Citizen science can be a theoretical or practical approach to research as well as being a field of research in its own right (Kullenberg and Kasperowski, 2016; Heigl et al., 2019; Roche et al., 2020). Citizen science has long been considered to hold vast potential for helping society (Irwin, 1995; Lewenstein, 2022) and, as well as being a distinct field of enquiry (Jordan et al., 2015), has increasing prominence in areas such as astronomy, ecology, meteorology, and medicine (Lewandowski et al., 2017). While the term “citizen science” broadly applies to scientific research that involves people who do not identify as professional scientists (Bonney et al., 2009; Silvertown, 2009), the theoretical context of the individual terms “citizen” and “science” can vary greatly depending on a range of factors and circumstances (Eitzel et al., 2017; Haklay et al., 2021). Although the issue of terminology has been present in the field of citizen science since the beginning, it has been hotly debated recently with discussions held at the major science communication and citizen science conferences in 2023 (Roche et al., 2023). One of the central issues of the terminology debate—the distinction between citizen science and community science and how the “citizen” term can be insensitive to marginalised communities (Ellwood et al., 2023; Lin Hunter et al., 2023)—culminated in the US-based but globally-reaching Citizen Science Association changing its name to “the Association for Advancing Participatory Sciences”. While there is no doubt that inclusion needs to be improved in the field (Cooper et al., 2021), some citizen science scholars have suggested that the field can be made more inclusive without resorting to abandoning a term that has gradually been gaining in scientific and political credibility in recent years (Haklay, 2023). These debates have bolstered the idea that communication and engagement are central to the future of citizen science.

Effective communication of scientific findings to public audiences serves to enhance public trust in science and facilitate wider public engagement in scientific research (Fischhoff and Scheufele, 2013; Schäfer, 2016; Achiam et al., 2022). Science communication is not just the “communication of knowledge from scientific experts to public audiences” (Bultitude, 2011, p. 32), but is instead a two-way exchange with public audiences, as well as a field of research and practice in its own right (Burns et al., 2003; Trench, 2008). In recent years, in tandem with the challenge of communicating science in a “post-truth society” (Iyengar and Massey, 2019, p.7656), the field of science communication has grown substantially as a discipline taught in higher education institutions around the world (Massarani et al., In Review), amid growing calls to incorporate it more substantially into science education (Bubela et al., 2009; Mercer-Mapstone and Kuchel, 2017).

Responsible science communication is as important as ever (Scheufele and Krause, 2019; Howell and Brossard, 2021; Hyland-Wood et al., 2021) with a number of prominent challenges emerging in the field. There are disparate views among scientists on the relationship between science communication and socio-political impacts and what science communication can achieve (Scheufele, 2014; Fähnrich, 2017; Besley et al., 2018; Fähnrich et al., 2020). For example, while “historically science communication has been predicated on the assumption that ignorance is the basis of a lack of societal support for various issues in science and technology”—the so-called ‘deficit model’ of science communication (Simis et al., 2016, p. 401)—research has demonstrated that science communication is far more complex than the deficit model would suggest, with models of dialogue and participation being integral to the responsible public communication of science (Davies, 2008; Horst and Michael, 2011). The motivation for science communication can sometimes be conflated with objectives spanning from education to promotion and are often lacking in meaningful evaluation (Jensen, 2014; Weingart and Joubert, 2019). The people involved in science communication are often based in universities and research or education organisations and can be researchers, scientists, communication professionals, educators, students, volunteers, or freelancers, among other roles (Davies and Horst, 2016; Weingart and Guenther, 2016). The few studies that have explored the people involved in science communication have demonstrated the richness of the topic and how the broad range of backgrounds and experiences of the people involved make it ripe for further study, especially given how the availability and accessibility of funding and support for science communicators can greatly affect their work (Koivumäki and Wilkinson, 2020; Besley et al., 2021).

Citizen science can benefit from effective science communication. Clear communication of the goals and outcomes of citizen science projects can help to increase participation rates, especially among groups that are traditionally underrepresented in science (Bonney et al., 2009; Dickinson et al., 2012; Gunnell et al., 2021). Effective communication can also help to ensure that the data collected by citizen scientists are accurate and reliable (Kosmala et al., 2016; Balázs et al., 2021). Ideally, the findings from citizen science projects can be communicated back to the participants and wider public audiences, contributing to a more informed society and a more participatory approach to science (Dickinson et al., 2010; Hecker et al., 2018). Indeed, there is an argument that “communication in citizen science is always science communication” (Wagenknecht et al., 2021, p.1).

