谁在关注世界卫生组织?信息学术研究之外的“后真相”时刻

IF 0.2 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Travis M. Noakes, David Bell, T. Noakes
{"title":"谁在关注世界卫生组织?信息学术研究之外的“后真相”时刻","authors":"Travis M. Noakes, David Bell, T. Noakes","doi":"10.4102/td.v18i1.1263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a public research agenda to address infodemics. In these, ‘an overflow of information of varying quality surges across digital and physical environments’. The WHO’s expert panel has raised concerns that this can result in negative health behaviours and erosion of trust in health authorities and public health responses. In sponsoring this agenda, the WHO positioned itself as a custodian that can flag illegitimate narratives (misinformation), the spread of which can potentially result in societal harm. Such ‘post-truth’ moments are rife with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. It provides an opportunity for researchers to analyse divisions in knowledge labour, which can help explain when ‘post-truth’ moments arrive. The first COVID-19 example for this division foregrounds the development of knowledge in an academic context. Added to this is the infodemic or disinfodemic research agenda and personal health responsibility, whose academic contributors are similar. In contrast, the division of labour for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine research foregrounds the role of vaccine manufacturing pharmaceutical companies in driving and promoting related knowledge production.Transdiciplinary Contribution: This analysis focuses on intergroup contradictions between the interests of agencies and their contrasting goals and across different types of knowledge division. Many intergroup contradictions exist, and a few intergroup examples are also described. An overarching contradiction was identified where rushed guidance based on weak evidence from international health organisations may well perpetuate negative health and other societal outcomes rather than ameliorate them.","PeriodicalId":43643,"journal":{"name":"TD-The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who is watching the World Health Organisation? ‘Post-truth’ moments beyond infodemic research\",\"authors\":\"Travis M. Noakes, David Bell, T. Noakes\",\"doi\":\"10.4102/td.v18i1.1263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a public research agenda to address infodemics. In these, ‘an overflow of information of varying quality surges across digital and physical environments’. The WHO’s expert panel has raised concerns that this can result in negative health behaviours and erosion of trust in health authorities and public health responses. In sponsoring this agenda, the WHO positioned itself as a custodian that can flag illegitimate narratives (misinformation), the spread of which can potentially result in societal harm. Such ‘post-truth’ moments are rife with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. It provides an opportunity for researchers to analyse divisions in knowledge labour, which can help explain when ‘post-truth’ moments arrive. The first COVID-19 example for this division foregrounds the development of knowledge in an academic context. Added to this is the infodemic or disinfodemic research agenda and personal health responsibility, whose academic contributors are similar. In contrast, the division of labour for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine research foregrounds the role of vaccine manufacturing pharmaceutical companies in driving and promoting related knowledge production.Transdiciplinary Contribution: This analysis focuses on intergroup contradictions between the interests of agencies and their contrasting goals and across different types of knowledge division. Many intergroup contradictions exist, and a few intergroup examples are also described. An overarching contradiction was identified where rushed guidance based on weak evidence from international health organisations may well perpetuate negative health and other societal outcomes rather than ameliorate them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"TD-The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"TD-The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v18i1.1263\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TD-The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v18i1.1263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

世界卫生组织(世卫组织)制定了一项公共研究议程,以解决信息流行病问题。在这种情况下,“各种质量的信息在数字和物理环境中泛滥”。世卫组织专家小组对这可能导致消极的卫生行为和对卫生当局和公共卫生反应的信任的侵蚀表示关注。在赞助这一议程时,世卫组织将自己定位为一个可以标记非法叙述(错误信息)的监护人,这些叙述的传播可能导致社会危害。这种“后真相”时刻充斥着2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的突发公共卫生事件。它为研究人员提供了一个分析知识劳动分工的机会,这可以帮助解释“后真相”时刻何时到来。这一划分的第一个COVID-19例子突出了知识在学术背景下的发展。除此之外,还有信息学术或非信息学术研究议程和个人健康责任,其学术贡献者是相似的。相比之下,信使核糖核酸(mRNA)疫苗研究的分工凸显了疫苗制造制药公司在推动和促进相关知识生产方面的作用。跨学科贡献:该分析侧重于不同类型的知识划分中机构利益与目标之间的群体间矛盾。集团内部存在着许多矛盾,并列举了一些集团内部矛盾的例子。确定了一个总体矛盾,即根据国际卫生组织提供的薄弱证据仓促提供的指导很可能使负面的健康和其他社会结果长期存在,而不是改善它们。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Who is watching the World Health Organisation? ‘Post-truth’ moments beyond infodemic research
The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a public research agenda to address infodemics. In these, ‘an overflow of information of varying quality surges across digital and physical environments’. The WHO’s expert panel has raised concerns that this can result in negative health behaviours and erosion of trust in health authorities and public health responses. In sponsoring this agenda, the WHO positioned itself as a custodian that can flag illegitimate narratives (misinformation), the spread of which can potentially result in societal harm. Such ‘post-truth’ moments are rife with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. It provides an opportunity for researchers to analyse divisions in knowledge labour, which can help explain when ‘post-truth’ moments arrive. The first COVID-19 example for this division foregrounds the development of knowledge in an academic context. Added to this is the infodemic or disinfodemic research agenda and personal health responsibility, whose academic contributors are similar. In contrast, the division of labour for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine research foregrounds the role of vaccine manufacturing pharmaceutical companies in driving and promoting related knowledge production.Transdiciplinary Contribution: This analysis focuses on intergroup contradictions between the interests of agencies and their contrasting goals and across different types of knowledge division. Many intergroup contradictions exist, and a few intergroup examples are also described. An overarching contradiction was identified where rushed guidance based on weak evidence from international health organisations may well perpetuate negative health and other societal outcomes rather than ameliorate them.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
27 weeks
×
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