Search results

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.

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

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.

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.

Nature’s contribution to people (NCP) is a concept that specifically recognizes the relationship of “humans and the natural environment” similarly to concepts of “cultural landscapes” and consistent to “heritage.” These concepts are essential in incorporating a diverse range of stakeholders from different scales, which is important for policy and practice. The paper aims to review the existing peer-reviewed papers in the Philippines, using meta-analysis and systematic review. We addressed the significant interlinkages that help facilitate the transition and strengthen the correlation of cultural ecosystem services (CES) and NCP in a cultural landscape setting.

To distinguish and support claims for NCP from CES, we conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review based on the 30-existing peer-reviewed articles on the Philippine cultural ES in the lenses of “heritage” and “cultural landscape.”

The results generated a few numbers of the Philippine CES studies, yet it has increased cumulatively year by year consistent with previous international studies. We found that most studies are focused on topics associated with “Indigenous People, Ancestral Domains, Protected Areas/Landscapes, and Indigenous and Local Knowledge” on the linkages concurrently distinguishing NCP to CES, and may signify stronger economic valuation in uncovering the sociocultural dimensions of these scholarships through its relational values in the lenses of cultural landscape and heritage.

The authors limited the search to peer-reviewed journal articles published from online databases and did not consider Philippine University based and local publications to have a systematic review. This is to prevent underestimating the vast amount of CES literature and avoid gray literature that is not peer-reviewed; hence, being able to analyze and produce focused, yet, credible data.

In a generalizing perspective, NCP 1, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 have the most realized positive correlations of the reporting categories to the Philippine CES studies. The majority of the context-specific perspective NCP has strong conceptual claims in the existing Philippine CES literature through the studies’ variables aside from NCP 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 11 that are still mostly in the nature of generalizing perspective.

In conclusion, our results imply that the previous and existing CES studies in the Philippines harbor more attributes presented by the NCP reporting categories. This is deemed more suitable, and may signify stronger economic valuation in uncovering the sociocultural dimensions of these scholarships through its relational values in the lenses of cultural landscape and heritage.

Transaction cost economics sees a broad spectrum of governance structures spanned by two types of economic adaptation: autonomous and cooperative. Stakeholder theorists have drawn much inspiration from transaction cost economics but have not paid explicit attention to the centrality of the idea of adaptation in this literature. This study aims to address this gap.

The authors develop a novel conceptual framework applying the distinction between the two types of economic adaptation to stakeholder theory.

The authors argue that the idea of cooperative adaptation is particularly useful for describing the firm’s collaboration with primary stakeholders in the joint value creation process. In contrast, autonomous adaptation is more relevant for firms interacting with secondary stakeholders who are not directly engaged in joint value creation and may not have formal contractual relationships with the firm. Accordingly, cooperative adaptation can be seen as vital for resolving team production problems affecting joint value creation, whereas autonomous adaptation addresses how the firm maintains legitimacy within the larger stakeholder environment.

Similar to its significance for transaction cost economics, the distinction between the two types of adaptation equips stakeholder theory with a new systematic understanding of a potentially broad spectrum of firm–stakeholder collaboration forms.