In an age of populism, rising authoritarianism and far-right movements that often go hand-in-hand with questioning of scientific knowledge, science communication is challenged to respond. How to foster dialogue and inclusion oriented interaction with publics and stakeholders when powerful people and institutions deny science, or if interlocutors don't share the assumption that science yields valid knowledge? In this commentary set, researchers of science communication analyse the current challenges and suggest answers from different perspectives, trying to brush against the grain in order to explore inspiring ideas. Their suggestions, in a nutshell: (1) Good science communication without a fundamental change in the platform logics of social media platforms will not be possible, and science communicators should fight for a better digital ecosystem. (2) Science communication that is blind to political power play will not be strong enough for rising the voice of science in a power world. (3) Governments need to invest in a resilient and reliable way of communicating in risk and crisis situations, because otherwise science and science communication lose trust. (4) Science communication as a democratic practice could create opportunities for participation in decision processes in order to support and strengthen democracy. (5) Instead of persuading the denialists of science, science communication could adopt values connected with science and empower people to reach their goals with the help of scientific knowledge and practices. (6) Science communication might embrace the performative power of communication in order to persist in a post-truth world. The commentary set highlights crucial aspects of what we see as a communication challenge for dialogue and inclusion oriented science communication and it aims at opening up discussion and debate.

Authoritarian populism as a political system is on the global rise. In (what was) Bolsonaro's Brazil, Orbán's Hungary, or Trump's U.S., it yielded or yields a communicative ecosystem loosening ties with truthfulness and challenging a common ground that science has epistemic authority. In our paper we argue that the declining role of truth as a compass in public discourse and decision-making notable in what were seen as stable democracies poses challenges for the way we do science communication and how we do it on a very fundamental level. We suggest there is a need to reconsider assumptions about “good science communication”, and we suggest that science communication should not ignore the fact that both knowledge and communication are inescapably intertwined with power. Specifically, the power play here is about epistemic authority, sometimes even aspired dominance: who gets to have a say over what is considered knowledge? Importantly, this power play is not, in the current environment, being played collaboratively; it is competitive. “How to communicate science” is not the main issue for communicators anymore, but how to create a communicative environment where people listen at all and might consider a scientifically based argument without, from the onset, dismissing it as “woke”, or “unfree”. In this paper, we argue that science communicators should factor in the strategic interactions that inherently exist in the communicative ecosystem. As a framework to help communicators to analyze these interactions and develop decision-making options, we draw on game theory, a branch of rational choice theory that studies strategic interactions where outcomes depend on the choices of all actors involved. Following this logic, we argue that science communication as a field and set of practices could be empowered by using game theory, and we spell out what this might mean.

In their anthology, Olaf Kramer and Markus Gottschling demonstrate that a closer look at rhetoric as both the technique and the analytical tool concerned with persuasion can open up new perspectives on science communication for communication scientists as well as for practitioners.