消除污染和传染:错误信息的体现和环境隐喻

IF 2.4 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Yvonne M Eadon, Stacy E Wood
{"title":"消除污染和传染:错误信息的体现和环境隐喻","authors":"Yvonne M Eadon, Stacy E Wood","doi":"10.1177/13548565241255347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, government agencies, information institutions, educators and researchers have paid increasing attention to issues of misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theorizing. This has prompted a seemingly endless supply of guides, frameworks and approaches to ‘combating’ the problem. In studies of mis- and disinformation, a constellation of analogous concepts are defined in multiple ways across multidisciplinary literatures and institutional contexts. Misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theory are often conflated, lacking specific, portable definitions across fields of study. Linguistic metaphors are often leveraged in place of this definitional work. The larger conceptual metaphors that they connote contain normative assumptions that often impose values and moral imperatives, imply deficiencies, assume intent, and foreground individual agency or lack thereof. Metaphors are as restrictive as they are illuminating; once used, a metaphor also applies constraints to the way in which a phenomenon can be understood. Metaphors not only shape the ways in which science is communicated to the public, but also the kinds of questions that are asked, the theories and methods used, and the parameters of the research design. By analyzing instances of linguistic metaphor, this exploratory study identifies and develops two conceptual metaphors that are frequently evoked to discuss mis- and disinformation: embodied health metaphors and environmental health metaphors. The former includes linguistic metaphors like viral/virality, infodemic, infobesity, information hygiene, information dysfunction, and information pathology. The latter includes linguistic metaphors like information pollution, infollution, and digital wildfires. Uncritically invoking such metaphors adopts tacit arguments deriving from the original field of study (e.g., public health’s tendency to equate individual embodied health with virtue), or the image of the metaphor itself ( digital wildfires implies quick spread and immediate danger), or both. Widespread and uncritical use of such metaphors, we argue, rewards speed and epistemic homogeneity in mis- and disinformation research – ultimately discouraging in-depth inquiry.","PeriodicalId":47242,"journal":{"name":"Convergence-The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Combating contamination and contagion: Embodied and environmental metaphors of misinformation\",\"authors\":\"Yvonne M Eadon, Stacy E Wood\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13548565241255347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent years, government agencies, information institutions, educators and researchers have paid increasing attention to issues of misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theorizing. This has prompted a seemingly endless supply of guides, frameworks and approaches to ‘combating’ the problem. In studies of mis- and disinformation, a constellation of analogous concepts are defined in multiple ways across multidisciplinary literatures and institutional contexts. Misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theory are often conflated, lacking specific, portable definitions across fields of study. Linguistic metaphors are often leveraged in place of this definitional work. The larger conceptual metaphors that they connote contain normative assumptions that often impose values and moral imperatives, imply deficiencies, assume intent, and foreground individual agency or lack thereof. Metaphors are as restrictive as they are illuminating; once used, a metaphor also applies constraints to the way in which a phenomenon can be understood. Metaphors not only shape the ways in which science is communicated to the public, but also the kinds of questions that are asked, the theories and methods used, and the parameters of the research design. By analyzing instances of linguistic metaphor, this exploratory study identifies and develops two conceptual metaphors that are frequently evoked to discuss mis- and disinformation: embodied health metaphors and environmental health metaphors. The former includes linguistic metaphors like viral/virality, infodemic, infobesity, information hygiene, information dysfunction, and information pathology. The latter includes linguistic metaphors like information pollution, infollution, and digital wildfires. Uncritically invoking such metaphors adopts tacit arguments deriving from the original field of study (e.g., public health’s tendency to equate individual embodied health with virtue), or the image of the metaphor itself ( digital wildfires implies quick spread and immediate danger), or both. Widespread and uncritical use of such metaphors, we argue, rewards speed and epistemic homogeneity in mis- and disinformation research – ultimately discouraging in-depth inquiry.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47242,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Convergence-The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Convergence-The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565241255347\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Convergence-The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565241255347","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,政府机构、信息机构、教育工作者和研究人员越来越关注错误信息、虚假信息和阴谋论问题。这促使人们为 "应对 "这一问题提供了似乎无穷无尽的指南、框架和方法。在对误导信息和虚假信息的研究中,一组类似的概念在多学科文献和机构背景中以多种方式被定义。错误信息、虚假信息和阴谋论常常被混为一谈,缺乏跨研究领域的具体、可移植的定义。语言学隐喻常常被用来代替这种定义工作。它们所蕴含的更大的概念隐喻包含规范性假设,往往强加价值观和道德要求,暗示缺陷,假定意图,并强调个人能动性或缺乏能动性。隐喻既有限制性,也有启发性;一旦使用,隐喻也会对理解现象的方式施加限制。隐喻不仅决定了向公众传播科学的方式,还决定了提出问题的类型、使用的理论和方法以及研究设计的参数。通过分析语言隐喻的实例,本探索性研究确定并发展了两种在讨论错误信息和虚假信息时经常使用的概念隐喻:体现健康隐喻和环境健康隐喻。前者包括病毒/病毒性、信息流行病、信息肥胖症、信息卫生、信息功能障碍和信息病理学等语言隐喻。后者包括信息污染、信息污染和数字野火等语言隐喻。不加批判地引用这些隐喻,采用的是源自原有研究领域的隐性论据(例如,公共卫生倾向于将个人的身体健康等同于美德),或隐喻本身的形象(数字野火意味着迅速蔓延和直接危险),或两者兼而有之。我们认为,广泛而不加批判地使用这些隐喻,会使错误信息和虚假信息研究的速度和认识上的同一性得到提升,最终阻碍深入探究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Combating contamination and contagion: Embodied and environmental metaphors of misinformation
In recent years, government agencies, information institutions, educators and researchers have paid increasing attention to issues of misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theorizing. This has prompted a seemingly endless supply of guides, frameworks and approaches to ‘combating’ the problem. In studies of mis- and disinformation, a constellation of analogous concepts are defined in multiple ways across multidisciplinary literatures and institutional contexts. Misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theory are often conflated, lacking specific, portable definitions across fields of study. Linguistic metaphors are often leveraged in place of this definitional work. The larger conceptual metaphors that they connote contain normative assumptions that often impose values and moral imperatives, imply deficiencies, assume intent, and foreground individual agency or lack thereof. Metaphors are as restrictive as they are illuminating; once used, a metaphor also applies constraints to the way in which a phenomenon can be understood. Metaphors not only shape the ways in which science is communicated to the public, but also the kinds of questions that are asked, the theories and methods used, and the parameters of the research design. By analyzing instances of linguistic metaphor, this exploratory study identifies and develops two conceptual metaphors that are frequently evoked to discuss mis- and disinformation: embodied health metaphors and environmental health metaphors. The former includes linguistic metaphors like viral/virality, infodemic, infobesity, information hygiene, information dysfunction, and information pathology. The latter includes linguistic metaphors like information pollution, infollution, and digital wildfires. Uncritically invoking such metaphors adopts tacit arguments deriving from the original field of study (e.g., public health’s tendency to equate individual embodied health with virtue), or the image of the metaphor itself ( digital wildfires implies quick spread and immediate danger), or both. Widespread and uncritical use of such metaphors, we argue, rewards speed and epistemic homogeneity in mis- and disinformation research – ultimately discouraging in-depth inquiry.
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
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
98
×
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