Citizen science also has the potential to enhance science communication. By involving public audiences in scientific research, citizen science can provide a platform for public engagement with science that is not always accessible through traditional methods of science communication, offering a way for individuals to contribute to scientific research and to have a stake in the scientific process, leading to greater public ownership of scientific knowledge (Bonney et al., 2016; Gunnell et al., 2021). The collaborative nature of citizen science can also lead to the development of new knowledge and innovative ways to address scientific problems (Haklay, 2013; Vohland et al., 2021). By exploring these potential synergies, it may be possible to develop more effective approaches to science communication that can help to build public trust in science and promote wider public participation in scientific research (Golumbic et al., 2020; Magalhães et al., 2022).

From 2018–2020, the European Commission, through a funding call in the Science with and for Society (SwafS) pillar of Horizon 2020, the world’s largest multinational research funding programme (Abbott, 2020), invited large-scale research proposals to take stock and re-examine the role of science communication (European Commission, 2020; Roche et al., 2021a). This was the first dedicated research funding call (rather than a “Coordination and Support Action”) of its size offered by the European Commission for science communication research, and saw a total of eight projects funded (CONCISE, RETHINK, QUEST, TRESCA, NEWSERA, ParCos, ENJOI, and GlobalSCAPE), with an overall investment of almost €10 million (European Commission, 2022; Roche et al., 2023). These “SwafS-19” Projects (as they become known due to being the 19th topic in the final SwafS funding programme) were tasked with bringing together “journalists and science communicators, researchers, civil society groups, industry experts and policymakers,” the so-called “quintuple helix” of stakeholders, to “examine issues such as quality of science communication, trust in science, and the mitigation of the spread and impact of misinformation, disinformation and fake news” (European Commission, 2022, p. 2). The NEWSERA project, for example, specifically focused on integrating citizen science and science communication in Europe and demonstrated that citizen science projects often interpret communication as more of dissemination activity without harnessing its potential for deeper engagement (Magalhães et al., 2022; Giardullo et al., 2023).

As the last of the eight SwafS-19 projects to commence from the (to-date) final research funding call from the European Commission in the specific area of science communication research, GlobalSCAPE had a responsibility to extend beyond the “disparate and fragmented” landscape of European science communication (Davies et al., 2021, p. 5) to attempt to take into account the experiences of science communicators around the world. This paper shares some of the first insights from the GlobalSCAPE project, which employed an innovative methodology comprising a longitudinal diary study of science communicators around the world to collect data on the challenges and opportunities they face as they navigate a rapidly changing field. There has been little consideration of the people who work across both citizen science and science communication, and how the experiences of such individuals may be investigated and better understood. The key question this paper seeks to answer is whether projects such as GlobalSCAPE can provide insights into the role of science communicators and if there is any overlap with citizen science. Given that science communication and citizen science can be powerful tools for providing opportunities for engagement with, or participation in, scientific research, together they have vast potential to reach beyond individual scientific disciplines to attract wider public participation in scientific research, address societal challenges, build greater trust between science and society, and promote more democratic science.

Relevant aspects of respondents’ background and experience with science communication were a key focus of the study. Specifically, respondents were asked, “Are you involved in communicating about science or research with people who are not scientists or researchers?” The majority of respondents (n = 762, 81.5%) were actively involved in such public communication activities, while a smaller percentage only engaged occasionally (n = 137, 14.7%), and 3.9% (n = 36) did not engage at all. The key question, “Do you consider yourself a science communicator?” garnered 879 responses, with 87% indicating “Yes” or “Sometimes”. Building on this, the survey asked if people identified with a number of possible labels for their role as science communicators. 1712 responses were obtained from 963 participants. The most common role reported was scientist or researcher (n = 342, 35%), followed by science writer or journalist (n = 315, 33%), science teacher or educator (n = 253, 26%), and science communication researcher (n = 196, 20%). Less than 12% (n = 108, 11.2%) identified themselves as a citizen scientist. Of the respondents who identified as a citizen scientist, most respondents (n = 92, 87.6%) confirmed being actively involved in science communication. A Chi-square test assessing the relationship between gender and citizen scientist identification revealed no statistically significant effect (X²(2) = 3.760, p = .152). There was no statistically significant relationship between age band and citizen scientist identification (X²(6) = 10.876, p = .092). There was also no difference between those with a university degree (96%; n = 90) and those who did not have a degree (4%; n = 4) among those who indicated identifying as a citizen scientist (n = 94) (X²(3) = 0.89, p = .829).

The correlation between identification as a citizen scientist and other roles like volunteer in science communication, science teacher or educator, science performer, science communication researcher, and scientist or researcher was analysed (Table 1). These variables are discussed below in descending order based on the amount of variance explained by each statistically significant correlation. The strongest correlation identified was between the roles of citizen scientist and volunteer in science communication (r = 0.209, n = 963, p < 0.001). This relationship was statistically significant and accounted for 4.36% of the variance in the sample. This suggests that those who identify as citizen scientists are also likely to engage in voluntary science communication activities, or vice versa. The shared role indicates that citizen scientists are proactive in engaging with their communities, often working on a voluntary basis to translate and communicate scientific information.

Next, a significant relationship was found between the roles of citizen scientist and science teacher or educator (r = 0.141, n = 963, p < 0.001), accounting for 1.98% of the variance. This implies that citizen scientists often play an educational role, facilitating understanding of scientific concepts within their communities, or that some science educators and teachers identify as citizen scientists. This could involve informal citizen science education efforts, such as hosting workshops or giving talks, or more formal roles like teaching science in schools or other educational settings. The role of a citizen scientist also showed a significant correlation with that of a science performer (r = 0.112, n = 963, p = 0.001), which explained 1.25% of the variance. Science performers use theatrical or artistic means to communicate science to the public, and this link suggests that some citizen scientists might use similar, non-traditional formats to engage audiences with scientific content. A positive correlation was identified between the roles of citizen scientist and science communication researcher (r = 0.100, n = 963, p = 0.002), accounting for 1.00% of the variance. This suggests that some citizen scientists have research-oriented roles, studying the efficacy and methods of science communication.

Finally, a significant, yet slightly weaker correlation emerged between the roles of citizen scientist and scientist or researcher (r = 0.097, n = 963, p = 0.003), accounting for 0.94% of the variance. This indicates that a fraction of citizen scientists are also professional scientists or researchers, straddling the line between professional scientific investigation and community-based science communication.

Analysing the experiences of science communicators who identified as citizen scientists in the baseline survey offers rich insights into their multifaceted roles, challenges, and rewards. These individuals play a vital role in translating scientific concepts into digestible information, fostering scientific literacy. A thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2021) was carried out on the responses from the 11.2% of science communicators who identified as citizen scientists. This involved coding the responses to an open-ended option in the survey for respondents to give their views on being a professional science communicator (Jensen et al., 2022) and identifying the themes that emerged from those answers in order of frequency (Jensen and Laurie, 2016). Seven key themes emerged: responsibility and engagement, passion for dissemination, continuous learning, simplification and accessibility, creative and contextual communication, perseverance amid challenges, and the fundamental importance of promoting scientific literacy. Examples of these seven main themes, in descending order of frequency mentioned, are presented below.

Responsibility and Engagement. Citizen scientists feel deeply tied to their communities, enhancing their commitment to science communication. They aim to foster dialogue that improves public understanding of science. One respondent said, “Being able to inform without causing a stir in society.” Another respondent added, “I think about responsibility when it comes to being a science communicator in the day-to-day experience."

Passion for Science Dissemination. Respondents frequently highlighted their enthusiasm for science and dedication to sharing it with others. They are driven by the goal of making knowledge about science accessible. One participant encapsulated this view: “My day-to-day experience as a science communicator is fulfilling. Reaching out and impacting lives is rewarding."

Continuous Learning. Staying updated on scientific research is crucial to their role. This continuous learning helps them deliver accurate, timely information to public audiences and aids their personal and professional growth. One respondent stated, “Being updated and knowledgeable about the latest scientific work."

Distillation and Accessibility. The difficulty of converting complex science into understandable language is a significant challenge but an integral part of their role. They find making scientific knowledge accessible both challenging and fulfilling. A respondent summarised this challenge: “Transform topics, sometimes complex, into simpler contexts."

Creative and Contextual Communication. The respondents emphasised the importance of finding effective communication channels and methods that resonate with their audience. This involves creativity and understanding their audience’s context. One respondent mentioned, “Finding different channels to be able to communicate science or engage persons not related to scientific activities, in a way promote citizen science."

Challenges and Perseverance. Despite their passion, citizen scientists face hurdles like public resistance to scientific findings and underappreciation of their work. One respondent encapsulated these challenges: “Frustration. In general, […] all the people who refuse to listen to facts or the particularly irritating people who shout ‘wrong’ or ‘fake news’ whenever I discuss the science behind complicated socio-political issues with them."

The findings offer a detailed examination of individuals who identify as science communicators and citizen scientists, unveiling the intersections and relationships among various roles within the landscape of science communication. Notably, the identification as citizen scientists was found among 11.2% of respondents, indicating that an overlap exists between the fields of science communication and citizen science. The correlational analysis revealed that these individuals are highly likely to engage in other roles, particularly as volunteers in science communication, science teachers or educators, science performers, science communication researchers, and scientists or researchers. While these correlations are statistically significant, they explain only a relatively small percentage of the total variance, implying that the identities and roles within the field of science communication are multifaceted and diverse.

Although previous studies have found links between citizen science and sustainability (Fritz et al., 2019; Fraisl et al., 2020; Skarzauskiene and Mačiulienė, 2021), and citizen science and education (Roche et al., 2020; Kloetzer et al., 2021; Quinnell et al., 2023), GlobalSCAPE is the first large-scale study of its kind to explore the link between science communication and citizen science in terms of the international cadre of science communicators. While an overlap between science communicators who bridge both disciplines was demonstrated, there were also limitations to the study. Although the number of science communicators who chose citizen scientist as part of their professional identity in the GlobalSCAPE survey is an interesting insight, the question was a close-ended question that invited participants to select their identities from a predefined list. That list was validated, with the rest of the questions at the piloting stage, but it still somewhat reduced the significance of the response rate compared to if the same number of participants had chosen that option in an open-ended question.

It is also not clear if each of the science communicators identifying as a citizen scientist were following the same definition of what a citizen scientist is. While the forward-backward translation methodology was used to bolster consistency among the different languages, for any high degrees of complexity there remain limitations to how uniform the understanding of the terminology can be in different languages (Ozolins et al., 2020). Although individuals whose practices relate to science are more likely to be clear on citizen science definitions (Roche et al., 2021b), there is still a chance that those identifying as a citizen scientist might be using a different understanding of what constitutes citizen science. While this complicates any extrapolations drawn from their choice, it is also an aspect that is endemic to citizen science research in general, with the complexity and variety of views, perceptions, and understandings of the terms “citizen science” and “citizen scientist” one of the few constants in the field of citizen science (Eitzel et al., 2017; Haklay et al., 2021; Haklay, 2023).

Science communicators who identify as citizen scientists exhibit a deep sense of responsibility and engagement, driven by a passion for science and a commitment to continuous learning. Despite challenges in translating complex scientific concepts into accessible language and navigating public resistance, their perseverance underscores the importance they place on science communication. This is especially important as citizen science has ample capacity for transdisciplinarity and for integrating the natural, physical, and health sciences with the humanities and social sciences (Pykett et al., 2020; Tauginiene et al., 2020). Citizen science has been highlighted as means of harnessing non-traditional data sources to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations (Fritz et al., 2019; Fraisl et al., 2020). For the people who bridge citizen science and science communication, there remain obstacles to be overcome. Citizen science does not always give due consideration to the perspective of participants (Phillips et al., 2019), there are enduring challenges with terminology, inclusion, and access to participation (Cooper et al., 2021), and there is even the potential for communities to be exploited under the guise of citizen science (Roche and Davis, 2017; Roy and Edwards, 2019). However, despite these hurdles, it is the vast potential of citizen science to reach beyond individual disciplines and attract wider public participation in scientific research that could be most beneficial in helping to tackle societal challenges.

The implication of these findings is that training and support mechanisms for these citizen scientists should prioritise skills in translating complex concepts, managing public resistance, and continuous learning. Moreover, their deep sense of commitment and passion underscores the need for greater recognition and appreciation of the role of citizen scientists in bridging the gap between science and society. The findings presented in this paper shed light on the multi-faceted nature of science communication roles around the world, and the diverse avenues through which citizen scientists engage with public audiences. Their commitments extend beyond a singular role, manifesting in various facets of science communication, thus enhancing the current understanding of the dynamism in this field. The findings also underscore the importance of recognising and harnessing the potential of these individuals. As the correlations demonstrate, the people who are both citizen scientists and science communicators often identify as volunteers and/or educators. These individuals help bridge citizen science and science communication and, in doing so, contribute to closing the gap between scientific research and public audiences. These citizen scientists are navigating multiple roles and challenges. Their passion for science, commitment to their communities, and sense of responsibility drive them to disseminate complex scientific knowledge in an accessible and engaging manner. Despite the challenges they face, their work is underpinned by the view that fostering public engagement with science is paramount.