the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Socio-hydrology, politicization of water science and implication of the Eyes on Earth Study on the contemporary research dialogue in the Lancang-Mekong Basin
Abstract. Since April 2020, the Eyes on Earth Study has received significant media attention for considering the Chinese mainstream reservoirs as one of the main drivers for changing the natural water flow and compounding the severe droughts in the Lancang-Mekong Basin. Unlike other hydrological studies, the Eyes on Earth Study polarized the international research community and received unusual media attention. While the Eyes on Earth Study raised public awareness about upstream water operations and motivated civil society to co-develop the water knowledge, there can be found numerous shortcomings and other irregularities in the current research dialogue over the research conclusions. By drawing on the politicization of scientific theories and combining the socio-hydrology with critical political ecology, the presented paper (1) conceptualizes the human-water interaction in the context of the politicization of the EoE Study, (2) reviews current development pathways in contemporary research dialogue in the Lancang-Mekong Basin, and (3) examines contemporary challenges for water science. To re-define the politicization of water science, the constructivist discourse analysis has been applied to investigate the argumentation patterns over the Eyes on Earth Study in the last 18 months (April 2020–September 2021). In addition, we applied the adapted Baker’s model to double-check the content of the EoE Study and degree of alignment with high-quality research inputs. Our data show that (i) benefits from ensuring the standard research procedures outweigh the benefits from using the alternative research procedures, (ii) gradual stratification of contemporary research channels and simplification of research findings contribute to political distrust towards the water science, and (iii) growing intervention of non-traditional actors in the research dialogue produce the gap in applied discourse practices and medialize the desirable water narratives. The topic is highly actual and beneficial for water experts and other interdisciplinary scientists who want to better understand the power of hydrological studies and clarify the incentives undermining the trust in science.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(1069 KB)
-
Supplement
(419 KB)
-
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(1069 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(419 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-647', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Feb 2022
The submitted paper by Grünwald et al. with the title of “Socio-hydrology, politicization of water science and implication of the Eyes on Earth Study on the contemporary research dialogue in the Lancang-Mekong Basin” focuses on politicization of water science and explores this issue in the Eyes on Earth Study and the Lancang-Mekong Basin. While this study provides some good analyses, it lacks the basics for being published in the Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS). Thus, I believe that the paper cannot be accepted, and I recommend re-submission after addressing several concerns:
- I highly suggest improving the paper by a native speaker. I have found several grammar mistakes and a couple of confusing sentences/words.
- The authors have completely mixed literature reviews with the methodology. It is not completely clear what methods are used in this study and how/why they are used. The authors should very clear and specific in the methodology.
- The structure of the paper is quite confusing! Why did the authors jump into some equations and new materials in the discussion? What is the role of the discussion section here?
In addition to these major concerns, I would like to add some additional comments:
- Line1: the word of “socio-hydrology” is redundant.
- Line 11: a general sentence needs to be added at the beginning of the abstract.
- Line 19: it is not clear what the authors want to “re-define”.
- The introduction section needs some materials for the literature review on the method.
- Line 56: be specific and mention the challenges, which you want to address.
- Line 118: “(Forsyth)” is not in the references.
- Line 118: you need an explanation for these two references here and explain in what sense you are close to them.
- What do you mean by “formulate the epistemological dangers”?
- Line 147: by “adapted baker’s method”, do you mean you used that method? clearly explain the method before you want to adopt it and elaborate on how this method works. It is very confusing if you used Baker’s method, and how?
I stop at this point as the study should go through a major improvement.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-647-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Richard Grünwald, 01 Mar 2022
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your constructive feedback and valuable recommendations for improving the quality of our proposed paper. If we will get a chance to re-write our draft by the editor, we are committed to making a major revision of the proposed draft.
1) The language level will be improved and redundant words will be limited2) The methodology + application of the methods will be revised
3) The missing references will be added
Thank you for your patience and understanding,
Authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-647-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-647', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Feb 2022
The article focuses on the Eyes on Earth Study which can be seen as a typical reflection of politicization of water science, revealing the forming process and Socio-hydrological mechanism of politicization impacting scientific research dialogue. The author has performed detailed analysis based on review of contemporary literatures on research dialogue in the Lancang-Mekong River Basin. The results are reliable, but the way of displaying and describing the results needs to be further improved. A major revision is suggested.
Please see the file attached for comments.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Richard Grünwald, 01 Mar 2022
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your critical feedback and valuable recommendations for improving the quality of our proposed paper. If we will get a chance to re-write our draft upon the editor's decision, we are committed to making a major revision of the proposed draft.
1) The language level will be improved and redundant words will be limited2) The methodology + application of the methods will be revised
3) The missing references will be added
4) Visualization and discussion over the research results will be improved
Thank you for your patience,
Authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-647-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Richard Grünwald, 01 Mar 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-647', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Feb 2022
The submitted paper by Grünwald et al. with the title of “Socio-hydrology, politicization of water science and implication of the Eyes on Earth Study on the contemporary research dialogue in the Lancang-Mekong Basin” focuses on politicization of water science and explores this issue in the Eyes on Earth Study and the Lancang-Mekong Basin. While this study provides some good analyses, it lacks the basics for being published in the Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS). Thus, I believe that the paper cannot be accepted, and I recommend re-submission after addressing several concerns:
- I highly suggest improving the paper by a native speaker. I have found several grammar mistakes and a couple of confusing sentences/words.
- The authors have completely mixed literature reviews with the methodology. It is not completely clear what methods are used in this study and how/why they are used. The authors should very clear and specific in the methodology.
- The structure of the paper is quite confusing! Why did the authors jump into some equations and new materials in the discussion? What is the role of the discussion section here?
In addition to these major concerns, I would like to add some additional comments:
- Line1: the word of “socio-hydrology” is redundant.
- Line 11: a general sentence needs to be added at the beginning of the abstract.
- Line 19: it is not clear what the authors want to “re-define”.
- The introduction section needs some materials for the literature review on the method.
- Line 56: be specific and mention the challenges, which you want to address.
- Line 118: “(Forsyth)” is not in the references.
- Line 118: you need an explanation for these two references here and explain in what sense you are close to them.
- What do you mean by “formulate the epistemological dangers”?
- Line 147: by “adapted baker’s method”, do you mean you used that method? clearly explain the method before you want to adopt it and elaborate on how this method works. It is very confusing if you used Baker’s method, and how?
I stop at this point as the study should go through a major improvement.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-647-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Richard Grünwald, 01 Mar 2022
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your constructive feedback and valuable recommendations for improving the quality of our proposed paper. If we will get a chance to re-write our draft by the editor, we are committed to making a major revision of the proposed draft.
1) The language level will be improved and redundant words will be limited2) The methodology + application of the methods will be revised
3) The missing references will be added
Thank you for your patience and understanding,
Authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-647-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-647', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Feb 2022
The article focuses on the Eyes on Earth Study which can be seen as a typical reflection of politicization of water science, revealing the forming process and Socio-hydrological mechanism of politicization impacting scientific research dialogue. The author has performed detailed analysis based on review of contemporary literatures on research dialogue in the Lancang-Mekong River Basin. The results are reliable, but the way of displaying and describing the results needs to be further improved. A major revision is suggested.
Please see the file attached for comments.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Richard Grünwald, 01 Mar 2022
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your critical feedback and valuable recommendations for improving the quality of our proposed paper. If we will get a chance to re-write our draft upon the editor's decision, we are committed to making a major revision of the proposed draft.
1) The language level will be improved and redundant words will be limited2) The methodology + application of the methods will be revised
3) The missing references will be added
4) Visualization and discussion over the research results will be improved
Thank you for your patience,
Authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-647-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Richard Grünwald, 01 Mar 2022
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,174 | 365 | 48 | 1,587 | 105 | 43 | 32 |
- HTML: 1,174
- PDF: 365
- XML: 48
- Total: 1,587
- Supplement: 105
- BibTeX: 43
- EndNote: 32
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Richard Grünwald
Wenling Wang
Yan Feng
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(1069 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(419 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote