Friends With Benefits: Practitioner Publishing as a Pathway to Collaboration in Social Marketing

IF 2.3 Q3 BUSINESS
Phill Sherring, Liz Foote
{"title":"Friends With Benefits: Practitioner Publishing as a Pathway to Collaboration in Social Marketing","authors":"Phill Sherring, Liz Foote","doi":"10.1177/15245004231190987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Four years ago, the late Dr. Susan Kirby wrote an editorial for Social Marketing Quarterly (SMQ) entitled “Social Marketing Practitioners: Should you share your work in SMQ?” (Kirby, 2019). Spoiler alert—the answer was a resounding “yes,” as she noted her focus in becoming associate editor for the journal was “to advocate for practitioners, their viewpoints, their needs, and ways to engage them more fully in the journal” (p. 179). Upon her passing soon after the piece was published, Susan’s friends and colleagues described her devotion to social marketing and her passion for supporting practitioners (Jordan et al., 2020). In her editorial, Susan emphasized that throughout her career, her goal had been to “engage practitioners in using better and more science and research in their social marketing practice” (p. 179). She linked practitioner publishing to this goal, essentially pointing out that if practitioners don’t publish their work, how will others be able to conduct effective formative literature research and avoid reinventing the wheel? She went on to detail how she and SMQ planned to encourage practitioners to publish, including surveys to readers of SMQ to find out the needs of practitioners, a mentoring webinar, shortened review timeframes for article submissions, and developing a co-creation model to bring academics and practitioners together. Some of these actions have happened (such as the readership survey and webinar), and some are still in the works with the current editorial team committed to carrying on Susan’s work (McDivitt, 2020). Why do we think the work Susan started is so important? Practitioners publishing in journals like SMQ play an important part in bringing the academic world and practitioners closer together, or “closing the academic/practitioner gap” as many have called it (Gray et al., 2011; Tapp, 2004; Tucker & Lowe, 2014; to name but a few). From a literature review that we’ve conducted, the conversation appears to be somewhat missing in social marketing circles. So what is the academic/practitioner gap? It’s been defined as a “large gap between science and practice” and has gone under the various guises of the science/practice gap, academic/practitioner","PeriodicalId":46085,"journal":{"name":"Social Marketing Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Marketing Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15245004231190987","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Four years ago, the late Dr. Susan Kirby wrote an editorial for Social Marketing Quarterly (SMQ) entitled “Social Marketing Practitioners: Should you share your work in SMQ?” (Kirby, 2019). Spoiler alert—the answer was a resounding “yes,” as she noted her focus in becoming associate editor for the journal was “to advocate for practitioners, their viewpoints, their needs, and ways to engage them more fully in the journal” (p. 179). Upon her passing soon after the piece was published, Susan’s friends and colleagues described her devotion to social marketing and her passion for supporting practitioners (Jordan et al., 2020). In her editorial, Susan emphasized that throughout her career, her goal had been to “engage practitioners in using better and more science and research in their social marketing practice” (p. 179). She linked practitioner publishing to this goal, essentially pointing out that if practitioners don’t publish their work, how will others be able to conduct effective formative literature research and avoid reinventing the wheel? She went on to detail how she and SMQ planned to encourage practitioners to publish, including surveys to readers of SMQ to find out the needs of practitioners, a mentoring webinar, shortened review timeframes for article submissions, and developing a co-creation model to bring academics and practitioners together. Some of these actions have happened (such as the readership survey and webinar), and some are still in the works with the current editorial team committed to carrying on Susan’s work (McDivitt, 2020). Why do we think the work Susan started is so important? Practitioners publishing in journals like SMQ play an important part in bringing the academic world and practitioners closer together, or “closing the academic/practitioner gap” as many have called it (Gray et al., 2011; Tapp, 2004; Tucker & Lowe, 2014; to name but a few). From a literature review that we’ve conducted, the conversation appears to be somewhat missing in social marketing circles. So what is the academic/practitioner gap? It’s been defined as a “large gap between science and practice” and has gone under the various guises of the science/practice gap, academic/practitioner
利益之友:从业者出版作为社会营销合作的途径
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
4.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
21
×
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