社交媒体反对 2022/2023 年英国护士罢工。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING Nursing Inquiry Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-11 DOI:10.1111/nin.12600
Erika Kalocsányiová, Ryan Essex, Sorcha A Brophy, Veena Sriram
{"title":"社交媒体反对 2022/2023 年英国护士罢工。","authors":"Erika Kalocsányiová, Ryan Essex, Sorcha A Brophy, Veena Sriram","doi":"10.1111/nin.12600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous research has established that the success of strikes, and social movements more broadly, depends on their ability to garner support from the public. However, there is scant published research investigating the response of the public to strike action by healthcare workers. In this study, we address this gap through a study of public responses to UK nursing strikes in 2022-2023, using a data set drawn from Twitter of more than 2300 publicly available tweets. We focus on negative tweets, investigating which societal discourses social media users draw on to oppose strike action by nurses. Using a combination of corpus-based approaches and discourse analysis, we identified five categories of opposition: (i) discourse discrediting nurses; (ii) discourse discrediting strikes by nurses; (iii) discourse on the National Health System; (iv) discourse about the fairness of strikers' demands and (v) discourse about potential harmful impact. Our findings show how social media users operationalise wider societal discourses about the nursing profession (e.g., associations with care, gender, vocation and sacrifice) as well as recent crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic to justify their opposition. The results also provide valuable insights into misconceptions about nursing, strike action and patient harm, which can inform strategies for public communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":49727,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":"e12600"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social media opposition to the 2022/2023 UK nurse strikes.\",\"authors\":\"Erika Kalocsányiová, Ryan Essex, Sorcha A Brophy, Veena Sriram\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/nin.12600\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Previous research has established that the success of strikes, and social movements more broadly, depends on their ability to garner support from the public. However, there is scant published research investigating the response of the public to strike action by healthcare workers. In this study, we address this gap through a study of public responses to UK nursing strikes in 2022-2023, using a data set drawn from Twitter of more than 2300 publicly available tweets. We focus on negative tweets, investigating which societal discourses social media users draw on to oppose strike action by nurses. Using a combination of corpus-based approaches and discourse analysis, we identified five categories of opposition: (i) discourse discrediting nurses; (ii) discourse discrediting strikes by nurses; (iii) discourse on the National Health System; (iv) discourse about the fairness of strikers' demands and (v) discourse about potential harmful impact. Our findings show how social media users operationalise wider societal discourses about the nursing profession (e.g., associations with care, gender, vocation and sacrifice) as well as recent crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic to justify their opposition. The results also provide valuable insights into misconceptions about nursing, strike action and patient harm, which can inform strategies for public communication.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nursing Inquiry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e12600\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nursing Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12600\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12600","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以往的研究表明,罢工以及更广泛的社会运动能否取得成功,取决于它们能否获得公众的支持。然而,关于公众对医护人员罢工行动的反应的公开研究却很少。在本研究中,我们利用从推特(Twitter)上获取的 2300 多条公开推文数据集,研究了 2022-2023 年公众对英国护士罢工的反应,从而弥补了这一空白。我们重点关注负面推文,调查社交媒体用户利用哪些社会话语来反对护士的罢工行动。结合语料库方法和话语分析,我们确定了五类反对意见:(i) 诋毁护士的话语;(ii) 诋毁护士罢工的话语;(iii) 关于国家卫生系统的话语;(iv) 关于罢工者要求公平性的话语;(v) 关于潜在有害影响的话语。我们的研究结果表明,社交媒体用户是如何利用有关护理职业的更广泛的社会论述(如与护理、性别、天职和牺牲的联系)以及最近的危机(如 Covid-19 大流行病)来为他们的反对辩护的。研究结果还对有关护理、罢工行动和患者伤害的误解提供了有价值的见解,可为公众沟通策略提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Social media opposition to the 2022/2023 UK nurse strikes.

Previous research has established that the success of strikes, and social movements more broadly, depends on their ability to garner support from the public. However, there is scant published research investigating the response of the public to strike action by healthcare workers. In this study, we address this gap through a study of public responses to UK nursing strikes in 2022-2023, using a data set drawn from Twitter of more than 2300 publicly available tweets. We focus on negative tweets, investigating which societal discourses social media users draw on to oppose strike action by nurses. Using a combination of corpus-based approaches and discourse analysis, we identified five categories of opposition: (i) discourse discrediting nurses; (ii) discourse discrediting strikes by nurses; (iii) discourse on the National Health System; (iv) discourse about the fairness of strikers' demands and (v) discourse about potential harmful impact. Our findings show how social media users operationalise wider societal discourses about the nursing profession (e.g., associations with care, gender, vocation and sacrifice) as well as recent crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic to justify their opposition. The results also provide valuable insights into misconceptions about nursing, strike action and patient harm, which can inform strategies for public communication.

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
Nursing Inquiry
Nursing Inquiry 医学-护理
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
61
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Inquiry aims to stimulate examination of nursing''s current and emerging practices, conditions and contexts within an expanding international community of ideas. The journal aspires to excite thinking and stimulate action toward a preferred future for health and healthcare by encouraging critical reflection and lively debate on matters affecting and influenced by nursing from a range of disciplinary angles, scientific perspectives, analytic approaches, social locations and philosophical positions.
期刊最新文献
Nurses' Advocacy in Intensive Care: What Insights Can Nurses' Experiences During the Pandemic Reveal? On Skin, Monsters and Boundaries: What The Silence of the Lambs can Teach Nurses About Abjection. The Everyday Phenomenology of Bedside Insight: A Response to Shira Birnbaum. Thinking Theoretically in Nursing Research-Positionality and Reflexivity in an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) Study. Health Professionals on Cross-Sectoral Collaboration Between Mental Health Hospitals and Municipalities: A Critical Discourse Analysis.
×
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