‘Zoonati’ vs. ‘epistemic tresspasers’: Science identity in contentious online advocacy campaigns on the origins of SARS-CoV-2

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Social Studies of Science Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1177/03063127241294028
Lynn Horton
{"title":"‘Zoonati’ vs. ‘epistemic tresspasers’: Science identity in contentious online advocacy campaigns on the origins of SARS-CoV-2","authors":"Lynn Horton","doi":"10.1177/03063127241294028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores how science is mobilized as a collective identity, normative ideal, and instrumental tactic in contentious online global advocacy campaigns on the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It incorporates qualitative analysis of over 2300 public Twitter postings by core zoonosis and lab origin proponents who identify as scientists. These online exchanges provide a real-time window into how the collective identity of scientist is constructed and mobilized as a master frame. Similarly, this paper explores ways in which the boundaries of science, conspiracy, and politics are set and contested in a context of complex and fast-moving global events.","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":"158 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127241294028","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article explores how science is mobilized as a collective identity, normative ideal, and instrumental tactic in contentious online global advocacy campaigns on the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It incorporates qualitative analysis of over 2300 public Twitter postings by core zoonosis and lab origin proponents who identify as scientists. These online exchanges provide a real-time window into how the collective identity of scientist is constructed and mobilized as a master frame. Similarly, this paper explores ways in which the boundaries of science, conspiracy, and politics are set and contested in a context of complex and fast-moving global events.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Zoonati "与 "践踏认识论者":关于 SARS-CoV-2 起源的有争议的在线宣传活动中的科学认同
本文探讨了在有关 SARS-CoV-2 病毒起源的有争议的全球在线宣传活动中,科学是如何作为一种集体身份、规范性理想和工具性策略被动员起来的。本研究结合了对 2300 多条推特公开帖子的定性分析,这些帖子由以科学家身份自居的人畜共患病和实验室起源的核心支持者发布。这些在线交流为我们提供了一个实时窗口,让我们了解科学家这一集体身份是如何被构建和调动为一个主框架的。同样,本文还探讨了在复杂、快速发展的全球事件背景下,科学、阴谋和政治的界限是如何设定和争夺的。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
What work does ‘contamination’ do? An agential realist account of oil wastewater and radium in groundwater Constructing digital assets through blockchain technologies? Unpacking the techno-economic configuration of non-fungible tokens. ‘Zoonati’ vs. ‘epistemic tresspasers’: Science identity in contentious online advocacy campaigns on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 Anthropocene angst: Authentic geology and stratigraphic sincerity Proverbial economies of STS
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1