Immersive Scientific Communication: A Multidimensional Theoretical Model for Approaching Extended Reality as a Medium

This is my project! The influence of involvement on psychological ownership and wildlife conservation

Digital technologies facilitate collaboration between citizens and scientists in citizen science (CS) projects. Besides the facilitation of data transmission and access, digital technologies promote novel formats for education in CS by including citizens in the process of collecting, analyzing, and discussing data. It is usually assumed that citizens profit more from CS the more they participate in the different steps of the scientific process. However, it has so far not been analyzed whether citizens actually engage in these steps. Therefore, we investigated citizens’ actual engagement in different scientific steps online (i.e., data collection and data analysis) in two field studies of a CS project. We then compared them with other CS projects. We analyzed behavioral engagement patterns of N = 273 participants with activity logs and cluster analyses. Opportunities to engage in different steps of the scientific process increased participants’ overall commitment compared to contributory CS projects. Yet, despite their increased commitment, participants’ engagement was only more active for data collection but not for data analysis. We discuss how participants’ perceived role as data collectors influenced their actual engagement in the scientific steps. To conclude, citizens may need support to change their role from data collectors to data inquirers.

Engaging school students in wildlife research through citizen science projects can be a win–win for scientists and educators. Not only does it provide a way for scientists to gather new data, but it can also contribute to science education and help younger generations become more environmentally aware. However, wildlife research can be challenging in the best of circumstances, and there are few guidelines available to help scientists create successful citizen science projects for school students. This paper explores the opportunities and challenges faced when developing school‐based citizen science projects in wildlife research by synthesising two sources of information. First, we conducted a small, school‐based citizen science project that investigated the effects of supplementary feeding on urban birds as a case study. Second, we reviewed the literature to develop a database of school‐based citizen science projects that address questions in wildlife ecology and conservation. Based on these activities, we present five lessons for scientists considering a school‐based citizen science project. Overall, we found that school‐based citizen science projects must be carefully designed to ensure reliable data are collected, students remain engaged, and the project is achievable under the logistical constraints presented by conducting wildlife research in a school environment. Ultimately, we conclude that school‐based citizen science projects can be a powerful way of collecting wildlife data while also contributing to the education and development of environmentally aware students.

Students and researchers might have diverse ideas about and motivations for citizen science (CS) projects. To prevent uncertainty, we address ethical concerns emerging in CS projects and in CS in general, specifically, the transferability of the ethical skills and knowledge gained within academia (e.g. through studying and research conduct). We dedicate these Guidelines for Research Ethics and Research Integrity in Citizen Science primarily to Masters and Doctoral students and their supervisors, to facilitate CS-related research activities (i.e. mainstream CS) in line with the values of academic integrity. Using a pool of 85 papers, we identified nine topics covering 22 customised guidelines and supplemented them with further readings to build more in-depth knowledge.

Citizen science has extensively been reported as a useful tool for scientists gathering large quantities of information (Silvertown et al. 2011; Dickinson et al. 2010; Bonney et al. 2009). Citizen Science has been broadly defined in previous literature. We employ the following for purposes of this paper: partnerships between scientists and the public where data are collected, shared, and analyzed (Jordan et al. 2012). These partnerships result in projects that range in participation capacity, participation design, and project goals. On one hand, there are participatory action research projects (Cooper et al. 2007), initially defined by Caren Cooper as projects initiated by non-scientist members of the public and developed hand-in-hand with scientists or scientists hired by the project as consultants (see also Shirk et al. 2012). On the other hand there are crowdsourced or contributory citizen science projects (Bonney et al. 2009), which allow researchers to gather large amounts of data without any input or participation of the public on project development. These large contributory projects such as eBird (www.eBird.org) and Evolution MegaLab have had success in collecting large-scale data sets from participants for long-term trend analysis in the U.S. and Europe respectively. Crowdsourcing citizen science projects such as FoldIt (www.fold.it) and Galaxy Zoo (www.galaxyzoo.org), have capitalized on large numbers of participants to do analysis that computers are not adept at. Co-created action type citizen science projects represent the middle ground, where partnerships between local citizens and scientists have been successful in preservation and restoration efforts of local waterways in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (e.g., ReClam the Bay (www.reclamthebay.org) and Shermans Creek Conservation (www.shermanscreek.org)). Regardless of the project type, all citizen science programs have participants engaged in authentic scientific research and resulted in successful data collection for scientists. While there is no official count of all the citizen science projects active at any given time, anecdotally there are a large number citizen science projects in ecology. Recent findings on patterns and use of citizen science in research found that the bulk of published citizen science based research was ecological/biological in nature (Follett and Strezov 2015). What has been little studied is the role and impact of the professional scientist who is engaging the citizen scientists. Two areas are of particular interest in this research: (1) who and what disciplines use citizen science and (2) the perceived trust and reliability of citizen science gathered data in academia. Research about the ecologists, and scientists writ-large, engaging participants in their research is limited. It is important to know more about the role and use of citizen science in academia because of its increased use in certain fields not just as a research tool but a method of engagement, and engendering broader support for science within the public sphere. If there is indeed a skewed representation of particular disciplines or individuals, there may be implications for broader citizen science outcomes. Additionally, variation in trust and use, or willingness to use, citizen science or citizen science collected data because of academic practice or identity frames may hinder further gains made in the field of citizen science as * Amanda E. Sorensen amasoren@rutgers.edu

