IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v9y2021i3p34-d609476.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Claiming Credibility in Online Comments: Popular Debate Surrounding the COVID-19 Vaccine

Author

Listed:
  • Ruth Breeze

    (Instituto Cultura y Sociedad, Universidad de Navarra, 31009 Pamplona, Spain)

Abstract

At times of crisis, access to information takes on special importance, and in the Internet age of constant connectedness, this is truer than ever. Over the course of the pandemic, the huge public demand for constantly updated health information has been met with a massive response from official and scientific sources, as well as from the mainstream media. However, it has also generated a vast stream of user-generated digital postings. Such phenomena are often regarded as unhelpful or even dangerous since they unwittingly spread misinformation or make it easier for potentially harmful disinformation to circulate. However, little is known about the dynamics of such forums or how scientific issues are represented there. To address this knowledge gap, this chapter uses a corpus-assisted discourse approach to examine how “expert” knowledge and other sources of authority are represented and contested in a corpus of 10,880 reader comments responding to Mail Online articles on the development of the COVID-19 vaccine in February–July 2020. The results show how “expert” knowledge is increasingly problematized and politicized, while other strategies are used to claim authority. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of sociological theories, and some tentative solutions are proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruth Breeze, 2021. "Claiming Credibility in Online Comments: Popular Debate Surrounding the COVID-19 Vaccine," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:9:y:2021:i:3:p:34-:d:609476
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/9/3/34/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/9/3/34/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sander L van der Linden & Anthony A Leiserowitz & Geoffrey D Feinberg & Edward W Maibach, 2015. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8, February.
    2. Haas, Peter M., 2017. "The epistemic authority of solution-oriented global environmental assessments," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 221-224.
    3. Adler, Emanuel & Drieschova, Alena, 2021. "The Epistemological Challenge of Truth Subversion to the Liberal International Order," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(2), pages 359-386, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pilar Mur-Dueñas & Rosa Lorés, 2022. "When Science Communication Becomes Parascience: Blurred Boundaries, Diffuse Roles," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-3, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.
    2. Kaitlin T Raimi & Paul C Stern & Alexander Maki, 2017. "The Promise and Limitations of Using Analogies to Improve Decision-Relevant Understanding of Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    3. Shapiro, Matthew A., 2020. "Next-generation battery research and development: Non-politicized science at the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    4. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.
    5. João M. Lopes & Sofia Gomes & Rosselyn Pacheco & Elizabete Monteiro & Carolina Santos, 2022. "Drivers of Sustainable Innovation Strategies for Increased Competition among Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, May.
    6. Adam R. Pearson & Guadalupe A. Bacio & Sarah Naiman & Rainer Romero-Canyas & Jonathon P. Schuldt, 2021. "Cultural determinants of climate change opinion: familism predicts climate beliefs and policy support among US Latinos," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 1-8, July.
    7. Eric Plutzer & A. Lee Hannah, 2018. "Teaching climate change in middle schools and high schools: investigating STEM education’s deficit model," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 305-317, August.
    8. Rauh, Christian, 2022. "Clear messages to the European public? The language of European Commission press releases 1985–2020," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue Latest Ar, pages 1-19.
    9. Rosalind Pidcock & Kate Heath & Lydia Messling & Susie Wang & Anna Pirani & Sarah Connors & Adam Corner & Christopher Shaw & Melissa Gomis, 2021. "Evaluating effective public engagement: local stories from a global network of IPCC scientists," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-22, October.
    10. Albert Ayorinde Abegunde, 2017. "Local communities’ belief in climate change in a rural region of Sub-Saharan Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1489-1522, August.
    11. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2016. "Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, November.
    12. Matthew Motta & Daniel Chapman & Dominik Stecula & Kathryn Haglin, 2019. "An experimental examination of measurement disparities in public climate change beliefs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 37-47, May.
    13. Alejandro Esguerra & Sandra van der Hel, 2021. "Participatory Designs and Epistemic Authority in Knowledge Platforms for Sustainability," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 21(1), pages 130-151, Winter.
    14. Mantzari, Eleni & Reynolds, James P. & Jebb, Susan A. & Hollands, Gareth J. & Pilling, Mark A. & Marteau, Theresa M., 2022. "Public support for policies to improve population and planetary health: A population-based online experiment assessing impact of communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    15. Neda Mohammadi & Qi Wang & John E Taylor, 2016. "Diffusion Dynamics of Energy Saving Practices in Large Heterogeneous Online Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-23, October.
    16. Thomas, Melanee & DeCillia, Brooks & Santos, John B. & Thorlakson, Lori, 2022. "Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    17. Clulow, Z. & Reiner, D. M., 2022. "How to distinguish climate sceptics, antivaxxers, and persistent sceptics: Evidence from a multi-country survey of public attitudes," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2209, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    18. Carisa Bergner & Bruce A. Desmarais & John Hird, 2019. "Speaking truth in power: Scientific evidence as motivation for policy activism," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).
    19. Heather W. Cann, 2021. "Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 570-595, September.
    20. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2018. "Self-assessed understanding of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 349-362, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:9:y:2021:i:3:p:34-:d:609476. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.