Light At The End Of The Tunnel?

Robert Prettner, Hedwig Te Molder, Maarten Hajer, Rens Vliegenthart
{"title":"Light At The End Of The Tunnel?","authors":"Robert Prettner, Hedwig Te Molder, Maarten Hajer, Rens Vliegenthart","doi":"10.33621/jdsr.v5i3.144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we compare the governmental and public framings of expertise in the Dutch Covid-19 vaccination campaign in the period between January 1st and April 30th, 2021. Specifically, we collected all statements regarding vaccination on three interrelated stages: (1) the official press conferences; (2) Twitter, for responses to government policies; and (3) political motions that were put forward by Members of Parliament in the days following the press conferences. We combine an interactional framing approach with a discursive psychological perspective to get insights into how framings between stages modify, contest, or build upon each other. We argue that the press conferences show a persistent technocratic framing, in the sense that a direct line between science and policy is assumed and promoted. Unlike the first period of the COVID-19 crisis in 2020, experts are not often quoted initially, but key political actors themselves act as responsible for the message that there is light at the end of the tunnel, if only citizens will get vaccinated. Once the AstraZeneca vaccine comes under fire, however, experts are again held accountable for the policy message. Throughout, governmental policies are disputed on Twitter and in Parliament, albeit in different ways, by making hidden moralities relevant, such as the government’s assumed complacency, rigidity, and inability to explain policies with the available evidence.","PeriodicalId":199704,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Social Research","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Digital Social Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v5i3.144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, we compare the governmental and public framings of expertise in the Dutch Covid-19 vaccination campaign in the period between January 1st and April 30th, 2021. Specifically, we collected all statements regarding vaccination on three interrelated stages: (1) the official press conferences; (2) Twitter, for responses to government policies; and (3) political motions that were put forward by Members of Parliament in the days following the press conferences. We combine an interactional framing approach with a discursive psychological perspective to get insights into how framings between stages modify, contest, or build upon each other. We argue that the press conferences show a persistent technocratic framing, in the sense that a direct line between science and policy is assumed and promoted. Unlike the first period of the COVID-19 crisis in 2020, experts are not often quoted initially, but key political actors themselves act as responsible for the message that there is light at the end of the tunnel, if only citizens will get vaccinated. Once the AstraZeneca vaccine comes under fire, however, experts are again held accountable for the policy message. Throughout, governmental policies are disputed on Twitter and in Parliament, albeit in different ways, by making hidden moralities relevant, such as the government’s assumed complacency, rigidity, and inability to explain policies with the available evidence.
隧道尽头的光明?
在本文中,我们比较了2021年1月1日至4月30日期间荷兰Covid-19疫苗接种运动中的政府和公共专业知识框架。具体来说,我们在三个相互关联的阶段收集了有关疫苗接种的所有声明:(1)官方新闻发布会;(2) Twitter,用于回应政府政策;(3)国会议员在新闻发布会后几天内提出的政治动议。我们将互动框架方法与话语心理学观点相结合,以深入了解阶段之间的框架是如何修改、竞争或相互建立的。我们认为,新闻发布会显示了一种持久的技术官僚框架,从某种意义上说,科学与政策之间的直接联系被假设和促进。与2020年新冠肺炎危机的第一阶段不同,专家们最初通常不会被引用,但关键的政治行为者自己负责传递这样的信息:只要公民接种疫苗,隧道尽头就会有光明。然而,一旦阿斯利康疫苗受到抨击,专家们又要对政策信息负责。在整个过程中,政府的政策在Twitter和议会中都受到了争议,尽管方式不同,但通过将隐藏的道德联系起来,比如政府的自满、僵化和无法用现有证据解释政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信