As communication scholars, we research a field so important that it is protected by all constitutions and, at the highest level, by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The subject matter of our study, human expression and its formal form as media, is protected because governments recognise (or at least declare that they do) human expression and the media can be politically charged. Through communication, we make the difference to democracy and thereby make a difference in the lives of others.

Although communication is present in many important areas of policy makingand in the ways our societies are governed, yet we are not often heard or even consulted. The theme of this year’s conference is a reminder to ourselves as well as the larger world about the potential contribution of our work and raising awareness about such contribution.

The theme of the conference is therefore aimed at raising our profile in communicating effectively with not only government agencies and corporate players but also civil society and grassroots organizations. The acts of communication occur at micro, meso, and macro levels, from psychological to interpersonal, from organizational to global. They need more theoretical critique, methodological rigour, philosophical reflection, creative intervention, and alternative historical imagination.

The theme may be understood at a couple of levels. Communicating power is about communicating—both sending and receiving—powerfully or forcefully. This is reaching out to the influencers, Tnot necessarily those just holding formal positions. It is speaking with a louder voice, designing with cleverer graphics, shooting with more artistic and appealing videography. It is gamification so that messages are absorbed  and acted upon. It is investigating phenomena and variables that, when better understood, will make a bigger difference with more people, making a corner of the world a better place.

But there is a level I would like members to consider: how can we make our research better understood by those with the power to use them for good? This is not just for the law-and-policy crowd and policy-makers.

How can, for example, health communication scholars reach their target audience—be they doctors, public policy-makers, citizens—with their findings? How can colleagues studying culture and identity help children and youth, who grow up in today’s global culture, to understand their own identity? After studying the latest video games or the next “Gangnam Style,” how can we communicate our meaningful discoveries to parents and teachers, to multimedia corporations such as Sony?

We cannot be naïve if we want to communicate with power. Sometimes, communicating with power requires us to bypass power centres entirely because they are flawed or corrupted and appeal directly to our audience. What are such occasions? What are the limiting conditions in appealing to power centres?

The currency of academia is influence. If we can influence to make a positive difference, we will have communicated with power.