense, low-cost VR can serve as a practical and empirically grounded example of how participatory communication may support trust in evidence-informed planning processes. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-73-trust-through-immersive-participation-low-cost-virtual-reality-as-a-communication-and-evaluation-tool-in-participatory-urban-planning Research Insights Marc Schwarzkopf de-formal false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/DYCZBF/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/DYCZBF/feedback/ Room 2 Innovative Format (long) 2026-10-05T11:00:00+02:00 11:00 01:20 **Background**: Participant’s trust is fundamental to the success of participatory processes (Armstrong et al., 2023; Mintrom et al., 2024), where facilitators bear significant power and responsibility for nurturing spaces of trust (Brazzell, 2020). Trust, in turn, is closely tied to the ways in which facilitators balance how expert input is permitted to frame activities, and how decision-makers then account for tending to the meaning of participant expressions (Farias et al., 2022; Law, 2004). Our workshop aims to respond to this tension by inviting fellow participants to engage with an inventive co-creation method to develop a manifesto for trust nurturing when citizens are invited to take part in collaborative processes. The guiding intention is for us to reflect on how participants experience the meaning of their ideas and expressions being affected when experts enter the process. Which might happen, for example, by expert stances influencing people’s expressions before the workshop or when these are reinterpreted afterwards in expert panels. **Workshop Theme**: How can expert participation be designed in participatory processes in a way that nurtures trust? **Goals**: This workshop will facilitate: - Reflections on how participants’ expressions are created and shaped in participatory processes and how that relates to trust; - Identification of key moments where trust is strengthened or weakened; - Development of practical principles for designing processes that nurture trust (in smaller groups); - Co-creation of a “Manifesto for Trust in Participatory Processes”. **Methods**: This workshop employs a participatory method combining embodied exploration, reflective dialogue, and collective synthesis. The design is structured to enable participants to both _experience_ and _critically reflect on_ how trust is shaped, negotiated, and potentially undermined in participatory processes – particularly in relation to expert intervention and the translation of participants’ expressions. It begins with a creative “Clay of Trust” activity exploring trust through clay modelling. Participants first model expressions of “trust,” then exchange and alter each other’s creations without explanation, simulating external intervention into personal expressions. This activity is designed to surface embodied experiences of ownership, interpretation, and change. It aims to open a discussion space through tangible infringement of people’s expressions. Two separate groups will work with different framings, highlighting the significance of input in shaping expressions. A plenary reflection follows, where participants will share responses to creating and modifying the clay. Facilitators will link these experiences to participatory processes, emphasizing how contributions are translated through reframing, analysis, and interpretation. Participants will then engage in group (4-5 people/group) discussions, guided by visual input and questions on how participants’ expressions are created and shaped in participatory processes (e.g., by expert input and “translation processes”), how facilitators influence these processes, and how they weaken or nurture trust. Based on the discussion, each group will formulate concrete guidelines/principles for nurturing trust in designing participatory processes. For the conclusion, these principles will be shared and collectively synthesized into a “manifesto” outlining principles for designing participatory processes that nurture participants’ trust. The written-up manifesto could potentially be shared with all participants of the symposium. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-91-clay-of-trust-how-can-expert-participation-be-designed-in-participatory-processes-in-a-way-that-nurtures-trust Innovative Format (Workshop, Roundtable, Demonstration, Dialogue or Participation Session) /media/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/submissions/WKYVSN/Workshop-Stru_f35GH5r.webp igorbuMiriam Meuser en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/WKYVSN/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/WKYVSN/feedback/ Room 2 Innovative Format (Short) 2026-10-05T13:30:00+02:00 13:30 00:40 Die Beteiligung von Kindern und Jugendlichen an Forschung im Bereich mentale Gesundheit ist bislang selten (Totzeck et al., 2024) – trotz wachsender Evidenz für zunehmende psychische Belastungen in dieser Altersgruppe (McGorry et al., 2024) und klarer normativer Vorgaben zur Beteiligung, etwa durch die UN-Kinderrechtskonvention (KRK, 1989). Vor dem Hintergrund globaler Krisen wie Klimawandel, Kriegen und gesellschaftlicher Unsicherheit wird häufig ein defizitorientierter Blick auf junge Menschen eingenommen. Demgegenüber steht die Perspektive, Kinder und Jugendliche als handlungsfähige Akteur:innen zu verstehen, deren Erfahrungen und Sichtweisen nicht nur relevant, sondern essentiell für die Weiterentwicklung von Forschung und Versorgung sind. Und genau darauf setzen wir: KOMMIT-Kids vertraut Kindern. Der Beitrag umfasst eine kurze Keynote zu Hintergrund, Zielen und ersten Erfahrungen des Projekts KOMMIT-Kids, gefolgt von einer moderierten Podiumsdiskussion mit Kindern und Jugendlichen, Forschenden und Praxispartner:innen zu Fragen der Kommunikation in Citizen-Science-Projekten. Optional ist – je nach Zeit – eine interaktive Öffnung im Fishbowl-Format vorgesehen, in der das Publikum zentrale Themen wie Forschung der Zukunft, Vertrauen in Wissenschaft und partizipative Forschung gemeinsam reflektiert. Das Projekt KOMMIT-Kids, initiiert durch den Trialogischen Zentrumsrat des Deutschen Zentrums für Psychische Gesundheit, greift den Bedarf nach zielgruppenorientierter Forschung auf. Ziel ist es, Kinder und Jugendliche im Alter von 6 bis 17 Jahren systematisch als Expert:innen ihrer eigenen mentalen Gesundheit in die Priorisierung von Forschungsthemen einzubeziehen. Der Zeitpunkt des „Trust in Citizen Science“-Symposiums ermöglicht es uns, umfassend Einblicke in die partizipative Projektentwicklung zu geben sowie erste Ergebnisse des multimethodischen Sammelprozesses vorzustellen (siehe Abbildungen), in dem mittels Postkartenaktionen, Face-to-Face-Workshops und digitaler Plattformen Forschungsfragen von jungen Menschen gesammelt wurden. KOMMIT-Kids versteht den Forschungsprozess als bidirektionalen Austausch von Wissen und Vertrauen: Während Kinder und Jugendliche Einblicke in wissenschaftliches Arbeiten und Themen der mentalen Gesundheit gewinnen, lernen hauptamtlich Forschende von den Perspektiven, Prioritäten und Fragestellungen von Kindern. Gerade mit Kindern wird partizipative Forschung dabei als soziale Praxis des Dialogs verstanden – nicht nur zwischen Wissenschaft und einer abstrakten „Öffentlichkeit“, sondern ganz konkret zwischen erwachsenen Forschenden und Kindern und Jugendlichen. Sie ist damit ein demokratisches Unterfangen, das kindliches Erfahrungswissen als gleichwertig zu wissenschaftlichem Wissen anerkennt und ernst nimmt (Russell et al., 2020). Gerade in Zeiten zunehmender Wissenschafts- und Demokratieskepsis ist die Beteiligung von Kindern an Forschungsprozessen von besonderer Bedeutung. Erste Erfahrungen mit Ko-Forschenden unterschiedlichen Alters deuten darauf hin, dass es nicht nur darum geht, Vertrauen in wissenschaftliche Institutionen bei Kindern und Jugendlichen zu stärken, sondern insbesondere auch darum, das Vertrauen in junge Menschen selbst zu fördern – im Sinne einer stärkeren Zuschreibung von Kompetenz durch Wissenschaftler*innen. Wie eine 16-jährige Ko-Forscherin formuliert: „Also, dass man darauf wartet, es zu dürfen, obwohl man es kann.“ Neben den forschungsbezogenen Perspektiven widmet sich das Projekt kontinuierlich auch praxisorientierten Fragen: Welche Kommunikationsstrategien ermöglichen es, Vertrauen mit Kindern aufzubauen? Wie kann so kommuniziert werden, dass es für Kinder und Jugendliche verständlich, zugänglich und transparent ist? Wie kann KOMMIT Kids dabei anschlussfähig für unterschiedliche Lebenswelten sein? Und welche Rolle können wissenschaftliche und kulturelle Institutionen dabei spielen? Kooperationen mit Partnern wie dem Futurium zeigen, welches Potenzial in interdisziplinären Räumen liegt, die Wissenschaft, Öffentlichkeit und junge Menschen zusammenbringen und so neue Formen des Dialogs ermöglichen. Insgesamt zeigt KOMMIT-Kids, wie gemeinsamer Wissensaufbau im Bereich mentaler Gesundheit konkret aussehen kann. Das Projekt leistet damit einen Beitrag zu einer inklusiven, dialogischen und zukunftsorientierten Forschungskultur. Im Kontext des Wissenschaftsjahres 2026 „Medizin der Zukunft“ wird deutlich, dass partizipative Forschungsansätze auch eine Frage von Generationengerechtigkeit sind: Die medizinischen Innovationen von morgen betreffen insbesondere die Kinder und Jugendlichen von heute. Ihre Perspektiven frühzeitig in die Entwicklung von Forschungsfragen einzubeziehen, kann dazu beitragen, Relevanz, Akzeptanz und Wirksamkeit zukünftiger Versorgung zu verbessern. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-55-vertrauen-durch-teilhabe-wie-kinder-forschung-zu-mentaler-gesundheit-mitgestalten Innovative Format (Workshop, Roundtable, Demonstration, Dialogue or Participation Session) /media/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/submissions/DJUCBE/KommitKids_0R_R4aKXW9.webp Celia BährLinn Radtke en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/DJUCBE/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/DJUCBE/feedback/ Room 2 Innovative Format (Short) 2026-10-05T14:10:00+02:00 14:10 00:40 How can a digital environment foster trust in citizen science projects? What type of tools and tool sets are required to facilitate trust among citizen scientists? And how does communication take place in a digital environment? These are guiding questions for a discussion session where the researcher and practitioner will reflect on their experience on how an interactive app toolkit can support a meaningful and engaging exchange among citizen scientists and researchers. Based on the project "The Potential of Photo Elicitation Methods in Research on Youth Digital Civic Participation: The Case of Riga’s Urban Environment" an experience of the CiVo App running on the SPOTTERON Citizen Science Platform will be shared. The project actively involved youth in observing the urban environment. After the project, a focus group revealed the following insights: a) Knowing and seeing other contributions were appreciated among citizen scientists, 2) the role of facilitator was crucial and highly important to foster community building and active engagement. In this hands-on session, we will invite participants to step into the role of a citizen science facilitator who, within the CiVo App environment, guides and interacts with young citizen scientists. An imagination game will take place in which we will work with the observations submitted during the project. Through this interactive session, we aim to demonstrate that while digital communication tools are one aspect, the facilitator's skill set in applying these tools is crucial. The facilitator should be able to empathize with citizen scientists, respond appropriately depending on the situation, and communicate with research participants via short, concise messages within the digital environment. Maybe sometimes emojis reinforce the meaning of the text? But how do you know which one to choose? How do you convey your message in a way that’s easy and encouraging? We foresee the symposium as the perfect venue to explore the diversity of ways of building trust in citizen science projects and how communication skills play a role in the digital environment. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-89-trust-building-in-an-interactive-citizen-science-digital-environment-the-case-of-youth-engagement-in-sustainable-urban-development-of-riga-latvia Innovative Format (Workshop, Roundtable, Demonstration, Dialogue or Participation Session) Marta Dieviņa en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/LTTVDN/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/LTTVDN/feedback/ Room 2 Innovative Format (long) 2026-10-05T15:30:00+02:00 15:30 01:20 Der ländliche Raum ist in besonderem Maße von strukturellen und politischen Umbrüchen sowie einem demografischen Wandel hin zu einer alternden Gesellschaft betroffen. Dies stellt auch Citizen Social Science Projekte in der Umsetzung von Co-Forschung und dem Aufbau von tragfähigen vertrauensvollen Kooperationsstrukturen zwischen auch räumlich weiter entfernten Partner*innen aus Wissenschaft und Praxis vor Herausforderungen. Das ursprünglich als Citizen Social Science konzipierte Projekt „KLUB - Klima und Umwelt sozialwissenschaftlich beforschen“ widmet sich der Stärkung und Förderung von ehrenamtlichem und hauptamtlichem Engagement für Klima und Nachhaltigkeit in der Projektregion Prignitz. Im Rahmen des Verbundprojekts InNoWest wurde seit 2023 eine Kooperation zwischen der Fachhochschule Potsdam und zivilgesellschaftlich Engagierten im Bereich Klima und Nachhaltigkeit in der Prignitz aufgebaut. Daraus ist das Netzwerk „Klima und Nachhaltigkeit“ entstanden, das bei der Durchführung von Aktivitäten und der Weiterentwicklung des Netzwerks vom Projektteam begleitet und unterstützt wird. Die Mitglieder des Netzwerks weisen eine hohe Heterogenität hinsichtlich Engagementform, Verbindung zur Region und Schwerpunkt der jeweiligen Interessen und Einzelprojekte auf und sind an unterschiedlichen Orten der Region aktiv. Vor diesem Hintergrund bietet das Projekt wertvolle Einblicke in gelingende Strategien, aber auch Herausforderungen im Aufbau von Vertrauen zwischen Partner*innen aus Wissenschaft und Praxis, die jeweils sehr unterschiedliche Rahmenbedingungen beispielsweise bzgl. Ausstattung mit Ressourcen und Raumtyp. Aufweisen. In unserem Beitrag zum Symposium setzen wir uns in einem interaktiven Format mit der Frage auseinandersetzen, wie Ko-Produktion von Wissen zwischen Hochschulen und Zivilgesellschaft im ländlichen Raum gelingen kann und welche Lösungsansätze für Herausforderungen in der Umsetzung eines Citizen Social Science-Projekts entwickelt werden können. Zunächst stellen wir in einem 10-minütigen Input das Projekt KLUB sowie die Entwicklung der Kooperation zwischen Zivilgesellschaft im ländlichen Raum in Ostdeutschland und der urban angesiedelten Fachhochschule vor. Dabei stellen wir Faktoren, die eine Umsetzung von Co-Forschung sowie den hierfür zentralen Vertrauensaufbau beförderten bzw. erschwert haben, vor und wie das angedachte Vorhaben an die vorgefundenen Bedingungen angepasst wurde. Anschließend bietet sich in einem World-Café-Format die Möglichkeit zu einem Erfahrungsaustausch über durchgeführte Citizen Social Sciences Projekte im ländlichen Raum und / oder Projekten, die von Partner*innen mit sehr unterschiedlichen Rahmenbedingungen durchgeführt werden. Dabei konzentrieren wir uns auf folgende Fragestellungen: - Wie kann Co-Forschung bei sehr unterschiedlichen Voraussetzungen und hohen räumlichen Distanzen von Wissenschaft und Zivilgesellschaft gelingen? - Welche Rahmenbedingungen befördern eine vertrauensvolle Zusammenarbeit? Welche wirken sich hinderlich aus? Wie kann mit herausfordernden Voraussetzungen umgegangen werden? - Welche Kommunikationsstrategien und Formate der Zusammenarbeit wirken sich günstig auf eine Vertrauensbildung aus? - Wie kann Vertrauen in Netzwerken mit losen Organisationsstrukturen und räumlichen Distanzen zwischen den Netzwerkpartner*innen entstehen? In welcher Rolle kann Wissenschaft einen nachhaltigen Vertrauensaufbau wirksam unterstützen? Das World Café wird in zwei Runden à 15 Minuten an 4 Tischen durchgeführt. Anschließend werden die wichtigsten Ergebnisse in einem Rundgang vorgestellt und anschließend diskutiert (20 Minuten). citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-22-citizen-social-science-mit-der-zivilgesellschaft-im-landlichen-raum-chancen-und-herausforderungen Innovative Format (Workshop, Roundtable, Demonstration, Dialogue or Participation Session) Dr. Andrea PrytulaChantal WinandyLaura van Altena de-formal false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/UFLP8S/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/UFLP8S/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-06T09:00:00+02:00 09:00 00:15 Trust in science is increasingly understood as a relational and practice-based phenomenon that emerges through interaction, participation, and shared meaning-making rather than through one-way communication. In line with this shift, citizen science and participatory science communication have been positioned as promising approaches for fostering trust by involving informal actors in knowledge production. However, important questions remain about how trust is shaped in practice: how it develops through interactional dynamics, how participation is experienced as meaningful or fair, and how different forms of knowledge—scientific, experiential, artistic, and local—are negotiated. This paper contributes to these debates through an empirical study of the STRAATWIJS project, a co-creative art–science initiative in Amsterdam Nieuw-West that brings together residents, scientists, artists, policy actors, and local initiatives to collaboratively produce and activate street art addressing pressing locally-defined societal issues, rooted in residents’ lived experiences : financial (in)security, housing (in)security and youth wellbeing. Building on these co-defined themes, STRAATWIJS consists of structured street art co-creation workshops in which participants jointly translate experiences, emotions, and forms of knowledge into visual artworks. Each theme is explored in two facilitated sessions hosted at Street Art Museum Amsterdam (SAMA). In the first session, participants engage in shared sense-making around the theme. They are invited to bring an object, image, or personal artefact that symbolises their relation to the theme, which serves as an entry point for dialogue. Through facilitated group discussion (accompanied by a shared meal), participants collectively develop ideas that are translated into visual concepts and stencils (figures attached). In the second session, these concepts are transformed into collaborative street art. A professional street artist introduces basic techniques such as spray painting, , after which participants jointly produce a poster using the co-developed stencils. These artworks function not only as outputs but also as mediating objects that crystallise diverse experiences, values, and forms of knowledge (figures attached). These co-created artworks subsequently become the basis for the final phase of STRAATWIJS, in which they are reintroduced into public space through street-based interaction and performative formats, including interactive street theatre. In this way, the artworks act as boundary objects that connect co-creation processes with wider publics and facilitate dialogue in everyday urban contexts. The study adopts a qualitative, multi-phase action-research design combining systematic observations of co-creation sessions with semi-structured in-depth interviews. Observations focus on interaction dynamics such as participation patterns, turn-taking, framing and reframing of issues, negotiation of meaning, and decision-making processes during both conceptual and material stages of art production. Attention is given to how different forms of knowledge are made visible, contested, or integrated, and how power relations and participation asymmetries evolve across sessions. The interview component captures participants’ reflective accounts of collaboration, focusing on perceived trust in other participants (residents, scientists, artists, and local stakeholders), experiences of being heard, perceived fairness of the co-creation process, and the extent to which participation influences their understanding of the societal themes addressed. Interviews also explicitly engage with critical moments observed during workshops, allowing participants to reflect on moments of agreement, tension, or disagreement in the co-creative process. The analysis is situated within ongoing debates in citizen science and participatory science communication regarding trust as both an enabling condition for participation and a potential outcome of engagement. It conceptualises trust not as a static attitude but as an emergent, interactionally produced phenomenon shaped through aesthetic mediation, embodied collaboration, and the negotiation of diverse epistemic and experiential perspectives. By focusing on the micro-dynamics of co-creation in structured art–science workshops, this study speaks to the research and practice perspectives of the conference, specifically (but not exclusively) to social dynamics between key stakeholders. Furthermore, it examines the potential of street art as a mediating form that can translate co-created meanings into public-facing dialogue, thereby extending trust formation beyond the immediate group of participants into wider urban communities. Ultimately, the paper argues that co-creative street art practices offer a rich but complex setting for understanding trust in science as a dynamic relational achievement. