Category / Publishing

FMC researcher’s new book explores how marketing scholars market to each other

Dr. Chris Miles, Principal Academic in Marketing & Communication at Bournemouth University, has just published The Marketing of Service-Dominant Logic: A Rhetorical Approach, with Palgrave Macmillan.

Service-Dominant logic can be described as a mind-set for a unified understanding of the purpose and nature of organizations, markets and society. A concept that was first introduced by Vargo and Lusch in 2004, S-D logic has generated not just a vast host of journal articles and books but has established an expanding sphere of influence across marketing scholarship. In this book, Dr. Miles uses a rhetorical approach to investigate the ‘marketing’ of Service-Dominant logic, asking how the formulation and presentation of the logic aids in its persuasive promotion. In doing so, the book explores the lexicon choices, metaphors, symbols, and persuasive gambits that have resonated so strongly with marketing academia, with the aim of understanding how these elements work together in a compelling narrative that delivers the logic’s core value proposition of transcendence.

Dr. Miles investigates how these rhetorical strategies have evolved as the S-D logic framework has developed, examining the revisions to its foundational premises and axioms and the introduction of new perspectives such as systems theory. It is the first book-length rhetorical analysis of a single strand of marketing discourse and as such, it serves as a showcase for the methodology, the insights it can provide, and its value for marketing scholarship.

Book cover of The Marketing of Service-Dominant Logic

Cover of The Marketing of Service-Dominant Logic: A Rhetorical Approach

Book details:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46510-9

Hardcover ISBN: 978-3-031-46509-3

Softcover ISBN: 978-3-031-46512-3

eBook ISBN: 978-3-031-46510-9

Congratulations to BU sociology professors

Congratulations to Professors  Sara Ashencaen Crabtree and Jonathan Parker on the publication  of their book chapter ‘Social work with children and human rights’ in the edited collection Change Agents: An interprofessional book about children with disabilities in Tanzania and Norway [1]

The chapter explores human rights in social work with children, based on cases from several countries in the world. Human rights and social justice differ across countries and cultures. This is complicated further in respect of children who are dependent and as a result potentially vulnerable. This chapter discusses the balance between protection of the child versus allowing the child to be exposed to “risky” situations and develops a model for complex human rights social work with children.

The book also has a chapter by former BU staff member Prof. Sarah Hean, who is currently linked with the University of Stavanger in Norway.
Congratulations on this Open Access publication!
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Reference:

Parker, J. &  Ashencaen Crabtree, S. (2023)  Social work with children and human rights, In: Change Agents: An interprofessional book about children with disabilities in Tanzania and Norway, Siv E. N. Sæbjørnsen, Mariana J. Makuu& Atle Ødegård (Editors),  Scandinavian University Press, pp.55-75. 

BS and lies: Study identifies how political leaders spread disinformation

Professor Darren Lilleker writes about his latest research, identifying how political leaders spread misinformation and disinformation… 

The flow of misinformation is a blight on societies. It leads to mistrust of facts, media, institutions. This is particularly the case with disinformation. Misinformation covers out of date facts and material shared which may be misleading but not with a deliberate intention to misinform.

Disinformation is spread strategically to further the objectives of an individual or organisation, often for political purposes. An analysis of literature found increased interest in studying mis/disinformation 2019-21, with a perhaps natural focus on health communication. One good thing that emerged from the Covid-19 pandemic was increased concern about the quality and veracity of information circulating within society. The concerns raised led to greater focus on how disinformation spreads within mainstream media and not just how it is used by extremist political groups or during election campaigns but more widely within political discourse.

A small project examining how disinformation enters mainstream discourse focused on political party leaders. We analysed items which had been factchecked and developed a coding scheme which explored two of the most serious forms of disinformation: bullshit and lies. While lies are obviously provably false, we draw on Henry Frankfurt who argued bullshit to be a claim that was impossible to prove or disprove and is utilised by actors who have no concern whatsoever for the truth.

Firstly, we found that of the items factchecked 31% could be classified as bullshit, 34% as lies. The remaining items found politicians misspeaking (5%) and alternative, partisan interpretations of data (30%). Bullshit and lies appeared mostly when either attacking the policies of opponents, defending one’s own policy or in policy promotion. Such forms of disinformation were not isolated to content on social media, which are rarely factchecked. Bullshit was used significantly in speeches and television interviews, lies similarly but also in policy statements. As these are designed for mainstream media consumption and appear above the radar it suggests many political leaders are unconcerned about the importance of the truth.

When politicians lie their opponents will call them out, but this can simply result in the politicisation of facts. Each side of a political divide has its own truth. The more each side claims ownership over immutable truths the deeper the polarization within a society. Once a society is divided a range of bad actors can exploit divisions for their own ends.

The next stages of this research will focus on surveys and experiments which explores who in society believes what. We hypothesize that individual interests and concerns are interwoven with confirmation bias regarding what is viewed, what is believed and hence what is shared. We also explore whether continuous exposure leads to acceptance, in particular if continuous exposure to evidence that a particular message is bullshit or a lie leads to inoculation regarding similar messages. Our purpose is to understand how to increase resilience against disinformation through understanding the most important cognitive mechanisms which can be activated as defences.

Within many societies media are major source of disinformation, and even in stable democracies politicians themselves strategically deploy bullshit and lies. Major social media can be encouraged to remove some content, but there are a plethora of platforms that cannot be regulated: Telegram, 4Chan, 8Chan etc. Content from any space can leak out, be spread across other platforms and can be used to reinforce the argument of a journalist or politician who lacks an ethical compass. Hence this work builds on previous arguments that political and media literacy, designed to reinforce natural cognitive defences, is the most reliable weapon in the fight against disinformation and its impacts on democratic societies.

The findings have been published in Javnost – Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture.

Read more about the study

Introduction to BRIAN-BU’s publication management system

BRIAN (Bournemouth Research Information And Networking) is BU’s publication management system.

This introductory session is aimed at those who are new to BU, or have not updated their staff profile for a while. It will cover the basics of BRIAN, including how to use BRIAN to manage your research outputs, biography and research interests, professional activities and more.

By the end of the session, attendees will have an understanding of BRIAN and how it relates to Staff Profile Pages, how to create and update items and activities, how to claim/create/import publications, as well as how to upload full text articles to BURO (Bournemouth University Research Online).

Wednesday 6th December, 10:00 – 11:00 at Talbot Campus

To book onto this session, please complete the Booking Form under “Introduction to BRIAN – 06/12/2023”

 

For any queries regarding this workshop, please contact Claire Fenton, REF Manager, cfenton@bournemouth.ac.uk

 

A “Writing Day” is organised by BU’s Research Staff Association

As part of their activities for this academic year, RSA is organised a Writing Day for Researchers.

This Writing Day aims to help support BU researchers work on their publications by providing some dedicated time and space, away from everyday distractions.

We’ll begin with some introductions – a chance to meet other researchers, make friends and support each other.

Then we’ll get down to business… writing!

Thursday 25th January 2024, 09:00 – 16:00 at Talbot Campus

Plenty of food and drink to fuel your writing!

Please sign up to attend via our booking form Booking Form under “RSA Writing Day 25/01/23”

 

Please note that this event is organised by BU’s Research Staff Association – an association run by BU researchers from all faculties who want to make BU a great place to work and do research.

For more information, please contact RKE Dev Framework

 

RKEDF: Academic Publishing – hybrid workshop 08/11/23

This session is aimed at ECRs who are new to or who have experience of academic publishing and wish to find out more.

The session will offer insight into the point and process of academic publishing in journals, edited collections and monographs. It will offer advice and guidance on pitching, developing ideas for publications, how to respond to reviewer feedback, and how to write a monograph proposal.

By the end of the session, attendees will have acquired greater knowledge of academic publishing and greater confidence in pursuing publications relevant to their career stage and development goals.

Wednesday 8th November from 13.00 – 14.00 

Talbot Campus – MS Teams  

 

To book onto Academic Publishing session, please complete the Booking Form.

This workshop facilitated be the ECRN Academic leaders Prof. Sam Goodman sgoodman@bournemouth.ac.uk and Prof. Ann Hemingway aheming@bournemouth.ac.uk

UK Research Integrity Office – Free Webinar

UKRIO LogoJoin UKRIO for their latest free webinar “Correcting the scholarly record, and dispelling myths around corrections” on Wednesday 20th September from 10:00 – 11:00 BST. 

A core part of publication ethics is the correction of published research affected by errors or misconduct.

This webinar aims to explain both the process of fixing errors and misconceptions about corrections, focusing on journal articles, and to answer the questions:

  • Who decides what needs to be corrected?
  • What are the responsibilities of editors, journals, research institutions, and authors?
  • How are corrections done and what form do they take?
  • How do readers know when work has been corrected?
  • What are the barriers to correcting the scholarly literature – and, hopefully, the solutions to these problems?

Lead by expert speakers, this session will draw on their experience in handling corrections and developing editorial policies.

SPEAKERS

  • Lauren Flintoft, Research Integrity Officer, IOP Publishing
  • Gráinne McNamara, Research Integrity/Publication Ethics Manager, Karger Publishers

As BU subscribes to UKRIO services, UKRIO webinars are free and open to anyone who may be interested in research integrity and ethics, good research practice and improving research culture and misconduct.

To register – please click here (takes you to external website).

Proofreading your article accepted for publication

It is always a pleasure to see your own paper in print.  If all is properly organised at the publisher, the first time you see you paper as it will look in its final version when you receive the proof copy.  It is the authors’ task to proofread this final copy and pick up any mistakes you may have made or the journal has made putting your word file into the journal’s layout.  More and more journals now ask you to do the proofreading and editing online.  The first message here is that proofreading is exact business and most certainly time consuming.  Moreover, feeding back mistakes you may find in the proofs is not without its trials and tribulations.

Yesterday we received the proofs for a paper accepted by BMC Health Research Policy & Systems [1]. The BMC is part of the publisher Springer , and it uses an online proof system eProofing to which the authors get temporary access, to read and correct text.  This system looks good online, but beware the online version you get to edit does not look the same as the version that will appear in print.  The draft print version generated by eProofing has line numbers which don’t appear online when you are editing the proofs.  So we had to write on the online system separately that we found a set of quotes glued together, as the system does not allow authors to change the lay-out (for obvious reasons). In this case,  we had to write details like: “There needs to be a space after first quote line 421.”  What might look okay in the eProofing version didn’t do so  in the print version, where it was it is wrong.  This is illustrated in the example picture below.

 

Last month we battled with the proofs of another BU paper forthcoming in the journal Women and Birth [2], which is part of Elsevier.  Again, it has an online system for proofs.  This system does not allow the authors to correct mistakes in in the line spacing.  So we ended up writing to journal manager, not the editor, things like: “There is a very big gap between the end of section 3.7. and Overview of findings section – please could the text be rearranged to get rid of this big gap.”  We also asked for a summary section to be kept on one page, not having an orphan two words on the next page, but that appeared to be too difficult a request.  We think we a little flexibility, i.e. a human intervention the lay-out could have been improved.  See illustration below with text as it appears in the current online-first version.

We like to stress our advice to set plenty of time aside to read and edit the proofs, and to send details instructions to the journal manager or editor about what needs changing.  Changes include typos, grammar and style, but also lay-out of text and illustrations, boxes in the text, tables and figures.  “It is also important to check tables and figures during the proof-reading as the formatting can often go astray during the typesetting process” as we highlighted by Sheppard and colleagues [3].  Also double check correct spelling of names of co-authors and the final author order in the proofs.  Many years ago, I received the proof of pages of a midwifery article [4].

I dutifully read and edited  the proof of the actual text, but I never check the short introduction with the authors’ names which an editor had added to the final proofs.  When the paper came out in print to transpired that this editor has changed the author order, i.e. my name was first, probably because I had submitted the paper on behalf of my co-author.  This cause some problems with my co-author, made all the worse since I am married to her.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

References:

  1. Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Rushton, S., Subedi, M., Simkhada, P., Balen, J., Nepal Federalisation of Health Team (2023)  Overcoming the challenges facing Nepal’s health system during federalisation: an analysis of health system building blocks. Journal of the Health Research Policy & Systems. (forthcoming).
  2. Arnold, R., Way, S., Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2023) “I might have cried in the changing room, but I still went to work”. Maternity staff managing roles, responsibilities, and emotions of work and home during COVID-19: an Appreciative InquiryWomen & Birth (online first) 
  3. Sheppard, Z., Hundley, V., Dahal, N.P., Paudyal, P. (2022) Writing a quantitative paper, In: Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Hundley, V. with Shreesh, K. (eds.) Writing and Publishing Academic Work, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books, pp.78-87.
  4. van Teijlingen E., Ireland, J.C. (2014) Community midwives on the go. Midwives 1: 54-55.