the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 18 Aug 2022
GC Insights: Enhancing inclusive engagement with the geosciences through art-science collaborations
Abstract. The environmental geosciences remain underrepresented in art-science partnerships, thereby missing valuable opportunities to enhance inclusive engagement. Here, we highlight potential pathways for scientists and artists to co-create approaches for reaching wider audiences in order to contextualise salient environmental research solutions. We synthesise lessons learned from our collective experiences as a team of scientists, artists, and exhibition officers, evaluate the potential benefits of such collaborations, and explore opportunities to enhance inclusive engagement of environmental geoscience research through art-science partnerships.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(583 KB)
-
Supplement
(5481 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(583 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(5481 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-357', Tiziana Lanza, 27 Sep 2022
This work presents some interesting elements that need to be further developed. Please see attachment for Review.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rosalie Wright, 22 Nov 2022
Dear Tiziana,
Thank you very much for your review and comments regarding this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your feedback and will revise the manuscript accordingly. We will make the following changes, noted in a point by point response below, relating to the comments:
The research presented in this GC Insight is conducted with a limited sample: a small group of participants. This is not immediately clear from the article, and become evident only in the supplement.
- We will make clear throughout the article the exact sample size of interviews. The case studies will be moved to follow the Methods section and provide further context to the interviews.
The other important aspect comes out from the case studies, and I believe it is not enough emphasized in the article: integrating Art in “unusual” context as can be a Museum of Natural History (case #1) or in a political context (case #2) can contribute in engaging with geosciences in a powerful way? I believe this aspect is worth to be explored more in depth.
- We also believe that these more “unusual” contexts are important to highlight and explore. We believe that we emphasised the benefits of the more unusual Museum setting in lines 92-94, though we will add text to highlight the specific value of the Museum context in our discussion.
10-11 I suggest: “Here we present two cases studies as examples of how co-creating approaches for reaching wider audiences...”
- Thank you for the suggestion, we will revise this line accordingly.
41-42 Please make immediately clear that people interviewed are three. 66-80 This is a repetition of what already summarized in the supplement 98 (Fig. S2 in the supplement)
- We will clarify the interview sample size earlier in the article. Lines 66 to 80 will be adjusted to remove repetitions of what is included in the supplement.
Part 4 should be reorganized. Rather than being a collection of references to other works, it should summarize and discuss what your team has achieved in collaborating and co-creating, what can be further explored, and the limits of your work (if there are).
- Part 4 will be partly re-written to more specifically summarise and reflect upon our work, in addition to the inclusion of text addressing the limitations of this work.
Thank you again for your guidance on this manuscript, it is much appreciated. Please let us know if you have any additional questions and thank you for the opportunity to submit our work for your consideration.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-357-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rosalie Wright, 22 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-357', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Oct 2022
The manuscript concerns recommendations towards succesful art-science collaborations in the geosciences, based on the experience from stakeholders in two case study projects. This is certaintly within the scope of Geoscience Communication and would be of interest to its readership. However, at present I feel the article is rather confused and also tends to overclaim the applicability of its results given its limited scope. Therefore, I would recommend major revisions are required for it to be suitable for publication. The authors might also consider whether the GC Insights format is most suitable for what they are aiming to present.
General comments
The introduction draws from only a small number of examples of art-science collaboration, hence does not seem to recognise the wide breadth of activity that has been occurring. Indeed, this journal has an entire Special Issue of examples (https://gc.copernicus.org/articles/special_issue1046.html), which are largely uncited in the manuscript. This seems like a massive oversight to this reviewer and
The research aim of the article is not sufficiently well-stated to prepare readers to comprehend the manuscript. At times it appears that the authors wish to demonstrate the efficacy of art-science collaborations in co-creating knowledge and/or communicating important geoscience concepts to nontradiational audiences. At others, it seems they want to identify recommendations on how to enable successful collaborations between stakeholders in art-science collaborations (artists, scientists, exhibition staff). It is my opinion that the work cannot achieve the former, but may be able to demonstrate examples of the latter, though they will not be exhaustive due to the limited scope of the study. This should be much clearer in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions.
