Summary of the FTI-Citizen Science Networking Event
On 18 November 2025, researchers from various Citizen Science projects in Lower Austria and representatives of the Gesellschaft für Forschungsförderung Niederösterreich (GFF NÖ) gathered at the University of Applied Sciences St. Pölten for the first FTI-Citizen Science Networking Event. The main focus was on practical issues relating to the successful implementation of Citizen Science projects, such as engaging and sustaining the involvement of citizen scientists in research projects.
Here is a summary of the FTI Citizen Science Networking Event:
An exchange of experiences among researchers in the field of Citizen Science, focusing on the challenges and obstacles encountered in practice.
On 18 November 2025, researchers from various Citizen Science projects in Lower Austria and representatives of the Gesellschaft für Forschungsförderung Niederösterreich (GFF NÖ) came together for the FTI-Citizen Science Networking Event, which focused on the theme of 'Citizen Science in Practice'. The event aimed to promote professional exchange between scientists, highlight project-specific experiences and encourage reflection on key challenges in Citizen Science. Bringing together project practice and funding perspectives sparked a multi-perspective discussion that shed light on the methodological, structural, and organisational aspects of Citizen Science.
The workshop was divided into two parts and followed an interactive, participatory design. During the first part, challenges from six key areas were collected during a brainwalk. These areas included process implementation, external stakeholders, project partners and teams, organisation and structures, impact and project goals, and other overarching topics. Participants then discussed these points in small groups, prioritising the obstacles they considered most relevant before presenting their results in short pitches to the plenary. In the second part of the workshop, building on these discussions, the participants selected topics particularly relevant to their own research practice. These topics were again discussed in depth in small groups, with a systematic discussion of problem descriptions and possible causes of the various obstacles. These results were presented in the plenary session, where they were discussed together.
The workshop was divided into two parts and followed an interactive, participatory design. During the first part, challenges from six key areas were collected during a brainwalk. These areas included process implementation, external stakeholders, project partners and teams, organisation and structures, impact and project goals, and other overarching topics. Participants then discussed these points in small groups, prioritising the obstacles they considered most relevant before presenting their results in short pitches to the plenary. In the second part of the workshop, building on these discussions, the participants selected topics particularly relevant to their own research practice. These topics were discussed in depth in small groups, with a systematic discussion of problem descriptions and possible causes of the various obstacles. These results were in turn presented in the plenary session, where they were discussed together.
The discussions made it clear that Citizen Science projects face a number of specific challenges that are similar across different projects and disciplines. In terms of process implementation, the lack of time was highlighted as a particular issue affecting both researchers and citizen scientists. This makes continuous collaboration difficult and has a particular impact on the planning and implementation of participatory processes. Closely related to this are difficulties in recruiting participants, especially from vulnerable or hard-to-reach target groups. In addition, managing expectations proved to be a complex task, as roles, methods and requirements must be clearly communicated to all participants in a manner appropriate to their field of expertise and target group.
Collaborating with external stakeholders was also described as challenging. Complex coordination and approval processes, frequent changes to contact persons, and differing motivations and priorities within project teams can all make collaboration considerably more difficult. Communication barriers between project teams, stakeholders and citizen scientists can exacerbate this problem further. It was emphasised that consistent personal contact points are particularly important in order to build trust and maintain the commitment of all those involved.
With regard to project partners and teams, the discussions revealed that different research logics, epistemological approaches and disciplinary backgrounds present a significant challenge. Uncertainty regarding the roles of citizen scientists within projects, power relations, and conflicting objectives within project consortia can further strain cooperation. Organisational hurdles, such as coordinating large or geographically dispersed teams, can exacerbate these issues.
The structural challenges were particularly evident in terms of organisation and structures. Many participants described the bureaucracy surrounding research projects, particularly with regard to legal matters, contracts, ethics committees and insurance, as a considerable burden. The frequent lack of institutional support further complicates the administrative handling of projects. Strict guidelines and structural conditions often conflict with the flexibility required for Citizen Science, since the logic of project planning and funding often leaves little room for adjustments to be made during the course of the project.
Areas of tension also emerged in terms of impact and project goals. Changes in goals during the course of a project are often necessary in Citizen Science projects, but they are not always easy to justify to funding agencies. In addition, projects must satisfy different stakeholder groups, each of which has different expectations regarding impact, for example in scientific, social, or institutional terms. The long-term effects of Citizen Science projects often only become apparent after the project has ended, which makes their evaluation and recognition even more difficult.
Beyond these central topics, other structural aspects were discussed, including the insufficient long-term funding of Citizen Science, the need for expense allowances for citizen scientists, and the high pressure to obtain third-party funding in science. In addition, unclear quality standards and the lack of Citizen Science in academic teaching were pointed out, which makes it difficult to establish the method on a long-term basis.
In addition to discussing challenges and potential solutions, the workshop gave participants the opportunity to reflect on their experiences. Many emphasised the importance of fostering a sense of community in Citizen Science, and acknowledged that their challenges are shared by many other projects. This intensive exchange was seen as a valuable contribution to community building, enabling participants to make new contacts and gain practical ideas for their own work. Particular emphasis was placed on the importance of reflection and risk assessment in research projects, and on incorporating these into the application process in order to respond more effectively to uncertainties that arise during the course of the project.
Participants were impressed by the diversity of the projects represented and the different ways in which citizen scientists were involved. At the same time, it was noted that the main obstacles were similar across disciplinary boundaries. This led to a clear desire for long-term structures that would enable sustainable Citizen Science research, long-term projects and regular networking formats. The presence of representatives from funding agencies was seen as particularly positive, as it provided insights into funding conditions and contributed to a better mutual understanding.
Overall, the FTI-Citizen Science Networking Event highlighted the high relevance of structured exchange formats for the further development of Citizen Science. The event brought shared challenges to light, promoted mutual learning and underlined the need for professionalisation, discipline formation and institutional recognition of Citizen Science. Citizen Science was understood by the participants as a learning, dynamic field whose further development depends significantly on reflection, exchange and suitable structural conditions. The event contributed significantly to strengthening the Citizen Science community in Lower Austria and highlighting common development needs.