Wisskomm Connected, hosted at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities on October 21-22 2026, brought together researchers, science communication professionals and practitioners to explore the changing role of science communication in an increasingly complex and polarised society.
For Dr Annette Klinkert, founder and CEO of city2science, the conference offered an opportunity to share experiences from collaborative research projects, experiment with interactive formats and reflect on the responsibilities of science communicators in times of profound societal and technological change.
From Research to Collaboration: The Würzburg Tandem Project
In her conference talk, Annette presented experiences from the WueLab Tandem Project, an initiative bringing together researchers and practitioners in Würzburg to jointly explore societal challenges and develop collaborative approaches to addressing them. The project demonstrates how participatory research can create spaces for mutual learning, bringing different forms of knowledge, experience and expertise into dialogue. Rather than simply communicating research results to external audiences, the tandem approach encourages researchers and societal partners to jointly define problems, explore perspectives and develop possible solutions.
Such collaborations also raise important questions: How do partners with different institutional backgrounds and expectations find common ground? How can genuine co-creation emerge? And what kinds of facilitation and institutional support are needed to sustain productive collaboration? These questions are central to city2science’s work at the intersection of science communication, public engagement and regional innovation.
Citizen Science or Participation Theatre? Learning from a Fictional Failure
What happens when a citizen science project attracts hundreds of enthusiastic participants but ultimately fails to deliver the changes they had hoped for?
This was the starting point for Annette’s interactive conference session, “Citizen Science or Participation Theatre? Autopsy of a Failed Project.” Participants were introduced to CleanAIRCity, a fictional citizen science initiative involving researchers, schools, civil society organisations, a makerspace and hundreds of local residents. Over six months, participants had built air-quality sensors, collected environmental data and invested considerable time and energy in improving their city.
Despite these efforts, the project struggled to translate its findings into meaningful policy action. Technical limitations, conflicting expectations and unclear responsibilities gradually undermined the collaboration. Through a stakeholder role-play, conference participants stepped into the perspectives of scientists, teachers, young climate activists, municipal policymakers, community members and other project partners. Their task was to identify where expectations, responsibilities and actual decision-making powers had diverged.
The exercise challenged participants to move beyond the familiar success narratives of citizen science and critically examine the conditions under which participation becomes meaningful. Our learning: Participation is not automatically empowerment. Inviting people to contribute their time, knowledge and enthusiasm creates responsibilities. Without clear expectations, shared ownership and credible pathways towards action, even well-intentioned engagement initiatives risk becoming what might be called “participation theatre”. The session concluded by asking how CleanAIRCity could be redesigned to create a more credible and equitable partnership between science and society.
Beyond Trust: Relevance, Credibility and Self-Reflection
Beyond the two contributions, the conference offered plenty of food for thought about the future of science communication.
Artificial intelligence is challenging established assumptions about human expertise and creativity. Political polarisation and disinformation make constructive public debate increasingly difficult. At the same time, science communicators face growing expectations to build public trust, demonstrate societal impact and defend scientific institutions.
But should building trust really be the ultimate goal?
Several conference contributions suggested a different perspective: Trust needs to be earned through trustworthy practices, rather than pursued as a communication outcome in itself. Matthias Mayer addressed the risks of institutional overpromising and the importance of transparency about scientific methods, uncertainties and disagreements. Philosopher Romy Jaster explored how disinformation undermines our ability to develop a reliable understanding of the world. A dynamic double keynote by Annette Leßmöllmann and Clemens Tangerding highlighted another important dimension: the need to recognise our own assumptions, question pressures towards conformity within professional communities and create opportunities for shared experiences across differences.
For science communicators, these reflections raise an uncomfortable but necessary question: How often do we challenge the institutional narratives we are asked to communicate?
Science Communicators as Double Agents
One particularly compelling idea emerging from the conference was the role of science communicators as “double agents”.
Science communication should work in both directions: bringing scientific knowledge into society while also bringing societal questions, concerns and experiences back into research institutions. This requires more than communication skills. It calls for critical reflection, an understanding of institutional dynamics and the willingness to question established practices.
It also means reconsidering the role of relevance. Who decides which research questions matter, and to whom? How can different perspectives on relevance be explored together without reducing the value of science to immediate practical applications or overlooking the intrinsic importance of fundamental research? These questions connect directly to city2science’s approach to move from sender-oriented dissemination towards public engagement and collaborative innovation.
From Good Intentions to Institutional Change
Many of the ideas discussed at Wisskomm Connected are not new. Dialogue, participation, reflexivity and mutual learning have been part of the science communication discourse for decades. The real challenge lies in translating these principles into institutional practice.
Expectations around visibility, reputation and measurable impact remain high. Yet science communication and public engagement often lack the institutional recognition, resources and influence needed to contribute meaningfully to the transformation of research organisations.
The experiences from the Würzburg Tandem Project and the fictional CleanAIRCity exercise illustrated two sides of the same challenge: creating opportunities for collaboration is important, but meaningful engagement also requires appropriate structures, shared responsibilities and a willingness to change.
Further information: Wisskomm Connected
