Barriers to Participation in Polarized Online Discussions About Covid-19 and the Russo-Ukrainian War

IF 2.7 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Media and Communication Pub Date : 2023-06-06 DOI:10.17645/mac.v11i3.6657
M. Novotná, Alena Macková, Karolína Bieliková, Patrícia G. C. Rossini
{"title":"Barriers to Participation in Polarized Online Discussions About Covid-19 and the Russo-Ukrainian War","authors":"M. Novotná, Alena Macková, Karolína Bieliková, Patrícia G. C. Rossini","doi":"10.17645/mac.v11i3.6657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Even though social networking sites create a unique online public space for the exchange of opinions, only a small share of citizens participate in online discussions. Moreover, research has depicted current online discussions as highly uncivil, hostile, and polarized, and the number of heated discussions has escalated in the last two years because of health, social, and security crises. This study investigates the perceived barriers to participation in Facebook discussions, focusing on two topics: the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russo-Ukrainian War. It explores the role that the negativity of these online discussions has on participation. To investigate the perspectives of users and their personal experiences with online discussions in times of crisis, we apply a qualitative research method and interviews with participants. We collected and analyzed 50 semi-structured interviews with Czech Facebook users who participated in discussions during the spring of 2021 (i.e., Covid-19) and the spring of 2022 (i.e., Russo-Ukrainian War). The results show that, after initial mobilization at the beginning of the pandemic, the crisis reinforced several crucial barriers to participation in discussions due to the perceived persistence of polarization (e.g., the spread of disinformation, the bipolar character of discussions, negative perception of opponents), which subsequently spread to other areas and issues. The data also implies that these barriers tend to demobilize less active participants, those who do not have strong opinions, and participants who think the subject matter is not worth the heated exchange of opinions.","PeriodicalId":18348,"journal":{"name":"Media and Communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Media and Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i3.6657","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: 2

Abstract

Even though social networking sites create a unique online public space for the exchange of opinions, only a small share of citizens participate in online discussions. Moreover, research has depicted current online discussions as highly uncivil, hostile, and polarized, and the number of heated discussions has escalated in the last two years because of health, social, and security crises. This study investigates the perceived barriers to participation in Facebook discussions, focusing on two topics: the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russo-Ukrainian War. It explores the role that the negativity of these online discussions has on participation. To investigate the perspectives of users and their personal experiences with online discussions in times of crisis, we apply a qualitative research method and interviews with participants. We collected and analyzed 50 semi-structured interviews with Czech Facebook users who participated in discussions during the spring of 2021 (i.e., Covid-19) and the spring of 2022 (i.e., Russo-Ukrainian War). The results show that, after initial mobilization at the beginning of the pandemic, the crisis reinforced several crucial barriers to participation in discussions due to the perceived persistence of polarization (e.g., the spread of disinformation, the bipolar character of discussions, negative perception of opponents), which subsequently spread to other areas and issues. The data also implies that these barriers tend to demobilize less active participants, those who do not have strong opinions, and participants who think the subject matter is not worth the heated exchange of opinions.
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
参与关于新冠肺炎和俄乌战争的两极在线讨论的障碍
尽管社交网站为交换意见创造了一个独特的在线公共空间,但只有一小部分公民参与在线讨论。此外,研究表明,当前的在线讨论非常不文明、充满敌意和两极分化,由于健康、社会和安全危机,激烈讨论的数量在过去两年中有所增加。本研究调查了参与Facebook讨论的感知障碍,重点关注两个主题:Covid-19大流行和俄罗斯-乌克兰战争。它探讨了这些在线讨论的消极性对参与的作用。为了调查用户的观点和他们在危机时期在线讨论的个人经历,我们采用了定性研究方法和对参与者的访谈。我们收集并分析了对捷克Facebook用户的50个半结构化访谈,这些用户在2021年春季(即Covid-19)和2022年春季(即俄乌战争)期间参与了讨论。结果表明,在大流行病开始时进行初步动员之后,危机加剧了参与讨论的几个关键障碍,因为人们认为两极分化持续存在(例如,虚假信息的传播、讨论的两极化特征、对对手的负面看法),这些障碍随后蔓延到其他领域和问题。数据还表明,这些障碍往往会使不太积极的参与者,那些没有强烈意见的参与者,以及那些认为主题不值得激烈交换意见的参与者退出。
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
Media and Communication
Media and Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
3.20%
发文量
108
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183-2439) is an international open access journal dedicated to a wide variety of basic and applied research in communication and its related fields
期刊最新文献
Media-Tech Companies as Agents of Innovation: From Radical to Incremental Innovation in a Cluster Legal and Ethical Regulation in Slovakia and Its Relation to Deliberative Communication Symbiosis or Precarity? Digital Platforms’ Role on Australian Digital-Native Journalism and Their Funding Models The Awkward Moment When You Agree With News Outlets That You Normally Distrust Can’t Fix This? Innovation, Social Change, and Solutionism in Design Thinking
×
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