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-64-trust-through-co-creation-exploring-art-science-interaction-dynamics-and-public-engagement-in-street-based-citizen-science-communication Research Insights /media/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/submissions/YE3Q7X/collage_STRAA_4b3l1hp.webp Geertje TijsmaMichiel Van Oudheusden en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/YE3Q7X/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/YE3Q7X/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-06T09:15:00+02:00 09:15 00:15 Forest Groove: A bioacoustic citizen science project designed to foster trust between schools, scientific institutions and the arts Citizen science operates at the intersection of research, education, and society. It offers unique opportunities to foster trust and mutual understanding between scientific institutions and the public. This workshop will explore how participatory, creative approaches in citizen science can contribute to building and sustaining such trust. Using the Sparkling Science project “Forest Groove” as a case study, we present a three-year collaboration in which students aged 10–14 engage with the acoustic biodiversity of forests. Using both professional and low-threshold, self-built recording devices – including plant-pot microphones – students document environmental sounds in forests, work alongside researchers to analyze data, and translate their findings into artistic outputs such as sound compositions in collaboration with musicians. These results are shared via formats such as community radio, creating a multi-layered dialogue between science, art, and society. This integrated approach offers new perspectives on biodiversity by combining scientific enquiry with creative expression. At the same time, it emphasizes the importance of building trust within citizen science projects. In Forest Groove, trust is cultivated through long-term collaboration between students, teachers, researchers, and external partners including cultural institutions and media organizations. Teachers play a central role, facilitating communication and continuity between schools and research institutions. The workshop reflects on the project’s practical experiences, including the challenges faced and the negotiation of scientific and educational goals. Particular attention is given to the question of impact, considering whether the value of citizen science lies primarily in educational outcomes, scientific results, or in the relationships and the trust it fosters between participants. Participants will be introduced to the project’s methods and materials and will be invited to engage directly with its approach at a hands-on station using plant-pot microphones. The workshop will facilitate discussion on the potential and limitations of participatory research, and on how long-term collaborations between schools and scientific institutions can strengthen public trust in science. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-36-forest-groove-a-bioacoustic-citizen-science-project-designed-to-foster-trust-between-schools-scientific-institutions-and-the-arts Practice Insights /media/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/submissions/BMZX8N/Logo_Forest_G_5Hb9tiV.webp Irene GianordoliIrene Gianordoli en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/BMZX8N/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/BMZX8N/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-06T09:30:00+02:00 09:30 00:15 Building shared knowledge and trust between science and society requires communication formats that go beyond one directional and conventional knowledge dissemination formats. Particularly for complex and interconnected issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, health, agricultural, and food system resilience, citizens increasingly seek opportunities to explore evidence, question assumptions, and develop their own interpretations, thereby requiring stakeholder-oriented approaches to science communication. The Climate Museum Multitouch Table (CM) is an interactive, research based science communication interface designed to support participatory engagement for evidence-based or informed decision-making. Developed at the Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM), the multitouch table integrates the En ROADS Climate Solutions Simulator of the Climate Interactive and MIT-Sloan with immersive 3D visualizations, enabling diverse publics to experiment with policy levers, explore cascading impacts, and observe real time feedback on global temperature, emissions and ecosystem outcomes. A prior study of a controlled laboratory experiment at IWM (manuscript submitted for peer review and preprint is available at https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.21634), showed that interactive climate simulations can increase curiosity, engagement, and willingness to learn, particularly by reducing cognitive barriers associated with abstract scientific information. However, their potential improvements in trust in science, agency, and public participation can only be assessed from an authentic, real world environment. This follow-up Climate Museum (CM) empirical study to be conducted from April to September, 2026 in collaboration with the Japainische Palais of the Senckenberg Naturkundemuseum Dresden, publicly deploys the multitouch table (interactive interface) to public spaces. Also to be included is an extended pop-up format in non-museum setting. These settings attract broader audiences, including individuals who rarely attend science museums or academic events, making them ideal contexts for science-society oriented communication research. Two core goals are served by this empirical research activity, namely (1) to evaluate how diverse publics perceive their levels of risk to climate change of a systems dynamics perspective of proximal and distal events and the need for agency from the combined 3D visualized local impacts of climate risks and factual data to interpret immersive climate simulations, and (2) to examine how interactive systems dynamic tools can contribute to science-society dialogue, trust-building, and participatory knowledge generation. A mixed method data collection combines de-identified interaction logs, multiple choice questions, and qualitative prompts, for detailed analysis of how people navigate climate data, how they reason about model outputs, and how social interactions emerge around the multitouch table. These data would shed light on the conditions under which interactive visualizations support understanding, perceived relevance/risks, and willingness to act on climate-related issues. The findings would support an evidence based understanding of how interactive tools can facilitate shared meaning making around sustainability challenges. Aligning with the theme “Building knowledge together: citizen science, communication and trust,” it conceptualizes the multitouch table dubbed “Climate Museum” as a science - society interface, where public interaction generates meaningful empirical data on how people understand systemic sustainability. Additionally, it demonstrates how interactive simulations foster dialogue rich communication by enabling visitors to co explore evidence rather than passively receive messages. Last but not the least, it provides a framework for understanding trust building mechanisms within science communication, such as transparency, exploratory freedom, open interpretation, and the co presence of peers and facilitators in public learning spaces. As a pilot science-society dialogue of a psychological distance theory framework (Scannell & Gifford, 2013; Trope & Liberman, 2010) to evidence-based decision-making processes, we demonstrate how interactive, visually grounded interfaces can transform complex scientific modelling into socially meaningful experiences, supporting the co creation of knowledge and fostering trust between scientific institutions and diverse publics. To a lesser extent, consideration is also given to how museums as trusted cultural institutions together with informal outreach activities of a pop-up nature could function as accessible platforms for collaborative knowledge construction for informed decision-making. By presenting empirical insights from the first wave of public deployment, our contribution offers a replicable methodological approach for stakeholder-oriented science communication within the PCST community. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-23-the-climate-museum-multitouch-table-interactive-science-communication-interface-for-strengthening-science-society-dialogue-on-climate-change Research Insights Angelina N.A. Böhnisch en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/FKGVCD/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/FKGVCD/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-06T11:00:00+02:00 11:00 00:15 Citizen science in the social sciences, or Citizen Social Science (CSS), is increasingly popular (e.g., Heiss & Matthes, 2017; Lorenz, 2020), but CSS presents unique implementation challenges (Matthes & Freiling, 2026). As traditional social science methods already involve different publics in data collection, it has been argued that CSS projects should be defined as those that involve lay people more extensively and on equal footing with professional researchers in the research process (e.g., in collaborative or co-creative projects; Freiling & Matthes, 2024). Integrating lay people into more stages of the research process in collaborative or co-creative projects means that for successful CSS projects, certain criteria need to be met: (a) professional researchers have to be equipped to communicate science to (oftentimes marginalized) citizen scientists of different backgrounds (Riesch et al., 2013); (b) project designs have to account for sociocultural diversity and allow flexibility regarding citizen scientists needs (Lorenz, 2020); and (c) citizen scientists have to be willing and motivated to engage in social science (Campos et al., 2021). Especially the latter is crucial (and highly intertwined with the first two aspects), because every CSS project depends primarily on effective engagement strategies for its target groups (e.g., Druschke & Seltzer, 2012). Multi-perspective evaluations and the continuous improvement of such CSS engagement strategies are thus of utmost importance. This study examines what drives citizen scientists’ engagement, considering both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards. Phillips and colleagues (2019) outlined key dimensions of engagement that consist of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors: Intrinsic factors are, for instance, perceived possibilities of empowerment/efficacy (affective), knowledge enhancement (cognitive), engaging activities (behavioral), and network possibilities (social). All of those aspects sustain participation through personal motivation (Aristeidou et al., 2017; Bonney et al., 2015), which is considered a key driver of engagement (Phillips et al., 2019). Extrinsic factors typically include the formal project framework, recruitment, and compensation of citizen scientists (Göbel et al., 2022). They, too, can enhance or decrease engagement. However, this research has been conducted in the natural sciences (Phillips et al., 2019), and we cannot assume that they can be generalized to CSS (Heiss & Matthes, 2017; Göbel et al., 2022) without examining that. Using the YouCount project as an example, we examine the views of professional scientists and citizen scientists to understand engagement dynamics with marginalized young Citizen Scientists in CSS. YouCount was a co-created EU-funded CSS project researching social inclusion drivers of marginalized young Citizen Scientists in nine cases across Europe. We use in-depth interviews with nine professional scientists (one from each case) and 17 focus groups with Citizen Scientists (one to two from each case) for our examination. The data were coded deductively and inductively (see Table 1 for Coding Scheme). Deductive are the larger dimensions (cognitive, affective, behavioral) as well as specific codes such as “scientific involvement/identity” and “rewards.” Inductive codes include “intrinsic motivation” or “feeling overburdened.” When new codes emerged, all data were recoded to reflect those codes. Our findings highlight the importance of ongoing communication, gamified scientific involvement, safe spaces, and relationship building for engagement. Materialistic rewards are initially valued by the young citizen scientists, while professional scientists emphasize intrinsic motivation. Perceptions of not being treated equally can thus arise, which can damage trust. Challenges include balancing co-creation and avoiding overburdening of citizen scientists while maintaining visibility of social inclusion. Due to other pressing concerns faced by marginalized young citizen scientists, gaining scientific skills is less engaging for them than anticipated (based on previous literature, e.g., Domroese & Johnson, 2017; Raddick et al., 2013). CSS is a promising tool for addressing foundational questions in social science. However, to be truly effective and sustainable, CSS projects must ensure fair conditions for all participants. Tailoring those conditions to the specific needs of the target group, rather than letting them be driven solely by scientists' priorities, is not just an ethical necessity but also a prerequisite for maintaining the trust required for sustainable citizen science. Promising strategies to do so have emerged through discussions of differing attributions of value and visibility and through critical examination of ethical considerations. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-42-so-you-are-paid-but-we-are-not-perspectives-on-engagement-drivers-and-inhibitors-in-citizen-social-science-with-marginalized-young-citizen-scientists Research Insights /media/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/submissions/RQ8Z8W/Table_1_G4Uuf_z1Ol9Nk.webp Isabelle FreilingMelanie Saumer en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/RQ8Z8W/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/RQ8Z8W/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-06T11:15:00+02:00 11:15 00:15 In recent years, German universities have shown increasing institutional interest in collecting anti-discrimination and diversity data to assess representation and identify potential structural barriers to inclusion. In Germany to date, such data have largely been collected along the dimensions of binary gender and migration background. Data on other dimensions of identity and inequality, such as race, disability, or sexual orientation, remain limited. Due to the sensitivity of these data, community organizations have called for participatory approaches to their collection. This article reflects on the participatory development of a survey on marginalization in academia, conducted within academic structures, with particular attention to how trust and mistrust among both community members and researchers shaped the process. It examines challenges that emerged during the research process in light of approaches to knowledge production that emphasize reflexivity and processual dynamics, drawing on internal documentation such as emails, notes, and meeting records. Grounded in a theoretical perspective that highlights the contingency of knowledge production, the analysis traces how participatory processes – and the trust relations they entail – shape research outcomes under institutional constraints. By synthesizing these insights into a concept of epistemic contingency, the talk proposes a cyclical model of knowledge production that moves beyond strictly positivist assumptions and incorporates participatory elements, including the ongoing negotiation of trust between actors. The analysis shows that trust and mistrust are central components of the process, operating in multiple directions: individuals from marginalized groups may express skepticism toward institutions, while researchers may also question the role and input of community-based actors. These reciprocal dynamics influence participation, data interpretation, and the stabilization of findings, thereby shaping the resulting body of knowledge on marginalization. Overall, the findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how trust relations structure participatory research processes within institutional settings and affect empirical outcomes. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-56-contingent-knowledge-contested-trust-participatory-research-on-marginalization-in-german-universities Research Insights Lea LuttenbergerSelin Akgöz en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/V8RD3G/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/V8RD3G/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-06T11:30:00+02:00 11:30 00:15 Citizen science projects aim to generate scientifically robust data while simultaneously fostering meaningful public engagement in research processes. In practice, however, this can lead to conflicting objectives. This dialog session presents a concrete practice-based case study illustrating how well-intended engagement and dialogue formats designed to increase participation and visibility may conflict with research requirements, as they can introduce potential biases affecting data quality. Our citizen science project “Phytowatch” engages South Tyrolean citizens as “green detectives” who collaborate with researchers from Laimburg Research Centre to identify potential host plants of certain bacteria called phytoplasmas in their local environments. Participants are asked to observe garden and wild plants and report suspicious symptoms, after which selected samples are analysed in the laboratory to verify potential phytoplasma infections. The project aims to improve knowledge of the territorial presence of phytoplasmas and to identify alternative host species, while raising awareness about plant diseases and plant protection among the local population. Together with participants, the session will explore key tensions encountered in everyday project implementation, such as the impact of public engagement measures on data reliability and the relationship between standardized data collection protocols and open, participatory formats. The session will be jointly led by a research manager, a science communication specialist, and the scientific project lead, ensuring the integration of complementary perspectives on citizen science practice. The dialog session invites participants to share their experiences and perspectives on tensions between public engagement and research goals, reflecting on these challenges from the viewpoints of research practice, science communication, and citizen science. The aim is to jointly explore how engagement and research objectives can be transparently negotiated and strategically aligned, in order to balance scientific rigor with participatory ambitions and, ultimately, strengthen trust in citizen science processes. Speakers: Julia Rizzo: Science Communication Katrin Janik: Research Jennifer Berger: Research Management citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-16-conflict-as-opportunity-navigating-competing-goals-of-public-engagement-and-research-in-citizen-science-projects Practice Insights Julia RizzoJennifer Berger en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/YGV9TF/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/YGV9TF/feedback/ Tagungsraum Talk 2026-10-06T11:45:00+02:00 11:45 00:15 Trust in citizen science (hereafter, participatory science) has often been examined from a science-centered perspective, in which the primary objective is to encourage public confidence in scientific processes or in their outputs. As participatory science expands beyond WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) publics, we need to reconsider how trust operates across encounters between diverse knowledge systems, where science is neither the only knowledge system, nor are its parameters the only definition of goals to be achieved. This study of a collaboration between farmers and scientists in Peru explores how trust is negotiated at the intersection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Western science. Here, we consider two premises. First, against the paternalistic view of TEK systems as static and fragile, we characterize them as dynamic and adaptive, capable of resisting and transforming themselves and others, through interactions with other knowledge systems. Second, by framing participatory science as a space for engagement between academic institutions and local communities, and by drawing on a concept of engagement as relational learning, we explore trust as a learning outcome of a participatory science project. This perspective encompasses participants’ transformative journeys of understanding themselves in relation to knowledge, institutions, and communities, enabling the reclamation of epistemic agency, the strengthening of belonging, and the renegotiation of the value of local knowledge vis-à-vis external authorities. Under these premises, we reconceptualize trust in the “other” not merely as openness or acceptance of other knowledge systems (in this case, of TEK holders and Western science towards each other) but as the freedom to make visible the dynamics and boundaries of one’s own knowledge system, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of its distinctions. To exemplify these arguments, we examine a case study: a collaboration in Peru between farmers in the Sacred Valley of the Incas (Cusco) and a transdisciplinary group of scientists investigating the use of bat guano as a traditional fertilizer in maize cultivation. Drawing on interviews, participatory workshops, and ethnographic observations, we analyze how trust develops through interactions across knowledge systems, and how it takes diverse epistemological forms. This is an ongoing project. Here, we present initial findings from our thematic analysis of interviews conducted with scientists and farmers prior to the start of the participatory science project, with further results expected in Summer 2026 following a second collaborative workshop with farmers. Prior to the first workshop, we identified Limits of Knowledge Systems as Sites of Trust. Farmers expressed trust in scientists, particularly in areas where they perceive their own ways of knowing do not extend. As one farmer noted when asked about their trust in scientists: “Not really…. We already know what needs to be done. Of course, we still do evaluations, but if there’s an analysis (for example, soil analysis), then we have to rely on that analysis” (emphasis added). TEK is primarily based on observation; in areas such as soil chemical composition, where elements cannot be directly perceived, farmers identify their own system limits as a space for trusting scientific expertise. We also identified Intersections of Identity and Expertise in Visions of Trust. Knowledge systems are embedded in personal and collective identities, shaping how other forms of expertise are evaluated and accepted. As one farmer explained: “I, as a farmer, know … just by looking at the plant … you already understand. It’s not just because someone is an engineer that I’m going to follow what they say. But the exchange is good, because there are many people like me who have demonstration crops” (emphasis added). Finally, we observed Trust Built within Epistemological Conditions. This means that trust is grounded in each group’s own conditions, with knowledge translated and tested within their respective systems’ parameters while remaining open to exchange. A farmer stated about scientists: “I do listen to them, but besides that, I also run my own experiments…” (emphasis added). Similarly, scientists expressed their intention to bring their own epistemic parameters, such as homogeneity, standardization, and control, as requirements for trusting farmers, parameters that are not prioritized in the farmers’ TEK systems. These insights represent an initial snapshot of our results. We aim to present both these findings and their evolution for the conference, highlighting how trust emerges when two independent knowledge systems engage in dialogue and negotiation. By moving beyond WEIRD settings, we explore a context where trust takes forms beyond incorporation or assimilation, opening possibilities for more plural and negotiated understandings of knowledge exchange. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-47-trust-relational-learning-and-boundary-work-in-citizen-science-across-knowledge-systems Research Insights Amanda VilchezBruce Lewenstein en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/WEEKHB/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/WEEKHB/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-06T09:00:00+02:00 09:00 00:15 Trust in science is an essential factor to be considered in strengthening citizen engagement in participatory research. The latest Eurobarometer on citizens’ knowledge and attitudes toward science and technology reveals various range of trust in scientists across Europe. About half of Europeans doubt scientists’ independence on controversial issues due to industry funding, a perception unchanged since 2021 (European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation. 2025). The specific needs for trust-building and institutional support align directly with the European Research Area Policy Agenda action on enhancing trust in science through participation, engagement, and science communication. Especially in emerging citizen science environments, participation is limited and determined by the low public trust in science and research. Such an environment is Romania, where low participation rates, especially in environmental monitoring actions are deeply rooted in historical environmental habitus, blame-shifting and tight political constraints (Ștefănescu et al. 2025). When citizens perceive their contributions as insufficiently recognised, or not considered in the decision-making processes, participatory initiatives may instead weaken legitimacy and erode trust in science. In Romania, lower levels of perceived scientific knowledge correlate with weaker trust. Only 5% of citizens feel very well informed about science and technology (vs. 11% EU average), while 45% feel poorly informed about new scientific discoveries and 56% about environmental issues. At the same time, support for scientists taking an active role in policymaking has declined from 58% to 45% (European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation. 2025). These trends point to lower confidence in scientific expertise and highlight the need for stronger science communication and participatory approaches such as citizen science to rebuild trust. This paper examines how trust is built in Romania’s emerging citizen science ecosystem, where participatory initiatives are scattered, often short-lived, and frequently embedded in European research collaborations. It also draws attention to the limited national-level mapping of these initiatives and to the relative lack of theoretical scholarship on the factors shaping the development of citizen science in the broader Eastern European context. The study draws on the insights of a participatory multi-stakeholder workshop with researchers, communicators, and civil society practitioners organized in Romania in November 2025. The topic of communication between science and society is particularly of interest because a key gap identified in the literature is the limited availability of analytical studies examining the role of context- and community-appropriate communication in citizen science and community-based research (Wagenknecht et al. 2021). Workshop discussions revealed both individual and institutional barriers to science communication. At the individual level, participants emphasized that trust in citizen science does not emerge simply from participation itself, but from how participation is communicated and organized. Participants’ accounts suggested that citizens lived experiences were more influential in building trust between researchers and the public than the quantity or complexity of the scientific information communicated. At the institutional level, especially in emerging citizen science environments such as Romania, participants stressed the need for stronger incentives and structural support for science communication within research institutions. In other instances, participation in citizen science was undermined by the lack of trust in institutions and decision-makers, which discouraged citizens in engaging with problem-solving and co-creation of solutions. Without institutional support, participatory practices remain difficult to sustain. The paper proposes that trust in citizen science functions not only as an outcome of participation, but also as a precondition and as an ongoing relational process shaped by communication, institutional support, and reciprocity. It intends to gather empirical findings, practice insights, and policy reflections on trust in science and citizen participation from researchers and practitioners from different European countries, thus framing the Romanian case in a larger context. The paper seeks to surface both common challenges and context-specific factors shaping trust across diverse national settings. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-27-trust-in-science-and-communication-for-citizen-science-a-cross-national-roundtable-on-conditions-practices-and-policy-responses Research Insights Lucrina Stefanescu en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/YDXA7M/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/YDXA7M/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-06T09:15:00+02:00 09:15 00:15 Scaling up a citizen science initiative from one country to the European scale is not only a scientific challenge, but also a huge communication experiment. In this talk, I reflect on lessons learned from the pan-European campaign “Looking for Cowslips”, which engaged participants in 31 countries in plant observations. I provide insights into what enables and what constrains effective communication in a transboundary citizen science campaign. Based on interviews, questionnaires and discussion groups with campaign co-organisers from all over Europe, we identified key facilitators and barriers of (i) internal communication during the coordination of the campaign as well as of (ii) external communication with public across diverse European regions. We found that communication challenges are often structural. In particular, communication and public engagement proved challenging for researchers, often much more challenging than was assumed in the beginning of the campaign. Researchers often lack time, resources or training for sustained and active communication needed in citizen science campaigns. Furthermore, despite the increasing recognition of the importance of science communication, researchers are still not strongly rewarded for communication or public engagement. On the other hand, environmental non-governmental organizations – another important group involved in the coordination of the initiative – were much better equipped for communication by having skills, knowledge, experience, platforms and network necessary to engage the public. We also observed that in addition to the ecological characteristics of the focal species and its habitat in the different regions of Europe, the key aspects that need to be considered for planning effective communication in transboundary citizen science projects include various socio-cultural factors, such as the traditions related to citizen science in different countries as well as local knowledge systems. In conclusion, our results highlight the critical role of collaboration, particularly between academic institutions, environmental non-governmental organisations as “communication enablers” and national co-organisers, in adapting communication strategies to local contexts. Our case study also illustrates how differences in language, institutional settings and cultural expectations affect participation, engagement and dialogue between research community and society across countries. We hope that these insights contribute to a better understanding of how pan-European initiatives can be designed to support inclusive and effective public participation, while also highlighting structural barriers that hinder effective communication between academia and wider society. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-31-bridging-languages-and-cultures-communication-lessons-from-a-pan-european-citizen-science-initiative Practice Insights /media/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/submissions/PUPJQN/Aavik_Figure__ybU5GGc.webp Tsipe Aavik en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/PUPJQN/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/PUPJQN/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-06T09:30:00+02:00 09:30 00:15 The Problem: the culture of science in Nigeria is not consolidated. Science communication culture is characterised as fragile. Yet science and technology steer nations out of socioeconomic downturns into a regime of sustainable development (Batta & Iwok, 2019). The participation of citizens in science projects, engagement in technological and innovative initiatives are indicative of the robustness of the science culture – a reflection that experts are collaborating with citizens to deepen science and technology in society. However, the extent to which these occur in Nigeria has scant empiricism because citizen science and science communication researches are nascent. Therefore, the interrogation of these questions now is cogent especially within university communities as centres of scientific inquiries. Research Questions: a. what is the level of citizen participation in science and technology projects in three university communities in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria? b. what factors encourage or discourage the involvement of citizens in science and technology projects in university communities so identified? c. what is the relationship between engagement or non-engagement in science and technology projects, and trust in science within university communities under study? d. what best practices and communication strategies are germane to deepening citizen science practices and trust in science and technology in the selected university communities. Literature: over the years, citizen science research has provided significant insights to aid understanding and improve praxis. Citizen science is a legitimate and epistemologically delineated means of knowledge production and not simply an appendage of data collection (Strasser et al, 2019). The extent of participation of ordinary citizens in science and technology projects, research has shown, is structurally tiered and mainly shallow with a greater majority of citizens operating marginally (Vasiliades et al, 2021). The factors influencing citizen participation in science and technology projects, the literature shows that the psychological drivers that propel citizens to engage with science projects largely predicate participation rates, retention, and quality of contribution (West et al., 2021). Furthermore, research in trust in science indicates that active participation in knowledge production basically changes relationships to science as an authority (Bedessem, et al., 2023). Research on best practices in citizen science shows that projects that deploy participatory design processes involving community members and scientists in raising research questions, methods and execution have the greatest impact (Hacker et al, 2018). Likewise, the research on communication strategies in citizen science shows: a. dialogue, participatory communication models, not the deficit model, b. audience-specific, tailored communication approaches, c. narrative and storytelling methods that humanise science and technology researches; d. community relationship management and sustained social engagement; e. transparent communication of impact and outcomes are the most effective (Golumbic et al, 2020); Scheuffele, 2018; Fischhoff, 2013; Jackson et al, 2024). Theoretical Framework: For Citizen Science to be effective, ethical, and communicative; it is usually planked within the science in society theory, an aspect of science-technology-society studies. This conveys the tenets that citizen science projects must be inclusive, adaptable, sensitive, safe, and reciprocal (Rodriguez, Bandezer, & Navarro-fedreno, 2024). Methodology: to realise the objectives of the study and answer its research questions, a literature review of methodological surveys of citizen participation in science projects in three selected university communities in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria was conducted. The University of Uyo, Akwa Ibom State University, and Topfaith University, Mkpatak were purposively selected for the study to enable comparison of results. Also, a questionnaire survey of a 400 sample of members of the three university communities was undertaken about their participation and trust in science. Furthermore, in-depth interviews of 10 science researchers in the three selected university communities was conducted to: a. ascertain the involvement of citizens in science projects; b. identify the challenges they face; c. find out their perception of citizens in trust science projects within the communities; and, d. evaluate their citizen science communication strategies. Results and Implications: Preliminary results showed a minimal level of citizen involvement/participation in science projects in the university communities as well as weak science communication, deployment of some citizens science protocols, and fair level of trust in science. Based on the findings, recommendations are made to improve citizen science practice, science/communication policy, as well the communication of community science. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-25-involvement-of-citizens-in-science-projects-in-three-university-communities-in-a-nigerian-state-implications-for-trust-in-science-and-science-communication Research Insights Herbert BattaBorono BasseyAniebo Samson en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/PF7RDB/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/PF7RDB/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-06T10:00:00+02:00 10:00 00:15 Public trust in environmental science in the Netherlands is strained, for example in the ongoing nitrogen and climate change debates, with parts of the public questioning the legitimacy of scientific knowledge (Hill & Weulen Kranenbarg, 2025). Citizen science (CS) is often seen as a way to strengthen public trust science, yet it remains unclear how it can fulfil this promise exactly (Brouwer & Hessels, 2019). Participation in CS projects can reduce psychological distance to science (Rutjens & Hornsey, 2025), which in turn can increase trust (Skarlatidou et al., 2024). But evidence so far largely concerns direct participants (Finger et al., 2023). Little is known about whether this effect extends to non-participants who are aware that other citizens have participated. Some studies suggest such a spillover (Bedessem et al., 2021), but the evidence is limited. Theoretically, it remains plausible: social proximity is a key factor in reducing science skepticism (Vegt et al., 2025). When science feels closer to someone, it may also feel more relevant and trustworthy. Yet CS participation is often skewed toward citizens with higher education and existing trust (Sauermann et al., 2020). For CS to promote equity, it must also build trust among groups more distant from science. In this presentation, we would like to present a new research project in which we will explore how citizen science (CS) can contribute to trust and equity, focussing on environmental science in the Netherlands. The project will start in September 2026 and is funded by Open Science NL. The project examines how citizen participation shapes trust not only among participants but also among non-participating citizens, scientists, and stakeholders. In the study we pay special attention to those who historically experience a large psychological distance to science. Building on STS literature, we study trust relationships in a symmetrical way, exploring not only trust of citizens, but also trust of scientists and knowledge users in CS practices. We will distinguish analytically between trust in the scientific method, trust in scientific researchers and trust in scientific results. Our research questions are: 1. How does the participation of citizens in an environmental research activity influence the trust that other citizens (in the environment of the activity, but not directly involved) have in this activity, in particular citizens with a large psychological distance to science? 2. How does the participation of citizens in an environmental research activity influence the trust that other scientists (in the same field of research, but not directly involved) have in this activity? 3. How does the participation of citizens in an environmental research activity influence the trust that stakeholders (such as policy makers that can potentially use the research results) have in this activity? 4. Which characteristics of citizen science projects influence trust of different actors, including non-participating citizens? Our research strategy combines qualitative and quantitative methods. In our analysis we will compare four selected CS projects in the Netherlands, to explore causal relationships. For this project we will select four cases of CS projects under the umbrella of the ‘Measuring Together’ (‘Samen Meten’) platform of RIVM and/or the Citizen Science Nederland (CS-NL) Network. Conditions for inclusion are a focus on environmental science, ongoing projects and willingness of project leaders to provide access to relevant data. To allow for comparable analysis, we vary the cases in two dimensions: • initiative: driven by citizens or by researchers • issue at stake: direct relevance for citizens (related to local environmental problems, directly affecting people’s lives) or indirect concern (broader environmental issues). This probably relates to the level of contestation. Our main methods are: • Exploratory interviews with project leaders of CS projects, to map the project context, clarify intended outcomes, and identify relevant social and institutional factors that may influence trust in science. • Survey among non-participating citizens who live in direct proximity of the research activities, with a short description/visualization of the projects and items on psychological distance to and trust in science • Focus-groups with non-participating citizens who live in direct proximity of the research activities, to gain more clarity on how they view these projects and how that relates to their trust • Interviews with non-participating scientific researchers about their perspectives on the CS projects • Interviews with stakeholders, such as policy makers about their perspectives on the CS projects ( During the conference we hope to collect feedback on our theoretical positioning, sampling strategy and methodology, in order to improve the research design of the project. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-48-can-citizen-science-help-improve-public-trust-in-science Research Insights Laurens HesselsKirsten VegtAnne-Floor Scholvinck en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/QRUJ93/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/QRUJ93/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-06T11:00:00+02:00 11:00 00:15 Introduction Participatory approaches like citizen science can increase trust in science (e.g.; Bedessem et al., 2021, 2023; Wintterlin et al., 2022), not least by enhancing people’s science self-concept and science efficacy (PISA 2025 Science Framework, 2025). Certain characteristics of citizen science projects can make these benefits more or less likely to occur (Bonney et al., 2016; Moczek & Köhler, 2020), such as the role that involved citizens take on in the scientific process. Dependent on how citizen science practitioners conceptualise citizen science, citizens may be seen primarily as data providers (Bonney, 1996), or as collaborators in various aspects of scientific projects (Irwin, 1995). Theoretically, projects guided by the second conceptualisation are more likely to increase trust in science by enhancing preconditions of trust between career and citizen scientists (e.g., mutual respect, connectedness; Deci & Ryan, 2012). In light of intense normative and theoretical debate around the concept of citizen science (e.g.; Cooper et al., 2021), we aim to establish an empirical baseline of the status-quo of how citizen science and related approaches (i.e., community and participatory science, CCP) are currently conceptualised and implemented in the body of peer-reviewed literature. Specifically, we ask: RQ1: How are the terms citizen science, community science and participatory science referred to, including their definitions, aims, and procedures, in the contemporary body of peer-reviewed literature? RQ2: How are citizen science, community science, and participatory science practiced in terms of the degree of citizen/community/participatory scientist involvement? RQ3: Based on a theoretical reflection of the findings, how can the different approaches to involving non-professional individuals in scientific research be expected to relate to participants’ self-referential perceptions of science (e.g., science self-concept, science self-efficacy, as defined in PISA 2025 Science Framework, 2025)? Methods We preregistered the study in line with the PRISMA protocol (Moher et al., 2015). Search strategy We searched SCOPUS, Web of Science Core Collection, and PubMed for the search terms “citizen scien*”, “community scien*” or “participatory scien*” in title, abstract, or keywords, published between 01.01.2021 and 13.11.2025. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are outlined in Table 1. To ensure feasibility, we reduced the very large corpus (N = 9,006) by drawing a random sample of records (30%). [TABLE 1] Data analysis plan Screening. An interdisciplinary team of 11 coders (from psychology, communication science, microbiology, and chemistry) will screen articles for eligibility. Articles are eligible if they report on a CCP project and are primary research articles (see Table 1 for more details). Coders will screen articles independently once interrater reliability was established on 5% of the respective corpora of abstracts/full texts. Coding. For each eligible article, we will code (1) how authors conceptualise CCP by extracting text excerpts where authors refer to CCP (RQ1), and (2) what elements of the scientific process CCP scientists were involved in, ranging from research question development to results communication (RQ2; see Table 2 for more details on coding constructs; Heigl et al., 2020). Data analysis. For RQ1, we will perform inductive content analysis of the text excerpts of conceptualisations of CCP science, to see how authors of peer-reviewed publications refer to these three terms. For RQ2, we will present descriptive statistics on which elements of the scientific process CCP scientists contributed to in the CCP projects. Software. Both coding and content analysis will be supported by a Large Language Model (LLM) with strict human oversight and conservative model settings (Bermejo et al., 2025; Ziems et al., 2024). LLMs are well-suited for these tasks, as they have been shown to perform similarly well as human coders in deductive and inductive coding while operating in a time- and cost-effective manner (e.g.; Chew et al., 2023; Mathis et al., 2024). Lastly, for RQ3, we link findings with relevant theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012) to infer implications of conceptualisations and involvement for CCP scientists’ science self-concept, science self-efficacy, enjoyment of science, and instrumental motivation—constructs considered important correlates of trust in science (PISA 2025 Science Framework, 2025). [TABLE 2] Outlook We expect to complete eligibility screening by the end of August, and data extraction and analysis in September 2026. We thus expect to present initial results on the contents of CCP conceptualisations (RQ1) and CCP scientist involvement (RQ2), as well as potential psychological implications (RQ3). We will discuss the implications of our findings for citizen science and trust, as well as methodological choices, such as the chosen databases or the exclusion of grey literature. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-57-more-than-words-conceptualisations-of-citizen-science-and-related-approaches-in-the-contemporary-peer-reviewed-literature-and-their-psychological-implications Research Insights /media/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/submissions/QVYXRM/Table1_TiCS_A_qkUgHH1.webp Jana KöhlerJulia Holzer en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/QVYXRM/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/QVYXRM/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-06T11:15:00+02:00 11:15 00:15 This presentation examines one of Europe’s earliest university-organised festivals devoted to scientific documentary film, established at the University of Padua in 1956 and active until 1975. Conceived in close collaboration with the Mostra Internazionale d’Arte Cinematografica di Venezia, the initiative rapidly acquired international visibility and became a significant reference point for scientific and educational cinema during the Cold War period. The analysis situates the festival within the epistemic and institutional framework of the post-war deficit model of science communication. From the outset, the event was explicitly designed to serve academic needs: it was organised by the university, directed by senior professors, supported by successive rectors, and oriented toward higher education. Its intended audience was not a lay public but what contemporaneous reports described as an “extremely specialised” one: university students in scientific disciplines, researchers, and disciplinary experts. Films were selected and evaluated primarily for their didactic and scientific value, often through the involvement of academic specialists who assessed their relevance for university teaching. The festival thus operated less as a space for widening access to science than as an extension of disciplinary pedagogy and institutional authority. Based on archival documentation and oral history interviews, the presentation reconstructs how this configuration generated a relatively coherent institutional arrangement that endured for nearly two decades. The festival’s governance was markedly vertical and strongly personalised around its directors, whose authority shaped both programming choices and organisational structures. Student participation played an important role, yet mainly in the form of extra-role organisational work embedded within academic hierarchies rather than in decision-making processes. Participation, in this context, reinforced the boundaries of an expert-oriented public rather than expanding them. The long-term viability of the festival depended on sustained institutional alignment. Over time, however, the relationship between the leadership of the initiative and the broader academic body weakened. Faculty engagement declined, tensions emerged regarding priorities and governance, and university financial support diminished. Despite maintaining international connections and a global profile from its earliest editions, the festival proved structurally dependent on internal academic recognition. International visibility did not compensate for the erosion of support within the university. Once that alignment faltered, the organisational and financial foundations of the event collapsed, leading to its closure in the mid-1970s. By revisiting this early European university festival for scientific documentary, the presentation offers a historical counterpoint to contemporary participation-oriented models such as citizen science. The case shows that participation can take highly institutionalised and vertically organised forms, and that the stability of science communication initiatives depends on continued institutional recognition and internal legitimacy. In this sense, the study invites reflection on how present-day participatory infrastructures are embedded within (and dependent upon) specific institutional configurations that shape both their publics and their durability. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-14-academic-publics-and-vertical-authority-in-one-of-europe-s-first-university-festivals-for-scientific-documentary-1956-1975 Research Insights Davide Ludovisi en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/B8RTTR/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/B8RTTR/feedback/ Room 1 Talk 2026-10-06T11:30:00+02:00 11:30 00:15 1 Introduction Over the past two decades, citizen science (CS) has evolved from amateur naturalist observations into a mainstream, well-funded research method that expands data collection and democratizes knowledge production. However, mainstream literature often assumes a universal development trajectory shaped by early Anglo-American biodiversity monitoring models. This monolithic view obscures deep heterogeneity in how public participation operates across political, cultural, and infrastructural contexts. National environmental policies, digital and physical infrastructure, and local social vulnerabilities fundamentally determine which disciplines engage the public. This study maps disciplinary distributions of CS in the United States, Germany, China, and India to reveal national scientific priorities and social dynamics. Using bibliometric visualization and STS theory, it addresses two core questions: What disciplinary patterns distinguish the four countries in absolute output and global comparative advantage? And how do Science-Society Contracts explain these national preferences? 2 Methodology Data were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection, yielding 25,320 peer-reviewed publications about CS. VOSviewer was used for visualization based on WoS subject categories, with node size weighted by publication volume. Two metrics were used: absolute disciplinary volume to show mainstream focus, and relative global share to identify comparative advantages or specialized niches. Four countries were selected for their distinct socio-political and scientific systems: the U.S. as a decentralized civil-society-led pioneer; Germany as a model of strong EU environmental governance; China as a rapidly rising tech power with massive state and AI capacity; and India as a representative LMIC facing resource constraints. 3 Results: National Profiles of Citizen Science Global CS is anchored by a dual core of ecology/environmental science and public health, but national patterns differ dramatically. 3.1 United States: Rights-Based Contract The U.S. CS landscape is dominated by public, environmental, and occupational health, alongside prominent clusters in psychology, social work, and education. Its global comparative advantage lies in law, ethnic studies, religion, women’s studies, and specialized clinical fields including transplantation, allergy, and surgery. CS functions as a tool for environmental justice and grassroots advocacy. Citizens collect environmental and health data to challenge institutional racism and corporate pollution, often using evidence in legal settings. Patient-led research platforms allow people with rare or complex conditions to crowdsource symptoms and influence clinical trial design, making CS a vehicle for political negotiation and bodily autonomy. 3.2 Germany: Regulatory Contract Germany’s CS is strongly concentrated in ecology, environmental science, zoology, and agronomy, with far less emphasis on public health and social advocacy. It holds comparative advantages in highly technical fields such as neuroimaging, cell and tissue engineering, paleontology, quantum science, and industrial relations. CS supports compliance with EU environmental directives and serves as an extension of state monitoring systems. High institutional trust enables gamified precision science projects, where citizens complete standardized micro-tasks such as annotating neural pathways. Labor-focused research also reflects European concerns about Industry 4.0 and green transition impacts on workers. 3.3 China: Developmental Contract China’s CS emphasizes ecology, particularly urban biodiversity, paired with strong nodes in computer science, AI, information systems, and engineering. It leads globally in infectious diseases, virology, imaging science, computer hardware, and aerospace engineering. This model reflects state-backed science popularization and AI-for-Science (AI4S) infrastructure. Mobile super-apps lower participation barriers, while image-recognition systems turn citizens into ecological data collectors. CS is non-adversarial and tightly linked to formal science education, aiming to improve national scientific literacy and STEM workforce development rather than drive social advocacy. 3.4 India: Utilitarian Contract India’s CS centers on public health, ecology, agriculture, and water resources. It holds strong global advantages in biomaterials, microscopy, agricultural engineering, biotechnology, and women’s studies. Under limited formal infrastructure, CS serves survival and livelihood needs. Farmers crowdsource data on crop diseases, pests, and water availability. Frugal innovations such as Foldscope paper microscopes enable community-level biological monitoring without laboratories. CS also supports research on gender inequality, domestic violence, and maternal health, empowering marginalized groups through grassroots data collection. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-50-mapping-disciplinary-divergence-in-citizen-science-a-cross-national-comparison-of-science-society-contracts Research Insights /media/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/submissions/3WWLA7/The_Global_Di_Y0YowYo.webp Zhigang Hu en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/3WWLA7/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/3WWLA7/feedback/ Room 2 Innovative Format (Short) 2026-10-06T09:00:00+02:00 09:00 00:40 Trust in science is often discussed at the level of systems, institutions, and participation frameworks. Yet, *how often do we examine the individual communicator as a central variable in building or eroding that trust?* This masterclass proposes a complementary, skill-based perspective: trust is not only designed into processes, but enacted in real time through communication. Drawing on the work of *Yulia Talk Smart*, this session focuses on the practical techniques that scientists and practitioners can use to communicate with clarity, credibility, and confidence across diverse audiences, including within citizen science contexts. Led by an aerospace engineer and PhD in space radiation protection, with a background in competitive debating, the session bridges research experience and high-performance communication training. It addresses a common gap: **while participants in citizen science projects are often highly engaged, they are rarely *trained* to articulate uncertainty, respond to challenges, or convey the value of their work in a way that fosters mutual trust.** Through a structured and interactive format, participants will explore: • how confidence in delivery influences perceived credibility and trustworthiness • techniques to communicate uncertainty without undermining authority • strategies to engage diverse stakeholders (citizens, scientists, policymakers) in meaningful dialogue • methods to structure messages that are both scientifically rigorous and accessible • best practices for handling questions, disagreement, and scepticism in public-facing contexts The masterclass combines short conceptual inputs with applied exercises, allowing participants to immediately test and refine their communication approaches. Examples drawn from high-stakes scientific environments and citizen-facing contexts will illustrate how small shifts in framing, tone, and structure can significantly impact trust-building outcomes. By **focusing on the individual communicator as an active agent in shaping trust**, this session contributes a practical dimension to ongoing discussions in citizen science: not only whether trust can be fostered through participation, but *how* it is enacted, moment by moment, through communication. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-32-building-confidence-and-trust-masterclass-from-a-radiation-researcher-and-competitive-debater Innovative Format (Workshop, Roundtable, Demonstration, Dialogue or Participation Session) Yulia Akisheva en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/GWNF3D/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/GWNF3D/feedback/ Room 2 Talk 2026-10-06T09:40:00+02:00 09:40 00:40 Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the most urgent global health threats, demanding not only scientific innovation but also meaningful public engagement and trust in science. Addressing this challenge depends on informed and engaged citizens who understand both the risks and the scientific processes through which antimicrobial discovery is produced. In this context, citizen science initiatives offer a promising strategy by directly involving participants in reserach processes, thereby connecting knowledge production, learning and engagement (1,2). MicroMundo@UPorto (1) is part of a global citizen science initiative that engages school and university students in the discovery of antimicrobial-producing microorganisms from environmental samples. Grounded in a service-learning framework, the project combines research, education, and community engagement, positioning students as contributors to a real-world scientific challenge while developing scientific and transversal competences. Participants are involved in real research workflows, including soil sampling, microbial isolation, and screening for antimicrobial activity, providing hands-on experience and direct engagement with scientific practices. Since 2018, more than 500 students have contributed to the collection and analysis of 1200 environmental isolates, 80 of which showed antimicrobial activity. Among these isolates, one particularly promising strain is currently under in-depth investigation due to its broad-spectrum activity against clinically relevant pathogens, highlighting the potential of citizen science to generate scientifically relevant data that can contribute to antimicrobial discovery and innovation pipelines. Moreover, by directly involving participants in research practices, such initiatives can reduce the perceived distance between science and society, promote transparency, and position participants as active contributors rather than passive recipients of knowledge. We propose an interactive 60-minute workshop that immerses participants in a simplified version of the MicroMundo discovery pipeline, positioning them as citizen scientists engaged in the search for new antibiotics. Working in small groups, participants will take on the role of researchers, engaging in hands-on activities that simulate key stages of the discovery process—from soil sampling to the interpretation of antibiosis assays. Through problem-solving and real-time decision-making, they will experience how scientific knowledge is generated and evaluated in practice, supported by real examples from the project. Beyond the experimental activities, the workshop will also create space for reflection on how citizen science can contribute to addressing complex societal challenges such as AMR. Participants will critically explore how participatory approaches mobilize diverse forms of knowledge and actors, and how these processes shape learning, engagement, and science communication in real-world contexts. In particular, the session invites participants to reflect on how trust in science may emerge through direct engagement with scientific practices, including processes of experimentation, uncertainty and interpretation. By experiencing how knowledge is produced, evaluated, and discussed, participants are encouraged to consider trust as a relational and situated process shaped through participation and transparency. By translating an ongoing citizen science initiative into an immersive, participatory experience, this workshop demonstrates how scientific research processes can be integrated into science communication and engagement practices. It offers participants a concrete and adaptable approach to designing initiatives that connect scientific knowledge production with public engagement, particularly when addressing complex societal challenges such as AMR. citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-84-hunting-antibiotics-together-a-citizen-science-workshop-on-antimicrobial-resistance-and-public-engagement Practice Insights /media/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/submissions/RHAWND/graphical_abs_SSsgMwn.webp Filipa GrossoRaquel Branquinho en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/RHAWND/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/RHAWND/feedback/ Room 2 Innovative Format (Short) 2026-10-06T11:00:00+02:00 11:00 00:40 How can citizen science be strategically implemented and sustainably embedded within university structures? This session brings together practitioners, researchers and institutional actors working at the intersection of participatory research and higher education. It aims to create a collaborative space for exchange, mutual learning and reflection on enabling conditions for long-term institutionalization. As an input, we will briefly present the Public Engagement Hub at the University of Tübingen. The Hub acts as an agile interface, facilitating exchange between academia and civil society. The hub brings together experts from the university in the fields of citizen science, media literacy and video production, public engagement and science communication. We will share insights into its development, its role within the university’s strategic framework as well as successes and pitfalls encountered along the way. Building on this example, the session will open into a collegial exchange focused on shared challenges and transferable approaches. A central aim of the roundtable is to foster solidarity and mutual learning across institutional contexts. Guiding questions for discussion include: How can citizen science be integrated into university strategies? How can its implementation be meaningfully evaluated? How can mistrust among researchers toward citizen science be addressed and transformed? What training, incentives, and support structures effectively empower researchers to engage in participatory approaches? And what opportunities exist for cross-institutional collaboration to strengthen the recognition of citizen science? citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-69-collegial-exchange-trust-in-citizen-science-at-universities-strategies-challenges-and-collaborative-solutions Innovative Format (Workshop, Roundtable, Demonstration, Dialogue or Participation Session) Gloria KoepkeOliver Häußler en false https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/HKT9UN/ https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/HKT9UN/feedback/