the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 23 Aug 2021
GC Insights: Scientists as Marketers
Abstract. Motivated by pressing planetary concerns, scientists are increasingly taking their work into the public arena, but it remains uncertain whether current science communication practices are appropriate for tackling complex and contested societal issues. A fresh perspective emerges from the business sector, and from the contrasting marketing paradigms of ‘make and sell’, ‘sense and respond’, and ‘guide and co‐create’. The newly emergent guide‐and‐co‐ create paradigm – purpose‐driven, interdisciplinary, participatory, and reflexive – would seem to offer the best template for science communicators addressing long‐term geo‐environmental concerns.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(599 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gc-2021-24', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Sep 2021
I found this short paper well-focused, structured, and written.
The author initially provides the essential coordinates to understand his reasoning, which then he develops in the remainder of the paper in an essential and effective way.
Just a short comment: the author might add some insights about the new paradigm "guide and co-create", regarding the possible reverse of the medal (if any) of this new approach to science communication. But I leave to him the decision.
In my opinion, this paper is worthy to be accepted also as it is.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-24-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Iain Stewart, 06 Sep 2021
Thanks for those encouraging comments. If I understand it correctly, your suggestion is to add a comment on the implications of the new model for science communication. I'll certainly look at whether at a broader remark on this point can be inserted.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-24-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Sep 2021
In particular, you may include some considerations about "negative" and/or critical aspects (if any) of the new paradigm that you propose for science communication.
But, please consider that this is just a suggestion.
In any case the paper can be also accepted as it is.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-24-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Iain Stewart, 06 Sep 2021
Thank you for that clarification. And for your very postitive encouragement.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-24-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Iain Stewart, 06 Sep 2021
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Sep 2021
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Iain Stewart, 06 Sep 2021
-
RC3: 'Comment on gc-2021-24', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Sep 2021
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The author offers a (somewhat) temporal account of the evolution of science communication paradigms and concludes by proposing a "guide and co-create" paradigm as a potential template for a contemporary mode of science communication. While I applaud the author's broad view of the field, the article lacks some nuances that prevent me from recommending publication at this time. I have included more specific comments below (ordered by section) and I hope these are helpful for revision.
2. Make and Sell CommunicationsThere is a bit of a straw-man argument in this section; that academics design their research "inside out." This is not necessarily the case and more nuance is warranted. Many researchers are driven by questions that are salient in society and this characterization of research as being driven from the inside out is not a fair treatment of the problem.
I would also argue that there are relatively few programs within universities that teach scientists media practices. Perhaps some examples might be warranted or some context provided (e.g., is this prevalent in the UK or Europe vs. US?).
3. Sense and Respond Communications
Science communication and science journalism are generally not considered one and the same. Please clarify what you are referring to when you reference the "long-standing tenets of science journalism."
Note that there is a page number missing on line 154.
4. Guide and Co-create Communications
This is a relatively short section, despite being the recommendation of the article. There is also relatively little treatment of the goals of communication in this article.
Although I agree that much early science communication was simply to share knowledge with external audiences, the paradigms described are warranted, depending on the goals of the communication. It is likely not simply shifting to a "guide and co-create" paradigm, but one that utilized the available tools, tactics, and strategies to accomplish the goals of science communication.
Technical Notes
In reviewing this article, I used the reverse outlining strategy. In doing so, I found the main points to be obscured in the relatively long paragraphs. I hope the author will consider revising the article such that shorter paragraphs are led by topic sentences (i.e., the main points), with supporting material contained within that paragraph.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-24-RC3
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gc-2021-24', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Sep 2021
I found this short paper well-focused, structured, and written.
The author initially provides the essential coordinates to understand his reasoning, which then he develops in the remainder of the paper in an essential and effective way.
Just a short comment: the author might add some insights about the new paradigm "guide and co-create", regarding the possible reverse of the medal (if any) of this new approach to science communication. But I leave to him the decision.
In my opinion, this paper is worthy to be accepted also as it is.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-24-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Iain Stewart, 06 Sep 2021
Thanks for those encouraging comments. If I understand it correctly, your suggestion is to add a comment on the implications of the new model for science communication. I'll certainly look at whether at a broader remark on this point can be inserted.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-24-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Sep 2021
In particular, you may include some considerations about "negative" and/or critical aspects (if any) of the new paradigm that you propose for science communication.
But, please consider that this is just a suggestion.
In any case the paper can be also accepted as it is.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-24-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Iain Stewart, 06 Sep 2021
Thank you for that clarification. And for your very postitive encouragement.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-24-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Iain Stewart, 06 Sep 2021
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Sep 2021
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Iain Stewart, 06 Sep 2021
-
RC3: 'Comment on gc-2021-24', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Sep 2021
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The author offers a (somewhat) temporal account of the evolution of science communication paradigms and concludes by proposing a "guide and co-create" paradigm as a potential template for a contemporary mode of science communication. While I applaud the author's broad view of the field, the article lacks some nuances that prevent me from recommending publication at this time. I have included more specific comments below (ordered by section) and I hope these are helpful for revision.
2. Make and Sell CommunicationsThere is a bit of a straw-man argument in this section; that academics design their research "inside out." This is not necessarily the case and more nuance is warranted. Many researchers are driven by questions that are salient in society and this characterization of research as being driven from the inside out is not a fair treatment of the problem.
I would also argue that there are relatively few programs within universities that teach scientists media practices. Perhaps some examples might be warranted or some context provided (e.g., is this prevalent in the UK or Europe vs. US?).
3. Sense and Respond Communications
Science communication and science journalism are generally not considered one and the same. Please clarify what you are referring to when you reference the "long-standing tenets of science journalism."
Note that there is a page number missing on line 154.
4. Guide and Co-create Communications
This is a relatively short section, despite being the recommendation of the article. There is also relatively little treatment of the goals of communication in this article.
Although I agree that much early science communication was simply to share knowledge with external audiences, the paradigms described are warranted, depending on the goals of the communication. It is likely not simply shifting to a "guide and co-create" paradigm, but one that utilized the available tools, tactics, and strategies to accomplish the goals of science communication.
Technical Notes
In reviewing this article, I used the reverse outlining strategy. In doing so, I found the main points to be obscured in the relatively long paragraphs. I hope the author will consider revising the article such that shorter paragraphs are led by topic sentences (i.e., the main points), with supporting material contained within that paragraph.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-24-RC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,078 | 269 | 73 | 1,420 | 42 | 55 |
- HTML: 1,078
- PDF: 269
- XML: 73
- Total: 1,420
- BibTeX: 42
- EndNote: 55
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1