Learning models that are in line with the challenges of the 21st century, namely involving students to think critically, creatively, and be able to communicate and collaborate are very important to develop. One of the learning models that support this is the Citizen Science Project (CSP) model. This research uses the development method with the ADDIE approach, which consists of the analysis stage, design stage, development stage, implementation stage, and evaluation stage. The CSP learning model consists of syntax, reaction principles, social systems, support systems, and instructional and accompanying impacts. The focus of this research is up to the implementation stage, which involves analysing the validation of the CSP model as well as the practicality test by teachers and learners. The instruments used in the study included a validation questionnaire for two expert validators, as well as a practicality questionnaire for 2 teachers and 34 learners. The data were analysed based on the feasibility of the CSP model, as assessed by the validators, as well as practicality from the perspective of teachers and learners. The validation results showed an average score of 4.38 out of 5, which falls into the valid category. Practicality assessment by learners resulted in a score of 83.2 which is included in the very practical category, while teachers gave a score of 84.8 which is also included in the very valid category. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the CSP learning model is valid and very practical to be applied to support 21st century learning in improving 4C skills.Abstrak. Model pembelajaran yang selaras dengan tantangan abad ke-21, yaitu melibatkan siswa untuk berpikir kritis, kreatif, serta mampu berkomunikasi dan berkolaborasi, sangat penting untuk dikembangkan. Salah satu model pembelajaran yang mendukung hal ini adalah model Citizen Science Project (CSP). Penelitian ini menggunakan metode pengembangan dengan pendekatan ADDIE, yang terdiri dari tahap analisis, tahap desain, tahap pengembangan, tahap implementasi, dan tahap evaluasi. Model pembelajaran CSP terdiri atas sintaks, prinsip reaksi, sistem sosial, sistem pendukung, serta dampak instruksional dan dampak penyerta. Fokus penelitian ini hingga tahap implementasi, yang melibatkan analisis validasi model CSP serta uji kepraktisan oleh guru dan peserta didik. Instrumen yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini mencakup kuesioner validasi untuk dua validator ahli, serta kuesioner kepraktisan untuk dua guru dan 34 peserta didik. Data dianalisis berdasarkan kelayakan model CSP yang dinilai oleh validator, serta kepraktisannya dari perspektif guru dan peserta didik. Hasil validasi menunjukkan skor rata-rata 4,38 dari 5, yang termasuk dalam kategori valid. Penilaian kepraktisan oleh peserta didik menghasilkan skor 83,2, yang termasuk dalam kategori sangat praktis, sedangkan guru memberikan skor 84,8, yang juga termasuk dalam kategori sangat valid. Berdasarkan hasil tersebut, dapat disimpulkan bahwa model pembelajaran CSP valid dan sangat praktis untuk diterapkan guna mendukung pembelajaran abad ke-21 dalam meningkatkan keterampilan 4C.

Citizen science (CS) projects are becoming increasingly popular in schools. They promise to expand knowledge, promote scientific literacy, as well as improve environmental attitudes and behavior. However, studies on the educational potential of CS projects show varying results. These inconsistent findings can be attributed to differences in the design of CS projects. It is assumed that participants who are involved in more phases of the scientific process show greater learning outcomes than participants who are involved in fewer phases. Various models about participation in CS have been developed but have not been thoroughly empirically tested. Therefore, the research question of this study is as follows: How do different participation opportunities influence the educational outcome of CS projects for students? To answer this question, a CS project was carried out with three experimental groups, whereby the participation opportunities were varied, and 199 students were included. The students’ knowledge, attitudes toward science, as well as their environmental attitudes and behavior were evaluated three times (before, shortly after, and 2–3 months after the intervention). The analyses show only minor or no statistically significant influences of the participation opportunities on participants. These results are consistent with studies that also expressed doubts about whether the level of participation determines the educational potential of CS projects.

Recent years have witnessed significant achievements and technological advances in citizen science (CS) projects; nevertheless, significant global challenges are present. Proof of this is in the joint efforts of international organizations to achieve the 2030 SDG agenda in a complex environment. Thus, UNESCO has recognized CS as being among the initiatives that could bridge the Science, Technology, and Innovation gap as a substantial resource, given its power to bring the general public closer together. Although tech-based CS projects keep rising, there is limited knowledge about which type of projects might allow participants to develop higher-order complex thinking skills. To that end, this study describes a systematic literature review (SLR) and analysis of 49 CS projects over the last 5 years concerning the technology utilized, the level of citizen involvement, and the intended social impact. The results of the analysis evidenced: (a) broad implementation in Europe on issues of the built environment, disaster risk, and environmental and animal monitoring; (b) prevalence of helix configurations other than the triple, quadruple, and quintuple helix innovation models; (c) a focus on technological developments to improve living conditions in cities; (d) an opportunity to develop applied native technologies; (e) limited development of participants’ complex thinking, when constrained to low levels of involvement; and (f) an opportunity to develop native technologies and promote a higher level of citizen participation, leading to more significant impact whilst developing complex thinking.

<p>Citizen science has globally been recognized as a vital part of open science and as a way of doing research that enables new levels of science education and science communication. Due to its high levels of public participation, citizen science can be of great value in bringing society and science closer together. Universities across the world have acknowledged this value and aim to incorporate citizen science in their policies and daily practices as part of their open science practices.</p><p>The Delft University of Technology has set the goal to develop an open science program that includes citizen science. However, implementing and incorporating citizen science in an open science program is not a straightforward task and demands knowledge, understanding, and experience of the field as well as the practical implications. What should a university do to support the goals of various citizen science initiatives, within an open science context, and to assist and facilitate researchers to perform effective participatory science? To gain a deeper understanding of what a citizen science project entails within the context of a university, we performed a case-study implementing citizen science methods for hydrological research. The project, called Delft Measures Rain, was developed in collaboration with external partners and several internal departments and their staff, some already having experience with developing and coordinating citizen science projects. Citizens of Delft were encouraged to participate and work together with scientists from the Water Management department to investigate rainfall patterns within the city. In total, 95 citizens collaborated for two months to collect over 1900 individual rainfall measurements spread over the city and taken with home-made rain gauges.  We developed tailored recruitment strategies, data collection and validation tools, data visuals, and communication strategies. Overall, the project has delivered valuable results, including reliable rainfall data, involvement and enthusiasm of citizens, and valuable feedback from participants. Additionally, this project has led to more cooperation of relevant institutions and civil society organizations (CSO) across the city and between different departments within the university itself.</p><p>This case-study has showcased how various stakeholders (researchers, citizens, civil servants, CSO’s, etc.) can benefit from co-developed participatory research implementing citizen science and open science principles. With this case study, we were able to identify the benefits, drawbacks, and opportunities for all stakeholders involved. Furthermore, we identified key tools and facilitation needs to assist researchers within the university to perform effective participatory science. During the session, we would like to share our methods, successes, challenges, and lessons learned. This project shows that, with the right knowledge and tools, citizen science can deliver what it promises and be of great value to universities and open science in general. </p>

What is the countercultural potential of citizen science? As a participant in the wider citizen science movement, I can attest that contemporary citizen science initiatives rarely characterise themselves as countercultural. Rather, the goal of most citizen science projects is to be seen as producing orthodox scientific knowledge: the ethos is respectability rather than rebellion (NERC). I will suggest instead that there are resonances with the counterculture that emerged in the 1960s, most visibly through an emphasis on participatory experimentation and the principles of environmental sustainability and social justice. This will be illustrated by example, through two citizen science projects that have a commitment to combining social values with scientific practice. I will then describe the explicitly countercultural organisation, Science for the People, which arose from within the scientific community itself, out of opposition to the Vietnam War. Methodological and conceptual weaknesses in the authoritative model of science are explored, suggesting that there is an opportunity for citizen science to become anti-hegemonic by challenging the hegemony of science itself. This reformulation will be expressed through Deleuze and Guattari's notion of nomadic science, the means through which citizen science could become countercultural. Counterculture Before examining the countercultural potential of citizen science, I set out some of the grounds for identifying a counterculture drawing on the ideas of Theodore Roszak, who invented the term counterculture to describe the new forms of youth movements that emerged in the 1960s (Roszak). This was a perspective that allowed the carnivalesque procession of beatniks, hippies and the New Left to be seen as a single paradigm shift combining psychic and social revolution. But just as striking and more often forgotten is the way Roszak characterised the role of the counterculture as mobilising a vital critique of the scientific worldview (Roszak 273-274). The concept of counterculture has been taken up in diverse ways since its original formation. We can draw, for example, on Lawrence Grossberg's more contemporary analysis of counterculture (Grossberg) to clarify the main concepts and contrast them with a scientific approach. Firstly, a counterculture works on and through cultural formations. This positions it as something the scientific community would see as the other, as the opposite to the objective, repeatable and quantitative truth-seeking of science. Secondly, a counterculture is a diverse and hybrid space without a unitary identity. Again, scientists would often see science as a singular activity applied in modulated forms depending on the context, although in practice the different sciences can experience each other as different tribes. Thirdly, a counterculture is lived as a transformative experience where the participant is fundamentally changed at a psychic level through participation in unique events. Contrast this with the scientific idea of the separation of observer and observed, and the objective repeatability of the experiment irrespective of the experimenter. Fourthly, a counterculture is associated with a unique moment in time, a point of shift from the old to the new. For the counterculture of the 1960s this was the Age of Aquarius. In general, the aim of science and scientists is to contribute to a form of truth that is essentially timeless, in that a physical law is assumed to hold across all time (and space), although science also has moments of radical change with regard to scientific paradigms. Finally, and significantly for the conclusions of this paper, according to Roszak a counterculture stands against the mainstream. It offers a challenge not at the level of detail but, to the fundamental assumptions of the status quo. This is what “science” cannot do, in as much as science itself has become the mainstream. It was the character of science as the bedrock of all values that Roszak himself opposed and for which he named and welcomed the counterculture. Although critical of some of the more shallow aspects of its psychedelic experimentation or political militancy, he shared its criticism of the technocratic society (the technocracy) and the egocentric mode of consciousness. His hope was that the counterculture could help restore a visionary imagination along with a more human sense of community. What Is Citizen Science? In recent years the concept of citizen science has grown massively in popularity, but is still an open and unstable term with many variants. Current moves towards institutionalisation (Citizen Science Association) are attempting to marry growth and stabilisation, with the first Annual General Meeting of the European Citizen Science Association securing a tentative agreement on the common principles of citizen science (Haklay, "European"). Key papers and presentations in the mainstream of the movement emphasise that citizen science is not a new activity (Bonney et al.) with much being made of the fact that the National Audubon Society started its annual Christmas Bird Count in 1900 (National Audubon Society). However, this elides the key role of the Internet in the current surge, which takes two distinct forms; the organisation of distributed fieldwork, and the online crowdsourcing of data analysis. To scientists, the appeal of citizen science fieldwork follows from its distributed character; they can research patterns over large scales and across latitudes in ways that would be impossible for a researcher at a single study site (Toomey). Gathering together the volunteer, observations are made possible by an infrastructure of web tools. The role of the citizen in this is to be a careful observer; the eyes and ears of the scientist in cyberspace. In online crowdsourcing, the internet is used to present pattern recognition tasks; enrolling users in searching images for signs of new planets or the jets of material from black holes. The growth of science crowdsourcing is exponential; one of the largest sites facilitating this kind of citizen science now has well in excess of a million registered users (Zooniverse). Such is the force of the technological aura around crowdsourced science that mainstream publications often conflate it with the whole of citizen science (Parr). There are projects within citizen science which share core values with the counterculture as originally defined by Roszak, in particular open participation and social justice. These projects also show characteristics from Grossberg's analysis of counterculture; they are diverse and hybrid spaces, carry a sense of moving from an old era to a new one, and have cultural forms of their own. They open up the full range of the scientific method to participation, including problem definition, research design, analysis and action. Citizen science projects that aim for participation in all these areas include the Extreme Citizen Science research group (ExCiteS) at University College London (UCL), the associated social enterprise Mapping for Change (Mapping for Change), and the Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Science (Public Lab). ExCiteS sees its version of citizen science as "a situated, bottom-up practice" that "takes into account local needs, practices and culture". Public Lab, meanwhile, argue that many citizen science projects only offer non-scientists token forms of participation in scientific inquiry that rarely amount to more that data collection and record keeping. They counter this through an open process which tries to involve communities all the way from framing the research questions, to prototyping tools, to collating and interpreting the measurements. ExCiteS and Public Lab also share an implicit commitment to social justice through scientific activity. The Public Lab mission is to "put scientific inquiry at the heart of civic life" and the UCL research group strive for "new devices and knowledge creation processes that can transform the world". All of their work is framed by environmental sustainability and care for the planet, whether it's enabling environmental monitoring by indigenous communities in the Congo (ExCiteS) or developing do-it-yourself spectrometry kits to detect crude oil pollution (Public Lab, "Homebrew"). Having provided a case for elements of countercultural DNA being present in bottom-up and problem-driven citizen science, we can contrast this with Science for the People, a scientific movement that was born out of the counterculture. Countercultural Science from the 1970s: Science for the People Science for the People (SftP) was a scientific movement seeded by a rebellion of young physicists against the role of US science in the Vietnam War. Young members of the American Physical Society (APS) lobbied for it to take a position against the war but were heavily criticised by other members, whose written complaints in the communications of the APS focused on the importance of scientific neutrality and the need to maintain the association's purely scientific nature rather than allowing science to become contaminated by politics (Sarah Bridger, in Plenary 2, 0:46 to 1:04). The counter-narrative from the dissidents argued that science is not neutral, invoking the example of Nazi science as a justification for taking a stand. After losing the internal vote the young radicals left to form Scientists and Engineers for Social and Political Action (SESPA), which later became Science for the People (SftP). As well as opposition to the Vietnam War, SftP embodied from the start other key themes of the counterculture, such as civil rights and feminism. For example, the first edition of Science for the People magazine (appearing as Vol. 2, No. 2 of the SESPA Newsletter) included an article about leading Black Panther, Bobby Seale, alongside a piece entitled “Women Demand Equality in Science.” The final articles

Citizen Science Projects: How to make a difference, is a massive open online course (MOOC). It was developed by the H2020 WeObserve project and ran on the FutureLearn platform from 2019. The course was designed to assist learners from all backgrounds and geographical locations to discover how to build their own citizen science project to address global challenges and create positive change. It also helped learners with interpreting the information they collected and using their findings to educate others about important local and global concerns. The main learning objectives for the course were: * Discover what citizen science and citizen observatories are * Engage with the general process of a citizen science project, the tools used and where they can be accessed * Collect and analyse data on relevant issues such as environmental challenges and disaster management, and discuss the results of their findings * Explore projects happening around the world, what the aims of these projects are and how learners could get involved * Model the steps to create their own citizen science project * Evaluate the potential of citizen science in bringing about change This course also provided five open-source, downloadable tools which have been tested in previous citizen science projects and created for the use of a wider range of projects. These tools are listed below and available in the research repository: * Empathy timeline tool * Community-level indicators tool * Data postcards tool * Future newspaper tool * Co-evaluation tool

Preface: The changing face of science communication John K. Gilbert and Susan M. Stocklmayer I. Models of science communication - theory into practice 1. Towards a 'design approach' to science communication Masakata Ogawa 2. Engagement with science: models of science communication Susan M. Stocklmayer II: Challenges in communicating science 3. Scientists' engagement with the public Suzette D. Searle 4. The role of science and technology in public policy. What is knowledge for? Will J Grant 5. Negotiating public resistance to engagement in science and technology Lindy Orthia III. Major themes in science communication 6. Communicating the significance of risk Craig Trumbo 7. Quantitative literacy in science communication Maurice M.W. Cheng, Ka Lok Wong, Arthur Man Sang Lee, Ida Ah Chee Mok 8. Ethics and accountability in science and technology Rod Lamberts 9. Beliefs and the value of evidence Michael J. Reiss IV. Informal learning 10. Helping learning in science communication John K. Gilbert 11. Science communication and science education Sean Perera and Susan M. Stocklmayer 12. The practice of science and technology communication in science museums Leonie J Rennie V. Communication of contemporary issues in science and society 13. Communicating global climate change: issues and dilemmas Justin Dillon and Marie Hobson 14. Science communication during a short-term crisis: the case of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) Yeung Chung Lee 15. Communication challenges for sustainability Julia B. Corbett 16. The value of Indigenous Knowledge Systems in the 21st Century Yonah Seleti 17. Science communication: The consequences of being human Chris Bryant VI. Further exploration

Understanding the motivations and benefits of citizen science (CS) participants is critical to the success of environmental science projects that rely on data collection from engaged citizens. Tailored communication with citizen scientists is essential, leading to the need to target specific societal groups for extensive and high-quality data sets. The purpose of the study was to apply marketing concepts such as stakeholder analysis, value proposition canvas (VPC), and key performance indicators (KPIs) to CS projects. The study examined the extent to which these strategies can be applied to CS projects and add value, resulting in improved recruitment and retention of participants, as well as improved project management. The dynamic landscape of CS projects requires adapted business-oriented approaches supporting ongoing participation with high motivation, acknowledging community needs, and recognizing institutional scientists, akin to targeting potential customers. The case study focuses on the CityCLIM initiative, an EU-funded project collecting urban climate data, especially air temperature, using mobile weather stations. The CityCLIM VPC, analyzing stakeholder groups, facilitated tailored communication strategies by analyzing stakeholder groups and highlighting the effectiveness of the CS cycling initiative within the “Stadtradeln” program. Impact KPIs served as a roadmap for strategic refinement, while data quality KPIs identified deficiencies, guiding adjustments to the campaign. Applied marketing tools improved project planning, engagement, and evaluation, demonstrating the potential of this concept. Adapting marketing tools to recruitment and communication strategies benefits CS projects by targeting specific groups. The holistic integration of stakeholder analysis, VPC, and KPIs streamlines project management and creates a framework for sustainable success. This adaptation forms a robust toolkit for CS project coordinators, contributing to effective communication, engagement, and impact assessment. Applying marketing tools significantly increases CS projects’ reach and impact, ensuring long-term success and meaningful scientific contributions.

Biological invasions are among the most challenging ecological and conservation riddles of our times. Fortunately, citizen science projects became a valuable tool to detect non-indigenous species (NIS), document their spread, prevent dispersion, and eradicate localized populations. We evaluated the most undisputed definitions of citizen science and proposed that a combination of two of them is a better reflection of what citizen science has become. Thus, citizen science is any environmental and/or biological data collection and analysis, including data quality control, undertaken by members of the general public, as individuals or as organized groups of citizens, with the guidance and/or assistance of scientists toward solving environmental and/or community questions. With this review, we also assessed how citizen science has been advancing biological invasions research and its focus, by analyzing 126 peer-reviewed articles that used citizen science methods or data concerning NIS. Most of the articles studied terrestrial species (68%) and terrestrial plants were the most studied group (22.7%). Surprisingly, most first detection reports were of non-indigenous marine fish probably due to the constraints in accessing aquatic ecosystems which delays the detection of new NIS. Citizen science projects running over broad geographical areas are very cost-effective for the early detection of NIS, regardless of the studied environment. We also discuss the applicability and need to adapt the methods and approaches toward the studied ecosystem and species, but also the profile of the participating citizens, their motivations, level of engagement, or social status. We recommend authors to better acknowledge the work done by contributing citizens, and the putative limitations of data generated by citizen science projects. The outreach planning of citizen science projects is also evaluated, including the use of dedicated web platforms vs. pre-existent and disseminated web platforms, while discussing how such outreach actions can be maximized. Lastly, we present a framework that contextualizes the contributions of citizen science, scientific research, and regional and national stakeholders toward the integrated management of biological invasions.

Citizen science is strongly on the rise, also in Flanders, the Dutch speaking region of Belgium. However, little knowledge is available on who these citizen scientists in Flanders are, why they take part in citizen science projects and how they experience these projects. This information is very valuable for researchers setting up new citizen science projects. Also little knowledge exits on how many researchers know or have experience with citizen science and their motivations and barriers for choosing a citizen science approach for their research. Scivil, the Flemish knowledge centre for Citizen Science, carried out two surveys in 2020 to gain insight in these questions: one among citizen scientists to gain insight in personal characteristics of citizen scientists and motivations to participate in a citizen science project. The other survey was conducted among Flemish scientists, probing their knowledge, experiences, and interest in citizen science. This contribution highlights findings of both surveys and the discussions on these findings during the Poster session of the engaging citizen science conference 2022 in Aarhus, Denmark.