Corporate science communication: a compound ideological and mega-ideological discourse

IF 3.1 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Damion Waymer, Theon E. Hill
{"title":"Corporate science communication: a compound ideological and mega-ideological discourse","authors":"Damion Waymer, Theon E. Hill","doi":"10.1108/jcom-08-2023-0089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The purpose of this paper is to contribute to science communication literature by further highlighting the underexplored role of organizational and corporate perspectives in science communication.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The paper takes the form of a conceptual article that uses two illustrative vignettes to highlight the power of corporate science communication.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The key argument is that corporate science communication is a compound ideology that results from merging the hegemonic corporate voice with the ultimate/god-term science (see the work of Kenneth Burke) to form a mega-ideological construct and discourse. Such communication can be so powerful that vulnerable publics and powerful advocates speaking on their behalf have little to no recourse to effectively challenge such discourse. While critiques of corporate science communication in practice are not new, what the authors offer is a possible explanation as to why such discourse is so powerful and hard to combat.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>The value of this paper is in the degree to which it both sets an important applied research agenda for the field and fills a critical void in the science communication literature. This conceptual article, in the form of a critical analysis, fills the void by advocating for the inclusion of organizational perspectives in science communication research because of the great potential that organizations have, via science communication, to shape societal behavior and outcomes both positively and negatively. It also coins the terms “compound ideology” and “mega-ideology” to denote that while all ideologies are powerful, ideologies can operate in concert (compound) to change their meaning and effectiveness. By exposing the hegemonic power of corporate science communication, future researchers and practitioners can use these findings as a foundation to combat misinformation and disinformation campaigns wielded by big corporate science entities and the public relations firms often hired to carry out these campaigns.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":51660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom-08-2023-0089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to science communication literature by further highlighting the underexplored role of organizational and corporate perspectives in science communication.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper takes the form of a conceptual article that uses two illustrative vignettes to highlight the power of corporate science communication.

Findings

The key argument is that corporate science communication is a compound ideology that results from merging the hegemonic corporate voice with the ultimate/god-term science (see the work of Kenneth Burke) to form a mega-ideological construct and discourse. Such communication can be so powerful that vulnerable publics and powerful advocates speaking on their behalf have little to no recourse to effectively challenge such discourse. While critiques of corporate science communication in practice are not new, what the authors offer is a possible explanation as to why such discourse is so powerful and hard to combat.

Originality/value

The value of this paper is in the degree to which it both sets an important applied research agenda for the field and fills a critical void in the science communication literature. This conceptual article, in the form of a critical analysis, fills the void by advocating for the inclusion of organizational perspectives in science communication research because of the great potential that organizations have, via science communication, to shape societal behavior and outcomes both positively and negatively. It also coins the terms “compound ideology” and “mega-ideology” to denote that while all ideologies are powerful, ideologies can operate in concert (compound) to change their meaning and effectiveness. By exposing the hegemonic power of corporate science communication, future researchers and practitioners can use these findings as a foundation to combat misinformation and disinformation campaigns wielded by big corporate science entities and the public relations firms often hired to carry out these campaigns.

企业科学传播:复合意识形态和超大意识形态话语
本文采用概念性文章的形式,使用两个说明性小故事来强调企业科学传播的力量。研究结果本文的主要论点是,企业科学传播是一种复合意识形态,它是将霸权企业的声音与终极/神喻科学(参见肯尼斯-伯克的著作)融合在一起,形成一种巨型意识形态建构和话语的结果。这种传播可以如此强大,以至于弱势公众和代表他们发言的强大代言人几乎没有办法有效地挑战这种话语。虽然在实践中对企业科学传播的批评并不新鲜,但作者所提供的是一种可能的解释,即为什么这种话语如此强大且难以对抗?这篇概念性文章以批判性分析的形式填补了这一空白,主张在科学传播研究中纳入组织视角,因为通过科学传播,组织在塑造社会行为和结果方面具有正反两方面的巨大潜力。该书还创造了 "复合意识形态 "和 "巨型意识形态 "这两个术语,以表示虽然所有意识形态都很强大,但意识形态可以协同(复合)运作,从而改变其意义和效果。通过揭露企业科学传播的霸权力量,未来的研究人员和从业人员可以利用这些发现作为基础,打击由大型企业科学实体和通常受雇开展这些活动的公关公司所进行的误导和虚假宣传活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
29
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信