BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//pretalx//ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de//citizen-science-communication-trust-20 26//talk//9RBDMZ BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:CET BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20001029T040000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=10 TZNAME:CET TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20000326T030000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=3 TZNAME:CEST TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT UID:pretalx-citizen-science-communication-trust-2026-9RBDMZ@ifkw.rz.tu-bs.d e DTSTART;TZID=CET:20261005T113000 DTEND;TZID=CET:20261005T114500 DESCRIPTION: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\, scientist s and enabling institutions (Hager et al.\, 2021). A recurring finding acr oss this literature is that trust is central to whether citizen science pr ojects achieve their aims (Bonn et al.\, 2018\; Hamm et al.\, 2019). \nYet scholarly treatments of trust in citizen science tend toward two reductiv e framings: trust as a static precondition\, something actors either posse ss or lack before participation begins\, or trust as a measurable outcome\ , whether consolidated or eroded by the experience (Möllering\, 2006\; Wa lker et al.\, 2021). In both cases\, trust is collapsed into a single undi fferentiated construct\, examined at a single point in time and distrust i s 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 th at are as generative as they are disruptive (Van de Walle & Six\, 2014\; V erhoest et al.\, 2024\; Levis et al.\, 2024). \nTo address these gaps we p ropose a processual\, multi-dimensional trust framework comprising three d imensions: epistemic (data credibility)\, relational (interpersonal orient ations) and procedural (process legitimacy) to examine how trust dynamics shape and are shaped in citizen science over time. The framework conceptua lises trust across these three analytically distinct but practically entan gled dimensions. \nFirstly\, epistemic trust considers whether citizen-gen erated data and scientific knowledge are regarded as credible and actionab le by the actors who engage with them\, and whose knowledge is treated as counting in shared decisions (Fricker\, 2007\; Fritz et al.\, 2022). Epist emic trust concerns not only data quality but the deeper question of whose ways of knowing are recognised and valued within the collaboration. \nSec ondly\, relational trust concerns the orientations of trust (positive expe ctations)\, distrust (negative expectations) or ambivalence that citizens hold toward scientists and institutional enablers (the public bodies\, NGO s\, research institutions and funders who host and coordinate participatio n) and vice versa (Rousseau et al.\, 1998\; Van de Walle & Six\, 2014\; We hn & Almomani\, 2019\; Spadaro et al.\, 2020). These orientations shape wi llingness to engage\, share information and accept the vulnerabilities tha t collaboration requires. Relational trust is not stable across time\; it is continually renegotiated as actors encounter each other through the wor k of the project.\nThirdly\, procedural trust concerns whether actors expe rience the processes through which collaboration is structured as legitima te\, responsive and worth sustained investment (Tyler 1990\, 2006\; Luhman n\, 1979\; Giddens\, 1990). Tyler’s procedural justice scholarship stren gthens the framework by demonstrating that perceptions of voice\, neutrali ty\, respectful treatment and trustworthy motives are constitutive of proc edural legitimacy and\, in turn\, of sustained cooperation (Tyler\, 1990\, 2006). \nAlthough these three dimensions are analytically distinguishable \, they are entangled: distrust in data may destabilise relational orienta tions\, relational distrust may condition actors’ willingness to engage with the process\, and perceived procedural illegitimacy may reciprocally erode both epistemic and relational trust.\nWe illustrate the potential of the proposed conceptual framework through the more4nature context (Wehn & Pfeiffer\, 2024)\, a Horizon Europe initiative fostering collaboration be tween citizen science initiatives and environmental authorities across fou r continents\, where trust dynamics become observable as they unfold and a re renegotiated through structured collaboration over time. By tracing how epistemic\, relational and procedural trust evolve between actors in citi zen science initiatives and environmental authorities\, the paper speaks d irectly to how mutual trust is created\, contested and repaired in citizen science initiatives. It offers a theoretical and methodological contribut ion for those seeking to move beyond snapshot assessments of trust toward longitudinal accounts of how collaboration is sustained\, disrupted and re newed. DTSTAMP:20260721T211300Z LOCATION:Tagungsraum SUMMARY:Trust as a process\, not a precondition: a multi-dimensional framew ork for understanding trust dynamics in citizen science - Rachel Rhiannon Williams URL:https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/ 9RBDMZ/ END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR