Edu-Communication from Museums to Formal Education: Cases around Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Co-Creative Paradigm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Summary outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths. The summary is quite clear, presents the aims of this research, case studies and results, but does not specify the methodology used (auto)ethnography. The article is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner and fits into the typology the tematic of this journal. The topic is very current and pertinent in this field of research into Heritage Education and educommunication. Incorporates relevant and  recent publications in the  bibliographic references to this area of ​​research, revealing an excellent article in this area of ​​scientific knowledge that presents specific case studies of good co-creative practices articulation museums, intangible cultural heritage. It is na exploratory aproach, to the educational and creative potencial derived from the ICH-edu-comunication 2.o Symbiosis, carried out by researchers who reveal excellent scientific knowledge of this area of ​​research.  It is an article that could be interesting for the scientific community and be reproduced in other contexts that want to study the relevance and good practices of museums and education in terms of intangible cultural heritage and co-creative.

Recomendation:

The auto-ethnography methodology is only mentioned in the conclusions and should also do so in the summary and also in the introduction as there is no specific section for the methodology, which should be better explained and what procedures are adopted within the scope of this methodology (auto-ethnography): field notes, participatory observation, etc., for data collection.

I recommend that the article be published in the journal with a small review of the suggestions for improvement presented in this evaluation of the article by the reviewer.

 

 

Author Response

We truly appreciate all the remarks and suggestions you have provided, as we consider they have helped us to enhance the quality of our essay. The modifications implemented in the paper have been underlined in blue for ease of identification. They are also specified in this letter in relation to each of the proposals made by the reviewers:

As stated by the Reviewer 1 –“The auto-ethnography methodology is only mentioned in the conclusions and should also do so in the summary and also in the introduction as there is no specific section for the methodology, which should be better explained and what procedures are adopted within the scope of this methodology (auto-ethnography): field notes, participatory observation, etc., for data collection”.–, we have added a brief mention to the methodological approach in the summary of the paper (line 20). No mentions have been made in the introduction section, as a specification of the methodology is already present in line 83. We have considered more convenient to include it at the introductory paragraph which describes the experiences/cases analyzed (lines 282-297), as we believe this reference to the methodology serves to contextualize the nature of both cases. We have included information on the epistemological paradigm underpinning our investigation, the research question, the time of information gathering, and the tools used for its analysis.

We hope these modifications contribute to making the paper more suitable for the monographic scopeand also to improving the general quality and comprehensiveness of the text.

Yours sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The theme of the work fully adjusts to the journal. This is a very interesting writing that relates museums, intangible heritage, schools and the potential of digitalization.
The theoretical foundation is very successful, being presented as problematic questions. A great success.
The cases presented are interesting and the discussion and conclusions logically relate to them.

However, the part that could be improved is the methodological one. As stated in the text itself, "this exploration has only been possible through first-hand knowledge of sociocultural phenomena in which the authors are involved participants. Consequently, for the moment, (auto)ethnography or case studies are the only methodologies capable of making visible and interpreting the co-creative actions that link the museum and the school."

In this sense, I consider it convenient to incorporate a specific section dedicated to the methodology of the experience presented to us, in which the objectives, the relevance of the method, the selection of cases, etc. are clearly reported.

Author Response

We truly appreciate all the remarks and suggestions you have provided, as we consider they have helped us to enhance the quality of our essay. The modifications implemented in the paper have been underlined in blue for ease of identification.

Considering the recommendations made by Reviewer 2, –“I consider it convenient to incorporate a specific section dedicated to the methodology of the experience presented to us, in which the objectives, the relevance of the method, the selection of cases, etc. are clearly reported”–, we believe it is not convenient to introduce a methodological section, as this paper does not pretend to be an empirical research but rather a reflexive essaythat aims to contribute to the theorical framework of Heritage Education/Edu-communication. Consequently, we believe a specific and differentiated paragraph could lead the readers to misunderstand the nature of our paper. Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, a paragraph dedicated to explaining the rationale behind the selection and analysis of cases has been incorporated before presenting both cases (lines 282-297).

Here we present the various issues that this paragraph is addressing:

One of the authors has established a long-term collaboration with the J. Trepat Factory Museum, working on the development of didactic activities in association with the University of Lleida (Spain) (relationship of the cases with one of the authors’ professional experiences). While theorizing about the co-creative paradigm within museum edu-communication [16], it became evident that the experiences conducted at the Trepat Museum exemplified the co-creative potential, serving as a living example that expanded our understanding of the phenomenon of edu-communication (detection of the relevance of the author’s experiences after having theorizing about co-creative paradigm). Autoethnography was then selected as our methodological approach due to its holistic orientation, which enables researchers to comprehend the entirety of their own memoirs and, consequently, to connect everyday experiences and analyze them through various techniques and tools [82] (appropriateness of the autoethnographic approach to the analysis of both cases).Furthermore, socialization scenarios are currently undergoing a transformation due to the impact of digital technologies, thus introducing new perspectives for ethnographic research [83] (relevance of the method considering the inclusion of “online experiences”). By adopting a constructivist research approach (epistemological perspective) and aiming to discover how knowledge is constructed in two different media (online and offline) (research question), field notes derived from the participant observation of one of the authors (2021-2023) were analyzed and, subsequently, online posts and projects were subjected to observation to enrich our reflections (tools for data gathering: participant observation+field notes and non-participant observation for the online materials).

Consequently, we have added two more references, which have been also underlined in the final bibliography:

82. Atkinson, P.; Delamont, S.; Housley, W. Contours of Culture. Complex Ethnography and the Ethnography of Complexity; AltaMira Press: Lanham, MD, 2007.
83. Domínguez-Figaredo, D. Escenarios Híbridos, Narrativas Transmedia, Etnografía Expandida. Rev. Antropol. Soc. 2012, 21, 199-125. http://doi.org/10.5209/rev_RASO.2012.v21.40056.

We hope these modifications contribute to making the paper more suitable for the monographic scopeand also to improving the general quality and comprehensiveness of the text.

Yours sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All recommendations were taken into account.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for including the observations made in the first review. We think it offers a more compact work.
Indeed, as they say in their response, this is not an empirical research, an issue that was already indicated in the first review, but we considered some clarifications relevant regarding the reasons for the cases selected.