Fact-checking labels have been widely accepted as an effective misinformation correction method. However, there is limited theoretical understanding of fact-checking labels’ impact. This study theorizes that language intensity influences fact-checking label processing and tests this idea through a multi-method design. We first rely on a large-scale observational dataset of fact-checking labels from 7 U.S. fact-checking organizations (N = 33,755) to examine the labels’ language intensity and then use a controlled online experiment in the United States (N = 656) to systematically test the causal effects of fact-checking label intensity (low, moderate, or high) and fact-checking source (professional journalists or artificial intelligence) on perceived message credibility of and the intention to engage with fact-checking messages. We found that two-thirds of existing labels were intense. Such high-intensity labels had null effects on messages’ perceived credibility, yet decreased engagement intention, especially when labels were attributed to AI. Using more intense labels may not be an effective fact-checking approach.
{"title":"The majority of fact-checking labels in the United States are intense and this decreases engagement intention","authors":"Haoning Xue, Jingwen Zhang, Cuihua Shen, Magdalena Wojcieszak","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqae007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqae007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Fact-checking labels have been widely accepted as an effective misinformation correction method. However, there is limited theoretical understanding of fact-checking labels’ impact. This study theorizes that language intensity influences fact-checking label processing and tests this idea through a multi-method design. We first rely on a large-scale observational dataset of fact-checking labels from 7 U.S. fact-checking organizations (N = 33,755) to examine the labels’ language intensity and then use a controlled online experiment in the United States (N = 656) to systematically test the causal effects of fact-checking label intensity (low, moderate, or high) and fact-checking source (professional journalists or artificial intelligence) on perceived message credibility of and the intention to engage with fact-checking messages. We found that two-thirds of existing labels were intense. Such high-intensity labels had null effects on messages’ perceived credibility, yet decreased engagement intention, especially when labels were attributed to AI. Using more intense labels may not be an effective fact-checking approach.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140979383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sarah Lutz, Frank M Schneider, Sabine Reich, Michelle Schimmel, Hannah Oechler, Laura Beinlich
Being socially excluded seriously threatens individuals’ need to belong and emotional well-being. This article investigates to what extent different coping strategies help overcome these detrimental effects: thinking about real-life friends/enemies (i.e., orthosocial relationships, OSRs) and thinking about (dis)liked media characters (i.e., parasocial relationships, PSRs). Across three experiments (NPilot = 129, NStudy1 = 132, NStudy2 = 855), we first induced social exclusion using a virtual ball-tossing game. Afterward, we manipulated different relationship types and valences and compared them to non- or less-relational control conditions. As hypothesized, belongingness and emotional well-being increased from pre- to post-coping. This effect was fully mediated by perceived relationship closeness to the respective person(a). Highlighting that PSRs represent more than surrogates (i.e., secondary replacements of OSR), both relationship types did not differ in coping effectiveness. Moreover, positive relationships were more effective in fulfilling both coping goals than negative ones.
{"title":"Fictional friends and enemies as first aid after ostracism? Experimentally investigating the potential of para-/orthosocial relationships in belongingness need restoration and emotion regulation","authors":"Sarah Lutz, Frank M Schneider, Sabine Reich, Michelle Schimmel, Hannah Oechler, Laura Beinlich","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqae009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqae009","url":null,"abstract":"Being socially excluded seriously threatens individuals’ need to belong and emotional well-being. This article investigates to what extent different coping strategies help overcome these detrimental effects: thinking about real-life friends/enemies (i.e., orthosocial relationships, OSRs) and thinking about (dis)liked media characters (i.e., parasocial relationships, PSRs). Across three experiments (NPilot = 129, NStudy1 = 132, NStudy2 = 855), we first induced social exclusion using a virtual ball-tossing game. Afterward, we manipulated different relationship types and valences and compared them to non- or less-relational control conditions. As hypothesized, belongingness and emotional well-being increased from pre- to post-coping. This effect was fully mediated by perceived relationship closeness to the respective person(a). Highlighting that PSRs represent more than surrogates (i.e., secondary replacements of OSR), both relationship types did not differ in coping effectiveness. Moreover, positive relationships were more effective in fulfilling both coping goals than negative ones.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140931713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Past research suggests that journalists can (unintentionally) exacerbate affective polarization when reporting on growing levels of polarization in society. However, is there a way for journalists to report on the realities of growing political polarization without dividing people further? In our research with five pre-registered experimental studies (N = 3,414), we develop the polarizing content warning which, based on inoculation theory, warns readers that scientific research suggests reading news content about political polarization may drive further affective polarization. Results indicate that the polarizing content warning can be used both with online news articles and on social media sites, and is able to indirectly reduce affective polarization of readers. Additionally, the polarizing content warning is beneficial both when presented alongside news content and beforehand, and reduces readers’ perceptions of societal polarization, in turn reducing affective polarization. This warning allows journalists to report on societal polarization without further dividing people.
