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.

This paper uses New Zealand’s AF8 [Alpine Fault Magnitude 8] program, designed to build resilience and preparedness for earthquakes, as a real-world example to explore how emotional appeals can affect preparedness intentions within the emergency management sector. Drawing on template analysis of 14 artifacts from AF8’s communication material and 34 semi-structured interviews with emergency management stakeholders (the AF8 material’s primary audience), the study examines how emotional appeals are strategically employed and perceived in practice.  Findings contextualize theoretical understandings of how risk communication can balance fear and anxiety with positive emotions like fascination and confidence using tools such as vivid imagery, narrative framing, and certainty. The research offers empirical insights into how emotional appeals are used and perceived in risk communication, providing a foundation for developing future hazard communication strategies grounded in real-world application.

In New Zealand, the use of genetic technologies for environmental and conservation purposes is a highly contested issue yet genetic technologies, including RNAi and gene drives may offer technological advances for protecting New Zealand's vulnerable biodiversity. This context makes discussions on the use of gene technology for environmental purposes both challenging and necessary. Such discussions can be difficult, not simply because they are often contested, but also because people find the topic complicated, the language alien and overly scientific. This research, which sits at the intersection of science and publics, is part of a large national dialogue which aimed to better understand the public's thoughts and feelings around the use of genetic technologies for environmental or conservation purposes. To assist people to feel comfortable at the beginning of the dialogue sessions, we designed purposeful games before engaging in a facilitated conversation. These games are based on heritage games that most people are familiar with but altered to address several issues relevant to genetic technologies in an environmental context. This article provides an insight into how to design and use purposeful games to foster epistemic confidence in non-scientists. It acts as a helpful guide for others working in contested spaces where there is a need to effectively facilitate engagement of non-scientists in important science-society discussions.

How, as researchers, do we recognise and address the implicit biases when engaging across multiple knowledge ecologies. In this paper, we consider the way historical and epistemic justice and injustice plays into our knowledge making when dealing with a specific issue: forest biosecurity. Specifically, we focus on the Aotearoa New Zealand context where knowledge making has been, and still is, dominated by a western paradigm, but where there is increasing discussion on mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) as a valid and valuable form of knowing. Drawing on the experiences of a transdisciplinary research programme that sought to examine the human dimensions of biosecurity aspects of the plant pathogens kauri dieback and myrtle rust, we approach our original question using the theoretical concept of epistemic injustice and draw on our experiences as a way to highlight instances and forms of epistemic injustice in the science-society relationship. We argue that the division of epistemic labour (into fields, disciplines, etc), and the ranking and assigning of relative epistemic credibility based on this division is a fundamental part of the western knowledge ecology which creates the necessary conditions for specific and potent forms of epistemic injustice. We contrast this by discussing how other knowledge ecologies, specifically mātauranga Māori, comfortably engages with a variety of knowledge and knowers and discuss the possibilities other knowledge ecologies offer.

This is a response to Sesan and Ibiyemi's essay [2023], which rightly urges “scholars and science communicators” to resist the colonial legacy of science in African countries. The essay argues that northern paradigms, focused on science as the only true form of knowledge, need to be replaced with functional Indigenous knowledge systems. However, the authors adopt the framework of the global north when reimagining and advocating for a radical ‘power literate’ agenda thus confounding knowledge with science, and education with science communication. These approaches obscure the fundamental importance of reimagining power dynamics in a world of multiple epistemologies. Instead, we propose that ‘knowledge communicators’ facilitate a multi-knowledge world through participatory processes.

‘Science Communication Practice in China’ is a book that does two things. One very intentional, one less so. Intentionally, it presents the state of science communication and popularisation in China with a strong focus on the historical and policy context this is embedded in. Less (or possibly un-)intentionally, it makes explicit both its assumptions about what science communication should aim for and how it should go about its business, as well as forcing the reader to acknowledge their own assumptions of the role and place of science communication.

Participatory science communication featured in several sessions and individual papers at the 2021 online conference of the Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) Network. This coverage recognises the drive away from linear communication to more participatory forms of science communication. In this special edition we present practice insights, papers and essays that explore participatory science communication. These contributions explore definitions, processes and describe case-studies of participatory science communication which involve a variety of publics, from young school students to Indigenous groups to farmers. In this introductory editorial we reflect on the papers, describe the growth of a participatory approach as part of the continuing evolution of science communication; explore a definition for participatory science communication; and consider some of the key concepts and issues that emerged.

Climate change is a global risk as its causes and effects are not limited to national borders, but the risks and the responsibility are not evenly spread [Beck, 2009]. Pakistan is facing especially severe impacts in the form of disasters, floods, droughts, rising temperatures, cyclones and rising sea levels due to global emissions, despite its national emissions being nominal and accounting for only 0.46% of worldwide emissions [World Bank, 2018]. Ironically, the level of public awareness of climate change is low in Pakistan compared to not only advanced countries, but also to other countries in the South Asian region [Zaheer and Colom, 2013]. A contributing factor behind this is the communication gap between the media and the broader public. This study aims to explore the factors responsible for the limited coverage of climate change in the news media, leading to confusion, uncertainty, denial and low levels of climate change awareness in Pakistan. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with media professionals and the findings show that political, economic, social, cultural, technological and scientific factors influence the news coverage of climate change issues.

What is it that really makes communicating science a good, moral thing to do? And are there limits to the potential ‘goodness’ of science communication? In this article, we argue it is time we consider what an ethics of science communication might look like. Not only will this help us figure out what doing the right, moral thing might be. It also invites us to think through one of the most perplexing, challenging and pressing question for this still emerging field: what are the core unifying features of science communication?