BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//pretalx//ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de//citizen-science-communication-trust-20
 26//talk//EZJXZS
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-EZJXZS@ifkw.rz.tu-bs.d
 e
DTSTART;TZID=CET:20261005T153000
DTEND;TZID=CET:20261005T154500
DESCRIPTION:Citizen scientists form a growing and increasingly visible grou
 p of actors in contemporary knowledge production (Mazumdar et al.\, 2018\;
  Pocock et al.\, 2017). This is reflected both in the expansion of project
 s\, platforms\, and institutions operating under the label of citizen scie
 nce\, as well as in its increasing recognition as a distinct and legitimat
 e mode of knowledge production rather than a marginal extension of convent
 ional science (Berti Suman and Alblas\, 2023\; Eitzel et al.\, 2017). At t
 he same time\, the relationship between science and society has become com
 plex\; scientific work is increasingly conducted ‘in public\,’ making 
 processes of uncertainty\, disagreement\, and revision visible to wider au
 diences\, while many science-related issues are closely intertwined with v
 alues\, identities\, and political debates (Degeling et al.\, 2025\; Rekke
 r\, 2021). Moreover\, science is deeply embedded in governance and everyda
 y life\, shaping how problems are defined and which responses are consider
 ed 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-t
 ruth era (Berti Suman & Alblas\, 2023\, Davies and Mah\, 2020)\, overall t
 rust in science remains relatively high\, albeit increasingly uneven acros
 s groups and issues (Cologna et al.\, 2022\; Rutjens et al.\, 2018).\n\nAg
 ainst this backdrop\, citizen science is frequently associated with the pr
 omise of strengthening trust in science and science-society relations thro
 ugh participation (Bedessem et al.\, 2023\; Hessels & Brouwer\, 2019). How
 ever\, in contexts where science is closely intertwined with policy debate
 s and local conflicts\, such as in environmental policy-relevant science\,
  the relationship between participation and trust remains complex and cont
 ested (Wynne\, 2006). Moreover\, trust in science is not a singular or uni
 form construct\, but varies across domains and dimensions and is shaped by
  individuals’ worldviews and social contexts (Hendriks et al.\, 2016\; L
 ewandowsky et al.\, 2013\; Rutjens & Hornsey\, 2025).\n\nTo 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 th
 e Netherlands relates to socially robust knowledge\, psychological distanc
 e to science and trust in science. The project integrates three qualitativ
 e case studies of citizen sensing initiatives in contested local contexts 
 (e.g.\, air quality\, noise\, and environmental exposure) with two quantit
 ative studies: a survey comparing citizens with and without citizen scienc
 e experience (N = 763)\, and a focused analysis within this sample examini
 ng environmental citizen science participants’ perspectives on (citizen)
  science and different forms of (dis)trust (N = 450). Conceptually\, the s
 tudy combines the STS framework of socially robust knowledge (Nowotny\, 20
 03) with the social psychological concept of psychological distance to sci
 ence (Većkalov et al.\, 2024). This approach enables an analysis of how p
 articipatory practices shape both knowledge production and citizens’ exp
 eriential relationship to science.\n\nAcross studies\, findings show that 
 participation in citizen science reduces psychological distance to science
  by making research processes more tangible\, locally embedded\, and socia
 lly 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 involveme
 nt\, and the extent to which citizen-generated knowledge is recognized wit
 hin scientific and policy contexts\, echoing previous research (Ottinger\,
  2010\; Berti Suman & Alblas\, 2023). Furthermore\, even in politically sa
 lient and conflict-driven projects\, citizen scientists do not position th
 emselves in opposition to science. Rather\, they tend to value scientific 
 expertise while seeking to complement it with local\, experiential knowled
 ge. Citizen science thus produces knowledge that is both scientifically cr
 edible and socially meaningful\, while reshaping relationships between cit
 izens\, scientists\, and institutions. These results suggest that trust in
  (citizen) science should be understood as both a possible outcome of part
 icipation\, as well as an enabling condition and a dynamic that can be str
 engthened or undermined over time. In sum\, this research project contribu
 tes empirical insights into how participatory practices can shape trust in
  science in real-world contexts\, and highlights the importance of institu
 tional responsiveness in realizing the potential of citizen science.
DTSTAMP:20260721T220652Z
LOCATION:Room 1
SUMMARY:Citizen Science and Trust in Contested Environmental Contexts: Insi
 ghts from a Multi-Study PhD Project - Laurens Hessels\, Kirsten Vegt
URL:https://ifkw.rz.tu-bs.de/citizen-science-communication-trust-2026/talk/
 EZJXZS/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR