Kirsten Vegt
Kirsten Vegt is a PhD candidate at Leiden University and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) in the Netherlands. Her research explores the intersection of psychological distance to and trust in science, and the social robustness of policy-relevant environmental science through citizen engagement.
Sessions
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.
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.