The methods employed, as written, are rather unclear in the article. The fact that all results are drawn from just two case study projects only becomes apparent near the end of the manuscript. Exactly what the authors were looking to extract from their literature review and interview question development isn't stated - there are many vagueties such as simply stating "learning outcomes" and "information". How the interview data was processed to arrive at themes and conclusions is stated nowhere in the manuscript.
The results, which are presented only as bullet point recommendations, are not adequately discussed. Their relation to the underlying data is not explained and no trends, even in which groups of stakeholders they originate, are stated.
The discussions and conclusions are finally largely disconnected from the research activity, the interviews.
Specific comments
L9 & 34: The claim that "environmental geosciences remain underrepresented in art-science partnerships" is not substantiated in the references provided, which correspond to a case study project and an editorial perspective. Only with a full survey or meta-analysis could this claim be substantiated, which does not appear to have occurred. Therefore, the authors should remove this claim as it misrepresents the work currently being done.
Section 2: Overall this section is unclear, but also repetitive in many aspects. It could do with rewriting with a clear focus. Examples of unclear aspects are
- What you were looking to find in literature review?
- How many people were identified to interview? What was the makeup? What was the criteria in identifying?
- Who the "outcomes and impact" are meant to be on? If the stakeholders interviewed and their partners then that would be appropriate, however, if this is meant to concern the attendees then I do not agree that the study can adequately assess these.
Case studies: These should be stated outright before any results are presented, so it provides much needed context to what the interview data is in relation to - their experiences of undertaking these two projects.
Lines 53-65: These read like more introductory material unrelated to any results of the study, hence should be moved accordingly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-357-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Rosalie Wright, 23 Nov 2022
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review and comments regarding this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your feedback and will revise the manuscript accordingly. The following changes are noted in a point by point response below:
General comments
The introduction draws from only a small number of examples of art-science collaboration, hence does not seem to recognise the wide breadth of activity that has been occurring. Indeed, this journal has an entire Special Issue of examples (https://gc.copernicus.org/articles/special_issue1046.html), which are largely uncited in the manuscript. This seems like a massive oversight to this reviewer
We have cited a number of articles from this Special Issue and agree that there is a wide variety of art-science collaborations occurring in this space. We will add further comment and references in the introduction to the Geoscience Communications Special Issue, “Five years of Earth sciences and art at the EGU (2015–2019)” to reflect the breadth of art-geoscience activity.
The research aim of the article is not sufficiently well-stated to prepare readers to comprehend the manuscript. At times it appears that the authors wish to demonstrate the efficacy of art-science collaborations in co-creating knowledge and/or communicating important geoscience concepts to nontradiational audiences. At others, it seems they want to identify recommendations on how to enable successful collaborations between stakeholders in art-science collaborations (artists, scientists, exhibition staff). It is my opinion that the work cannot achieve the former, but may be able to demonstrate examples of the latter, though they will not be exhaustive due to the limited scope of the study. This should be much clearer in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions.
The overall research aim was to provide recommendations on how to enable successful collaborations. We also hoped to highlight in the introduction the benefits that such opportunities can provide to audiences to contextualise our call for wider engagement in art-geoscience partnerships. We will adjust the abstract and introduction to specify that our research aim was to provide recommendations on successful partnerships.
The methods employed, as written, are rather unclear in the article. The fact that all results are drawn from just two case study projects only becomes apparent near the end of the manuscript. Exactly what the authors were looking to extract from their literature review and interview question development isn't stated - there are many vagueties such as simply stating "learning outcomes" and "information". How the interview data was processed to arrive at themes and conclusions is stated nowhere in the manuscript.
We will make clear throughout the article the sample size for interviews and the number of case studies. The case studies will be moved to follow the Methods section to clarify this earlier. The research aim for the literature review and interviews will be more clearly stated in the introduction, as discussed above. Due to the short nature of a GC Insights piece, we had not added further detail regarding the interviews.
The results, which are presented only as bullet point recommendations, are not adequately discussed. Their relation to the underlying data is not explained and no trends, even in which groups of stakeholders they originate, are stated. The discussions and conclusions are finally largely disconnected from the research activity, the interviews.
We will adjust lines 53-65 to provide a more detailed introduction to our results from the interviews (the recommendations). Further, we will partly re-write the discussion to provide a more specific reflection on how the interview findings and case studies fed into these recommendations, also acknowledging limitations to the work.
Specific comments
L9 & 34: The claim that "environmental geosciences remain underrepresented in art-science partnerships" is not substantiated in the references provided, which correspond to a case study project and an editorial perspective. Only with a full survey or meta-analysis could this claim be substantiated, which does not appear to have occurred. Therefore, the authors should remove this claim as it misrepresents the work currently being done.
The claim of underepresentation was reflective of the Tooth et al. (2019) piece for a contemporary Art-Geoscience Special Issue that drew from the Tooth et al. (2016) article in Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. However, we acknowledge that this article for Geoscience Communication was not a full survey or meta-analysis and cannot fully substantiate this, so this shall be rephrased and the claim removed.
Section 2: Overall this section is unclear, but also repetitive in many aspects. It could do with rewriting with a clear focus. Examples of unclear aspects are: What you were looking to find in literature review?How many people were identified to interview? What was the makeup? What was the criteria in identifying?; Who the "outcomes and impact" are meant to be on? If the stakeholders interviewed and their partners then that would be appropriate, however, if this is meant to concern the attendees then I do not agree that the study can adequately assess these.
We will detail the specific aims and criteria for both the literature review and interviews in this section, and adjust the content to be more concise.
Case studies: These should be stated outright before any results are presented, so it provides much needed context to what the interview data is in relation to - their experiences of undertaking these two projects.
The case studies will be moved to precede the results section and provide further context regarding the interview data. We will include text to clarify this link.
Lines 53-65: These read like more introductory material unrelated to any results of the study, hence should be moved accordingly.
These lines summarise findings of our literature review, though we acknowledge they may be better suited to the introduction. We will rework the relevant content to be included in the introduction instead of the results section.
Thank you again for your guidance on this manuscript, it is much appreciated. Please let us know if you have any additional questions and thank you for the opportunity to submit our work for your consideration.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-357-AC2
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-357', Tiziana Lanza, 27 Sep 2022
This work presents some interesting elements that need to be further developed. Please see attachment for Review.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rosalie Wright, 22 Nov 2022
Dear Tiziana,
Thank you very much for your review and comments regarding this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your feedback and will revise the manuscript accordingly. We will make the following changes, noted in a point by point response below, relating to the comments:
The research presented in this GC Insight is conducted with a limited sample: a small group of participants. This is not immediately clear from the article, and become evident only in the supplement.
- We will make clear throughout the article the exact sample size of interviews. The case studies will be moved to follow the Methods section and provide further context to the interviews.
The other important aspect comes out from the case studies, and I believe it is not enough emphasized in the article: integrating Art in “unusual” context as can be a Museum of Natural History (case #1) or in a political context (case #2) can contribute in engaging with geosciences in a powerful way? I believe this aspect is worth to be explored more in depth.
- We also believe that these more “unusual” contexts are important to highlight and explore. We believe that we emphasised the benefits of the more unusual Museum setting in lines 92-94, though we will add text to highlight the specific value of the Museum context in our discussion.
10-11 I suggest: “Here we present two cases studies as examples of how co-creating approaches for reaching wider audiences...”
- Thank you for the suggestion, we will revise this line accordingly.
41-42 Please make immediately clear that people interviewed are three. 66-80 This is a repetition of what already summarized in the supplement 98 (Fig. S2 in the supplement)
- We will clarify the interview sample size earlier in the article. Lines 66 to 80 will be adjusted to remove repetitions of what is included in the supplement.
Part 4 should be reorganized. Rather than being a collection of references to other works, it should summarize and discuss what your team has achieved in collaborating and co-creating, what can be further explored, and the limits of your work (if there are).
- Part 4 will be partly re-written to more specifically summarise and reflect upon our work, in addition to the inclusion of text addressing the limitations of this work.
Thank you again for your guidance on this manuscript, it is much appreciated. Please let us know if you have any additional questions and thank you for the opportunity to submit our work for your consideration.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-357-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rosalie Wright, 22 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-357', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Oct 2022
The manuscript concerns recommendations towards succesful art-science collaborations in the geosciences, based on the experience from stakeholders in two case study projects. This is certaintly within the scope of Geoscience Communication and would be of interest to its readership. However, at present I feel the article is rather confused and also tends to overclaim the applicability of its results given its limited scope. Therefore, I would recommend major revisions are required for it to be suitable for publication. The authors might also consider whether the GC Insights format is most suitable for what they are aiming to present.
General comments
The introduction draws from only a small number of examples of art-science collaboration, hence does not seem to recognise the wide breadth of activity that has been occurring. Indeed, this journal has an entire Special Issue of examples (https://gc.copernicus.org/articles/special_issue1046.html), which are largely uncited in the manuscript. This seems like a massive oversight to this reviewer and
The research aim of the article is not sufficiently well-stated to prepare readers to comprehend the manuscript. At times it appears that the authors wish to demonstrate the efficacy of art-science collaborations in co-creating knowledge and/or communicating important geoscience concepts to nontradiational audiences. At others, it seems they want to identify recommendations on how to enable successful collaborations between stakeholders in art-science collaborations (artists, scientists, exhibition staff). It is my opinion that the work cannot achieve the former, but may be able to demonstrate examples of the latter, though they will not be exhaustive due to the limited scope of the study. This should be much clearer in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions.
The methods employed, as written, are rather unclear in the article. The fact that all results are drawn from just two case study projects only becomes apparent near the end of the manuscript. Exactly what the authors were looking to extract from their literature review and interview question development isn't stated - there are many vagueties such as simply stating "learning outcomes" and "information". How the interview data was processed to arrive at themes and conclusions is stated nowhere in the manuscript.
The results, which are presented only as bullet point recommendations, are not adequately discussed. Their relation to the underlying data is not explained and no trends, even in which groups of stakeholders they originate, are stated.
The discussions and conclusions are finally largely disconnected from the research activity, the interviews.
Specific comments
L9 & 34: The claim that "environmental geosciences remain underrepresented in art-science partnerships" is not substantiated in the references provided, which correspond to a case study project and an editorial perspective. Only with a full survey or meta-analysis could this claim be substantiated, which does not appear to have occurred. Therefore, the authors should remove this claim as it misrepresents the work currently being done.
Section 2: Overall this section is unclear, but also repetitive in many aspects. It could do with rewriting with a clear focus. Examples of unclear aspects are
- What you were looking to find in literature review?
- How many people were identified to interview? What was the makeup? What was the criteria in identifying?
- Who the "outcomes and impact" are meant to be on? If the stakeholders interviewed and their partners then that would be appropriate, however, if this is meant to concern the attendees then I do not agree that the study can adequately assess these.
Case studies: These should be stated outright before any results are presented, so it provides much needed context to what the interview data is in relation to - their experiences of undertaking these two projects.
Lines 53-65: These read like more introductory material unrelated to any results of the study, hence should be moved accordingly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-357-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Rosalie Wright, 23 Nov 2022
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review and comments regarding this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your feedback and will revise the manuscript accordingly. The following changes are noted in a point by point response below:
General comments
The introduction draws from only a small number of examples of art-science collaboration, hence does not seem to recognise the wide breadth of activity that has been occurring. Indeed, this journal has an entire Special Issue of examples (https://gc.copernicus.org/articles/special_issue1046.html), which are largely uncited in the manuscript. This seems like a massive oversight to this reviewer
We have cited a number of articles from this Special Issue and agree that there is a wide variety of art-science collaborations occurring in this space. We will add further comment and references in the introduction to the Geoscience Communications Special Issue, “Five years of Earth sciences and art at the EGU (2015–2019)” to reflect the breadth of art-geoscience activity.
The research aim of the article is not sufficiently well-stated to prepare readers to comprehend the manuscript. At times it appears that the authors wish to demonstrate the efficacy of art-science collaborations in co-creating knowledge and/or communicating important geoscience concepts to nontradiational audiences. At others, it seems they want to identify recommendations on how to enable successful collaborations between stakeholders in art-science collaborations (artists, scientists, exhibition staff). It is my opinion that the work cannot achieve the former, but may be able to demonstrate examples of the latter, though they will not be exhaustive due to the limited scope of the study. This should be much clearer in the abstract, introduction, and conclusions.
The overall research aim was to provide recommendations on how to enable successful collaborations. We also hoped to highlight in the introduction the benefits that such opportunities can provide to audiences to contextualise our call for wider engagement in art-geoscience partnerships. We will adjust the abstract and introduction to specify that our research aim was to provide recommendations on successful partnerships.
The methods employed, as written, are rather unclear in the article. The fact that all results are drawn from just two case study projects only becomes apparent near the end of the manuscript. Exactly what the authors were looking to extract from their literature review and interview question development isn't stated - there are many vagueties such as simply stating "learning outcomes" and "information". How the interview data was processed to arrive at themes and conclusions is stated nowhere in the manuscript.
We will make clear throughout the article the sample size for interviews and the number of case studies. The case studies will be moved to follow the Methods section to clarify this earlier. The research aim for the literature review and interviews will be more clearly stated in the introduction, as discussed above. Due to the short nature of a GC Insights piece, we had not added further detail regarding the interviews.
The results, which are presented only as bullet point recommendations, are not adequately discussed. Their relation to the underlying data is not explained and no trends, even in which groups of stakeholders they originate, are stated. The discussions and conclusions are finally largely disconnected from the research activity, the interviews.
We will adjust lines 53-65 to provide a more detailed introduction to our results from the interviews (the recommendations). Further, we will partly re-write the discussion to provide a more specific reflection on how the interview findings and case studies fed into these recommendations, also acknowledging limitations to the work.
Specific comments
L9 & 34: The claim that "environmental geosciences remain underrepresented in art-science partnerships" is not substantiated in the references provided, which correspond to a case study project and an editorial perspective. Only with a full survey or meta-analysis could this claim be substantiated, which does not appear to have occurred. Therefore, the authors should remove this claim as it misrepresents the work currently being done.
The claim of underepresentation was reflective of the Tooth et al. (2019) piece for a contemporary Art-Geoscience Special Issue that drew from the Tooth et al. (2016) article in Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. However, we acknowledge that this article for Geoscience Communication was not a full survey or meta-analysis and cannot fully substantiate this, so this shall be rephrased and the claim removed.
Section 2: Overall this section is unclear, but also repetitive in many aspects. It could do with rewriting with a clear focus. Examples of unclear aspects are: What you were looking to find in literature review?How many people were identified to interview? What was the makeup? What was the criteria in identifying?; Who the "outcomes and impact" are meant to be on? If the stakeholders interviewed and their partners then that would be appropriate, however, if this is meant to concern the attendees then I do not agree that the study can adequately assess these.
We will detail the specific aims and criteria for both the literature review and interviews in this section, and adjust the content to be more concise.
Case studies: These should be stated outright before any results are presented, so it provides much needed context to what the interview data is in relation to - their experiences of undertaking these two projects.
The case studies will be moved to precede the results section and provide further context regarding the interview data. We will include text to clarify this link.
Lines 53-65: These read like more introductory material unrelated to any results of the study, hence should be moved accordingly.
These lines summarise findings of our literature review, though we acknowledge they may be better suited to the introduction. We will rework the relevant content to be included in the introduction instead of the results section.
Thank you again for your guidance on this manuscript, it is much appreciated. Please let us know if you have any additional questions and thank you for the opportunity to submit our work for your consideration.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-357-AC2
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 244 | 78 | 13 | 335 | 34 | 2 | 3 |
- HTML: 244
- PDF: 78
- XML: 13
- Total: 335
- Supplement: 34
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Rosalie Alice Wright
Kurt Jackson
Cécile Girardin
Natasha Smith
Lisa Wedding
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(583 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(5481 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper