In recent years adequate communication of scientific results to the population has become more and more important. Understanding science contributes to participation in society (Davies & Horst, 2016) and is a prerequisite for making informed decisions and actively participating in society. According to the latest Eurobarometer, the situation in Austria is problematic. It has shown that science still tends to be seen as elitist and is usually not well understood. Furthermore, respondents even suggested that it is unnecessary to understand science (European Commission. Directorate General for Communication., 2021). However, the social discourses associated with science communication have also shown that such communication requires solid professional training as well as knowledge of scientific traditions and the "nature of science" to establish "informed trust" among public (Bromme, 2020). Participation in scientific communication and scientific processes goes beyond mere consumption, as shown by the many references to current research and research results.

But how do students perceive science communication and how can it be made more relevant to the target group? The citizen-science-project "We talk about science" investigates the question of relevant content for schoolchildren and encourages them to leave the consuming role, to prepare and communicate scientific topics by themselves. One target group of the project are pupils from secondary schools who have already had contact with science subjects like biology, chemistry and physics in class. Based on the reflection of their own consumption of science communication products (videos, homepages, newspaper reports, etc.), they are instructed and supported to communicate scientific aspects from the two selected current and socially relevant subject areas of electromagnetic radiation and carbon dioxide. Together with science communication and subject experts, additionally supported by student teachers, they design their own science communication products (videos, posts,…) and share those with their community (online and in person).

The second target group of the project are elementary school students in the fourth grade. The first small projects on science communication are investigating which aspects will be perceived at this age and what target group-adequate science communication in elementary school looks like.

The first project phase started in October 2022. The focus was on collecting ideas about scientists, science communicators and the perception of science communication products. Both the image and the resulting trust in representatives of science are addressed. This data is collected using a mixed methods design at participating project schools in classes of different age groups.

For the overall project we define three research area: (1) Credibility of science experts for students; (2) Students' own consumption, communication, and discussion of scientific content; (3) Implementation of science communication in primary schools. In the first phase of the project, we focus on aspects of our research area 1 and 2 as shown in the following. For the first area, we aim to answer the following questions: (1) Which characteristics influence the credibility of persons in the context of science communication for the target group of students? (2) Are there characteristics that make people appear more credible in the context of science communication? As a basis for a questionnaire, we researched the perception of scientists by students of different ages and school types. In a first step we used the well-known and very common Draw-A-Scientist test (Chambers, 1983; Finson, 2002). In addition to this, key question-based interviews will be carried out with schoolchildren of different ages (6-14 years old). The aim is to extract characteristics from scientists that make them appear competent, credible, and trustworthy. These initial drawings will be used to create various prototypical scientists and science communicators for a conjoint analysis. In this statistical experiment (Green & Srinivasan, 1978; Gustafsson et al., 2007), the influence of these characteristics on the credibility of products and actors in science communication will be examined. In the first phase of our project, we aim on the following questions of research area two: (1) What form of science communication is recognized by students in their daily life on the various social platforms (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube,…) (2) In which way do students rank those science communication products they found. The students record their findings on researching science communication products on protocol sheets (online). One sheet is filled out per product they found. The protocol sheets from all schools are collected and analyzed with content analyses (Mayring, 2019; Mayring & Fenzl, 2019) in the context of qualification theses (Bachelor's and Master's theses), in order to answer the research questions listed above. For further work and discussion of the results in the participating school class, we provide material with ideas for work in planning.

The aim of the project is to communicate more with pupils about science and research and to gain insights into their view of science communication. In addition to providing insight into research and acquiring scientific literacy, Citizen Science projects also aim to create awareness for social problems. Citizen Science projects can contribute to strengthening this awareness by not only raising it among Citizen Scientists, but also by making them more broadly aware. This is exactly what science communication is needed for. Our project aims to contribute to this by identifying criteria for relevant and target group-oriented science communication for students, based on the work with students and the analysis and production of their own communication products. The project just started and in the first months we already had a kick-off event in every participating school. Although the work takes place in the project classes, one of the intentions of the project would also be to bring science topics and science communication in this area more into focus and into the awareness of the pupils in the entire cooperation school. We will give first insights into these events and our research on the image and trustworthiness of scientists as well as a peek into the first analysis of consumption of science communication.

Bromme, R. (2020). Informiertes Vertrauen: Eine psychologische Perspektive auf Vertrauen in Wissenschaft. In M. Jungert, A. Frewer, & E. Mayr (Hrsg.), Wissenschaftsreflexion. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven zwischen Philosophie und Praxis (S. 105–134). Mentis. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670213 Davies, S. R., & Horst, M. (2016). Science communication: Culture, identity and citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan. European Commission. Directorate General for Communication. (2021). Kenntnisse und Einstellungen der europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu Wissenschaft und Technologie: Bericht. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2775/844093 Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a Scientist: What We Do and Do Not Know After Fifty Years of Drawings. School Science and Mathematics, 102(7), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18217.x Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2), 103. https://doi.org/10.1086/208721 Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2007). Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications (4th ed). Springer. Mayring, P. (2019). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse – Abgrenzungen, Spielarten, Weiterentwicklungen. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol 20, No 3 (2019): Qualitative Content Analysis I. https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-20.3.3343 Mayring, P., & Fenzl, T. (2019). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (S. 633–648). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_42