{"title":"The polarizing content warning: how the media can reduce affective polarization","authors":"Emily Kubin, Christian von Sikorski","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqae006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqae006","url":null,"abstract":"Past research suggests that journalists can (unintentionally) exacerbate affective polarization when reporting on growing levels of polarization in society. However, is there a way for journalists to report on the realities of growing political polarization without dividing people further? In our research with five pre-registered experimental studies (N = 3,414), we develop the polarizing content warning which, based on inoculation theory, warns readers that scientific research suggests reading news content about political polarization may drive further affective polarization. Results indicate that the polarizing content warning can be used both with online news articles and on social media sites, and is able to indirectly reduce affective polarization of readers. Additionally, the polarizing content warning is beneficial both when presented alongside news content and beforehand, and reduces readers’ perceptions of societal polarization, in turn reducing affective polarization. This warning allows journalists to report on societal polarization without further dividing people.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140931822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although many Internet users have encountered hate speech online, interventions against those incidents are unlikely. To learn more about online counteractions against hate speech, which we conceptualize as a form of online civic participation, we conducted an online survey representing adult German Internet users (N = 2,691). We investigated what distinguishes users who intervene against hate speech, focusing on associations between citizens’ prior counteractions and their personal political characteristics, their attributed responsibility for intervening against hate speech to social and political actors, and their institutional trust. Results indicate that especially Internet users’ personal political characteristics (e.g., internal political efficacy, political opinion leadership) as well as trust in regulative political institutions are positively associated with counteracting against online hate speech. While social media use and previous experience with counteractions increased the likelihood of users counteracting against hate speech, authoritarian attitudes and attributing responsibility for intervening to platform operators decreased it.
{"title":"Who cares? How personal political characteristics are related to online counteractions against hate speech","authors":"Ursula Kristin Schmid, Magdalena Obermaier, Diana Rieger","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqae004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqae004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Although many Internet users have encountered hate speech online, interventions against those incidents are unlikely. To learn more about online counteractions against hate speech, which we conceptualize as a form of online civic participation, we conducted an online survey representing adult German Internet users (N = 2,691). We investigated what distinguishes users who intervene against hate speech, focusing on associations between citizens’ prior counteractions and their personal political characteristics, their attributed responsibility for intervening against hate speech to social and political actors, and their institutional trust. Results indicate that especially Internet users’ personal political characteristics (e.g., internal political efficacy, political opinion leadership) as well as trust in regulative political institutions are positively associated with counteracting against online hate speech. While social media use and previous experience with counteractions increased the likelihood of users counteracting against hate speech, authoritarian attitudes and attributing responsibility for intervening to platform operators decreased it.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140365701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Patient empowerment is an important concept in the study of physician–patient communication and is becoming increasingly popular in medical practices. However, previous studies have yielded inconsistent results regarding its effects. To reconcile these findings and establish a robust connection between empowerment and patient adherence, our study blends dyadic power theory with patient empowerment research. Using mixed methods, including both empirical modeling and controlled experiments, we found that patients who are equally empowered, as compared to those who are under- or over-empowered, exhibit a stronger dominance intention, which subsequently positively affects their adherence and satisfaction. Underlying this nonlinear influence of empowerment on adherence are two independent pathways: one channeling the effect through dominance intention and the other through perceived physician incompetence. Perceived physician’s argument quality represents a boundary condition. This research offers meaningful theoretical and practical implications to the literatures on patient empowerment and adherence by revealing the curvilinear relationship.
{"title":"Is more patient empowerment always better? Examining the moderating role of perceived physician’s argument quality","authors":"Jiajing Zhai, Jinghong Nie","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqae002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqae002","url":null,"abstract":"Patient empowerment is an important concept in the study of physician–patient communication and is becoming increasingly popular in medical practices. However, previous studies have yielded inconsistent results regarding its effects. To reconcile these findings and establish a robust connection between empowerment and patient adherence, our study blends dyadic power theory with patient empowerment research. Using mixed methods, including both empirical modeling and controlled experiments, we found that patients who are equally empowered, as compared to those who are under- or over-empowered, exhibit a stronger dominance intention, which subsequently positively affects their adherence and satisfaction. Underlying this nonlinear influence of empowerment on adherence are two independent pathways: one channeling the effect through dominance intention and the other through perceived physician incompetence. Perceived physician’s argument quality represents a boundary condition. This research offers meaningful theoretical and practical implications to the literatures on patient empowerment and adherence by revealing the curvilinear relationship.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140025298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For many policy issues, people holding the majority opinion often do not act in accordance with their beliefs. While underestimating public opinion appears as a likely cause, correcting this misperception often fails to motivate those in the majority to act. Investigating further, we surveyed a nationally representative sample (N = 1,000) of Republican voters about vaccination. Despite a majority supporting vaccines, Republicans on average underestimated other Republicans’ support. However, this misperception occurred primarily among anti-vaccine Republicans—a group that reported a greater willingness to share their vaccine views. We show how an information environment overrepresented with minority views may discourage majority view holders from speaking out even when they are aware of their majority status. That is, instead of experiencing pluralistic ignorance, those in the majority may be discouraged from expressing their views due to anticipated social conflict from engaging in an information environment disproportionately made up of minority views.
