像流行病学家一样看待问题?动员人民抗击COVID-19。

IF 0.8 2区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Nick Clarke, Clive Barnett
{"title":"像流行病学家一样看待问题?动员人民抗击COVID-19。","authors":"Nick Clarke,&nbsp;Clive Barnett","doi":"10.1177/09526951231170574","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Diaries and other materials in the Mass Observation Archive have been characterised as intersubjective and dialogic. They have been used to study top-down and bottom-up processes, including how ordinary people respond to sociological constructs and, more broadly, the footprint of social science in the 20th century. In this article, we use the Archive's COVID-19 collections to study how attempts to govern the pandemic by mobilising ordinary people to see like an epidemiologist played out in the United Kingdom during 2020. People were asked to think in terms of populations and groups; rates, trends, and distributions; the capacity of public services; and complex systems of causation. How did they respond? How did they use the statistics, charts, maps, concepts, identities, and roles they were given? We find evidence of engagement with science <i>plural</i>; confident and comfortable engagement with epidemiological terms and concepts; sceptical and reluctant engagement with epidemiological subject positions; use of both scientific and moral literacy to negotiate regulations and guidance; and use of scientific literacy to compare and judge government performance. Governing the pandemic through scientific literacy was partially successful, but in some unexpected ways.</p>","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10151919/pdf/10.1177_09526951231170574.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Seeing like an epidemiologist? Mobilising people against COVID-19.\",\"authors\":\"Nick Clarke,&nbsp;Clive Barnett\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09526951231170574\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Diaries and other materials in the Mass Observation Archive have been characterised as intersubjective and dialogic. They have been used to study top-down and bottom-up processes, including how ordinary people respond to sociological constructs and, more broadly, the footprint of social science in the 20th century. In this article, we use the Archive's COVID-19 collections to study how attempts to govern the pandemic by mobilising ordinary people to see like an epidemiologist played out in the United Kingdom during 2020. People were asked to think in terms of populations and groups; rates, trends, and distributions; the capacity of public services; and complex systems of causation. How did they respond? How did they use the statistics, charts, maps, concepts, identities, and roles they were given? We find evidence of engagement with science <i>plural</i>; confident and comfortable engagement with epidemiological terms and concepts; sceptical and reluctant engagement with epidemiological subject positions; use of both scientific and moral literacy to negotiate regulations and guidance; and use of scientific literacy to compare and judge government performance. Governing the pandemic through scientific literacy was partially successful, but in some unexpected ways.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50403,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History of the Human Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10151919/pdf/10.1177_09526951231170574.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History of the Human Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951231170574\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of the Human Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951231170574","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

群众观察档案中的日记和其他材料具有主体间性和对话性的特点。它们被用来研究自上而下和自下而上的过程,包括普通人如何回应社会学结构,以及更广泛地说,社会科学在20世纪的足迹。在本文中,我们利用该档案馆的COVID-19藏品来研究如何通过动员普通民众以流行病学家的方式看待2020年英国的疫情,从而控制疫情。人们被要求从人口和群体的角度来思考;比率、趋势和分布;公共服务能力;以及复杂的因果关系系统。他们是如何回应的?他们如何使用统计数据、图表、地图、概念、身份和角色?我们发现参与科学的证据是多元的;自信自如地掌握流行病学术语和概念;对流行病学学科立场持怀疑态度和不情愿的态度;运用科学和道德素养来协商法规和指导;并利用科学素养来比较和评判政府绩效。通过科学素养控制疫情取得了部分成功,但以一些意想不到的方式取得了成功。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Seeing like an epidemiologist? Mobilising people against COVID-19.

Diaries and other materials in the Mass Observation Archive have been characterised as intersubjective and dialogic. They have been used to study top-down and bottom-up processes, including how ordinary people respond to sociological constructs and, more broadly, the footprint of social science in the 20th century. In this article, we use the Archive's COVID-19 collections to study how attempts to govern the pandemic by mobilising ordinary people to see like an epidemiologist played out in the United Kingdom during 2020. People were asked to think in terms of populations and groups; rates, trends, and distributions; the capacity of public services; and complex systems of causation. How did they respond? How did they use the statistics, charts, maps, concepts, identities, and roles they were given? We find evidence of engagement with science plural; confident and comfortable engagement with epidemiological terms and concepts; sceptical and reluctant engagement with epidemiological subject positions; use of both scientific and moral literacy to negotiate regulations and guidance; and use of scientific literacy to compare and judge government performance. Governing the pandemic through scientific literacy was partially successful, but in some unexpected ways.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
History of the Human Sciences
History of the Human Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: History of the Human Sciences aims to expand our understanding of the human world through a broad interdisciplinary approach. The journal will bring you critical articles from sociology, psychology, anthropology and politics, and link their interests with those of philosophy, literary criticism, art history, linguistics, psychoanalysis, aesthetics and law.
×
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