{"title":"Silencing the virus? Government communication and MMR vaccination campaigns – the Australian case","authors":"Roumen Dimitrov","doi":"10.1177/2046147X211014078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I analyse a series of Australian MMR (measles-mumpsrubella) vaccination campaigns and policies from the last decade. Using the Bruno Latour’s Actor Network Theory (ATN), I locate human and non-human mediators – including the virus and vaccine – in the complex pro-vaccination alliance led by government campaigners. I identify the vaccine hesitant parents – a large group that ‘sits on the fence’ between the ‘vaccine confident’ and ‘vaccine refusing’ parents – as the main target of pro-vaccination campaigns. PR literature on pro-vaccination campaigns has applied ATN to the independence of the media as network agents. This paper contributes with the problematisation of several more actors such as the health workers, medical experts and the vaccine hesitant parents themselves. Even when they are keen members of a pro-vaccination network, they cannot be taken for granted. This is where understanding of stigma, silence and voice helps. To align their group interests and discourses, government should know how to communicate strategically – including how to communicate indirectly, avoiding stigma and keeping certain internal affinities and communicative distances intact. In conclusion, I make suggestions about strategic communication in pro-vaccination campaigns. Communication of statistical risks and side effects should be central. It is a winning strategy because it establishes a more credible balance between individual rights and collective obligations in achieving herd immunity. And mandating vaccination cannot replace communication. Research shows that legislating compulsory vaccination may have short-term and relatively small effects. They are almost negligible in the long run. Mandate may trigger compliance, but it also causes anger and mistrust. Mandating vaccine has negative side effects. It punishes with economic and cultural sanctions the socially disadvantaged, who are not active refusers. It also has the opposite effect on vaccine hesitant parents. It does not weaken but rather strengthens their resistance to the vaccine and pushes them to the lager of antivaxxers.","PeriodicalId":44609,"journal":{"name":"Public Relations Inquiry","volume":"11 1","pages":"121 - 155"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2046147X211014078","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Relations Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X211014078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
In this paper I analyse a series of Australian MMR (measles-mumpsrubella) vaccination campaigns and policies from the last decade. Using the Bruno Latour’s Actor Network Theory (ATN), I locate human and non-human mediators – including the virus and vaccine – in the complex pro-vaccination alliance led by government campaigners. I identify the vaccine hesitant parents – a large group that ‘sits on the fence’ between the ‘vaccine confident’ and ‘vaccine refusing’ parents – as the main target of pro-vaccination campaigns. PR literature on pro-vaccination campaigns has applied ATN to the independence of the media as network agents. This paper contributes with the problematisation of several more actors such as the health workers, medical experts and the vaccine hesitant parents themselves. Even when they are keen members of a pro-vaccination network, they cannot be taken for granted. This is where understanding of stigma, silence and voice helps. To align their group interests and discourses, government should know how to communicate strategically – including how to communicate indirectly, avoiding stigma and keeping certain internal affinities and communicative distances intact. In conclusion, I make suggestions about strategic communication in pro-vaccination campaigns. Communication of statistical risks and side effects should be central. It is a winning strategy because it establishes a more credible balance between individual rights and collective obligations in achieving herd immunity. And mandating vaccination cannot replace communication. Research shows that legislating compulsory vaccination may have short-term and relatively small effects. They are almost negligible in the long run. Mandate may trigger compliance, but it also causes anger and mistrust. Mandating vaccine has negative side effects. It punishes with economic and cultural sanctions the socially disadvantaged, who are not active refusers. It also has the opposite effect on vaccine hesitant parents. It does not weaken but rather strengthens their resistance to the vaccine and pushes them to the lager of antivaxxers.
期刊介绍:
Public Relations Inquiry is an international, peer-reviewed journal for conceptual, reflexive and critical discussion on public relations, supporting debates on new ways of thinking about public relations in social, cultural and political contexts, in order to improve understanding of its work and effects beyond the purely organisational realm. We interpret public relations in a broad sense, recognising the influence of public relations practices on the many forms of contemporary strategic, promotional communication initiated by organisations, institutions and individuals. The practice of public relations arises at points of societal and organisational change and transformation, affecting many aspects of political, economic, social and cultural life. Reflecting this, we aim to mobilize research that speaks to a scholars in diverse fields and welcome submissions from any area that speak to the purpose of the journal, including (but not only) public relations, organizational communication, media and journalism studies, cultural studies, anthropology, political communication, sociology, organizational studies, development communication, migration studies, visual communication, management and marketing, digital media and data studies. We actively seek contributions that can extend the range of perspectives used to understand public relations, its role in societal change and continuity, and its impact on cultural and political life. We particularly welcome multi-disciplinary debate about the communication practices that shape major human concerns, including: globalisation, politics, and public relations in international communication migration, refugees, displaced populations terrorism, public diplomacy public and corporate governance diversity and cultural impacts of PR the natural and built environments Communication, space and place The development and practices of major industries such as health, food, sport, tourism, technology.