{"title":"Challenges to correcting pluralistic ignorance: false consensus effects, competing information environments, and anticipated social conflict","authors":"Graham N Dixon, Blue Lerner, Samuel Bashian","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqae001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqae001","url":null,"abstract":"For many policy issues, people holding the majority opinion often do not act in accordance with their beliefs. While underestimating public opinion appears as a likely cause, correcting this misperception often fails to motivate those in the majority to act. Investigating further, we surveyed a nationally representative sample (N = 1,000) of Republican voters about vaccination. Despite a majority supporting vaccines, Republicans on average underestimated other Republicans’ support. However, this misperception occurred primarily among anti-vaccine Republicans—a group that reported a greater willingness to share their vaccine views. We show how an information environment overrepresented with minority views may discourage majority view holders from speaking out even when they are aware of their majority status. That is, instead of experiencing pluralistic ignorance, those in the majority may be discouraged from expressing their views due to anticipated social conflict from engaging in an information environment disproportionately made up of minority views.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139678096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An increasing number of communication researchers have noted the potential of quantitative criticalism (QuantCrit) or the use of quantitative approaches to pursue social justice and equity agenda. Nonetheless, how to achieve the goals and ideals of QuantCrit in communication studies still largely remains uncharted terrain. This article offers five concrete suggestions for how researchers can bring critical consciousness to quantitative communication research: (a) broadening and diversifying the scope of communication research, (b) (re)framing research questions with a social justice orientation, (c) critiquing dominant narratives and centering the counternarratives, (d) incorporating intersectionality to address marginalization, and (e) employing statistical methods that illuminate interdependence, systems, and power dynamics. This article seeks to enrich the discussion on ways to embrace QuantCrit in communication research to revitalize perspectives and means for identifying and addressing inequalities, and eventually to advance transformative scholarship.
{"title":"Quantitative criticalism for social justice and equity-oriented communication research","authors":"Youllee Kim","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad048","url":null,"abstract":"An increasing number of communication researchers have noted the potential of quantitative criticalism (QuantCrit) or the use of quantitative approaches to pursue social justice and equity agenda. Nonetheless, how to achieve the goals and ideals of QuantCrit in communication studies still largely remains uncharted terrain. This article offers five concrete suggestions for how researchers can bring critical consciousness to quantitative communication research: (a) broadening and diversifying the scope of communication research, (b) (re)framing research questions with a social justice orientation, (c) critiquing dominant narratives and centering the counternarratives, (d) incorporating intersectionality to address marginalization, and (e) employing statistical methods that illuminate interdependence, systems, and power dynamics. This article seeks to enrich the discussion on ways to embrace QuantCrit in communication research to revitalize perspectives and means for identifying and addressing inequalities, and eventually to advance transformative scholarship.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139584756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T. Afifi, Andy J. Merolla, Walid A. Afifi, Chloe Gonzales, Abdullah S Salehuddin, Jade Salmon, Veronica Wilson
This study investigates individuals’ perceptions of reciprocal relationship maintenance in their marriage over time during the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19). Using a Qualtrics Panel, married individuals (N = 3,601) completed online surveys at four time points during the initial 3 months of the pandemic. Both the between- and within-person effects were consistent with the theory of resilience and relational load. On average, married individuals who reported giving greater relationship maintenance to their partners also reported receiving greater relationship maintenance from them, as well as reported greater communal orientation and flourishing and lower relational load. Giving relationship maintenance to one’s partner was a stronger predictor of receiving maintenance than the reverse, even though both influenced each other. Giving relationship maintenance to one’s partner was also a stronger and more consistent predictor of communal orientation, relational load, and flourishing than maintenance received. Finally, relational load in one’s marriage was the strongest predictor of flourishing.
{"title":"Individuals’ perceptions of reciprocal relationship maintenance in their marriage and its impact on communal orientation, relational load, and ability to flourish","authors":"T. Afifi, Andy J. Merolla, Walid A. Afifi, Chloe Gonzales, Abdullah S Salehuddin, Jade Salmon, Veronica Wilson","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad056","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study investigates individuals’ perceptions of reciprocal relationship maintenance in their marriage over time during the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19). Using a Qualtrics Panel, married individuals (N = 3,601) completed online surveys at four time points during the initial 3 months of the pandemic. Both the between- and within-person effects were consistent with the theory of resilience and relational load. On average, married individuals who reported giving greater relationship maintenance to their partners also reported receiving greater relationship maintenance from them, as well as reported greater communal orientation and flourishing and lower relational load. Giving relationship maintenance to one’s partner was a stronger predictor of receiving maintenance than the reverse, even though both influenced each other. Giving relationship maintenance to one’s partner was also a stronger and more consistent predictor of communal orientation, relational load, and flourishing than maintenance received. Finally, relational load in one’s marriage was the strongest predictor of flourishing.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139444562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
White participants in the United States were asked to imagine having a hypothetical conversation about race-specific issues with either a White or Black discussant who was described as either a Republican or Democrat. Participants’ expectations of encountering negative outcomes during the conversation, and their intentions to avoid the conversation, were measured. The black sheep effect posits that harmful ingroup members are evaluated more negatively than comparable outgroup members because they threaten the ingroup’s social identity. Findings indicate discussants’ partisanship is more important than their race in guiding respondents’ expectations of and desire to engage in cross-group conversations. Whites expected more negative outcomes and intended to avoid conversations more when they imagined talking about race with White discussants from a different political party than they did Black discussants from a different party, Black discussants from the same party, or White discussants from the same party. Intergroup threat and social identity theories are discussed.
{"title":"Partisanship supersedes race: effects of discussant race and partisanship on Whites’ willingness to engage in race-specific conversations","authors":"Osei Appiah, William P Eveland, Christina M Henry","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad055","url":null,"abstract":"White participants in the United States were asked to imagine having a hypothetical conversation about race-specific issues with either a White or Black discussant who was described as either a Republican or Democrat. Participants’ expectations of encountering negative outcomes during the conversation, and their intentions to avoid the conversation, were measured. The black sheep effect posits that harmful ingroup members are evaluated more negatively than comparable outgroup members because they threaten the ingroup’s social identity. Findings indicate discussants’ partisanship is more important than their race in guiding respondents’ expectations of and desire to engage in cross-group conversations. Whites expected more negative outcomes and intended to avoid conversations more when they imagined talking about race with White discussants from a different political party than they did Black discussants from a different party, Black discussants from the same party, or White discussants from the same party. Intergroup threat and social identity theories are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138742922","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, we present an alternative framework that resists hegemonic social sciences within data-driven communication theorizing through a culture-centered approach (CCA). Building on the CCA in co-creating voice infrastructures at the margins, we argue that data justice requires transforming interpretive data framings, disrupting the hegemonic registers of knowledge production constituted around data, and working with/through data to challenge the structures of capitalism and colonialism that circulate the practices of exploitation and extraction. We build upon community-engaged projects emergent from the CCA in/with/from the Global South to propose the CODE^SHIFT Model, grounded in principles of equity-mindedness, collective impact, purposiveness, and systemic change. It highlights what data justice looks like in various stages of community-led transformation: identifying pressing social problems; bridging cross-sector coalitions and partnerships; organizing for collective impact activities; and sustaining capacity building. We reframe data as pluriversal, embodied, sacred, sovereign, disruptive, solidarity, and impossibility.
{"title":"The CODE^SHIFT model: a data justice framework for collective impact and social transformation","authors":"Srividya Ramasubramanian, Mohan J Dutta","doi":"10.1093/hcr/hqad050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad050","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we present an alternative framework that resists hegemonic social sciences within data-driven communication theorizing through a culture-centered approach (CCA). Building on the CCA in co-creating voice infrastructures at the margins, we argue that data justice requires transforming interpretive data framings, disrupting the hegemonic registers of knowledge production constituted around data, and working with/through data to challenge the structures of capitalism and colonialism that circulate the practices of exploitation and extraction. We build upon community-engaged projects emergent from the CCA in/with/from the Global South to propose the CODE^SHIFT Model, grounded in principles of equity-mindedness, collective impact, purposiveness, and systemic change. It highlights what data justice looks like in various stages of community-led transformation: identifying pressing social problems; bridging cross-sector coalitions and partnerships; organizing for collective impact activities; and sustaining capacity building. We reframe data as pluriversal, embodied, sacred, sovereign, disruptive, solidarity, and impossibility.","PeriodicalId":51377,"journal":{"name":"Human Communication Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138581039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：