IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY Sociologisk Forskning Pub Date : 2021-06-04 DOI:10.37062/sf.58.22105
Linda Kvarnlöf
{"title":"”Bara framtiden kan visa om vi gör det här rätt”","authors":"Linda Kvarnlöf","doi":"10.37062/sf.58.22105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Syftet med den har artikeln ar att studera hur manniskor skapar mening av den svenska coronastrategin samt hur de implementerar denna strategi i sina vardagsliv. Artikeln bygger pa en intervjustudie med atta personer boendes i Stockholm. Samtliga intervjuer genomfordes under pandemins initiala fas (april–maj 2020). Artikeln tar sin teoretiska utgangspunkt i ett risksociologiskt intresse for hur manniskor skapar mening kring osakerheter, har exemplifierat genom en vardag praglad av coronapandemin och den svenska strategin for att hantera denna. Resultaten visar att intervjupersonerna stodjer den svenska strategin och dess vetenskapliga grund samtidigt som de upplever en stor osakerhet infor hur strategin ska omsattas i vardagliga praktiker. Denna ambivalens kan forstas i relation till Becks risksamhalle och hans antaganden om manniskans paradoxala installning till vetenskap och riskexperter samt mot bakgrund av Tulloch och Luptons sociokulturella perspektiv pa vardag och risk.Alternate abstract:The purpose of this article is to study how people make sense of the \"Swedish strategy\" in dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic as well as how they implement this strategy in their everyday life. The article is based on an interview study with eight people living in Stockholm and the interviews were all performed during the initial phase of the pandemic (April–May 2020). Theoretically, this article takes its point of departure in a sociological interest for how people make sense of uncertainty, here exemplified by everyday life during the Covid-19 pandemic. The results show that the interviewees support the Swedish strategy and its scientific ground at the same time as they experience uncertainty in how this strategy should be transformed into everyday practices. This ambivalence can be understood in relation to Beck's \"risk society\" and his thesis about human's paradoxical approach to science and risk experts as well as in relation to Tulloch and Lupton's sociocultural perspective on risk and everyday life.","PeriodicalId":43127,"journal":{"name":"Sociologisk Forskning","volume":"58 1","pages":"133-152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologisk Forskning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37062/sf.58.22105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文的目的是研究人们如何创造瑞典电晕战略的意义,以及他们如何在日常生活中实施这一战略。这篇文章是基于对居住在斯德哥尔摩的八个人的访谈研究。所有采访都是在疫情初期(2020年4月至5月)进行的。这篇文章的理论起点是风险社会学的兴趣,即人们如何围绕不确定性创造意义,这一点在日常生活中得到了体现,人们吹嘘新冠病毒大流行和瑞典应对策略。结果表明,受访者支持瑞典的战略及其科学基础,同时对如何将该战略转化为日常实践存在很大的不确定性。这种矛盾心理可以从贝克的风险社区和他对人与科学和风险专家的矛盾关系的假设中理解,也可以从图洛克和卢普顿对日常生活和风险的社会文化观点中理解。备选摘要:本文的目的是研究人们如何理解应对新冠肺炎大流行的“瑞典战略”,以及他们如何在日常生活中实施这一战略。这篇文章基于对居住在斯德哥尔摩的八个人的采访研究,这些采访都是在疫情初期(2020年4月至5月)进行的。从理论上讲,这篇文章的出发点是对人们如何理解不确定性的社会学兴趣,这里以新冠肺炎大流行期间的日常生活为例。结果表明,采访支持瑞典的战略及其科学基础,同时他们也不确定如何将这一战略转化为日常实践。这种矛盾心理可以从贝克的“风险社会”和他关于人类对待科学和风险专家的矛盾方法的论文中理解,也可以从图洛克和卢普顿对风险和日常生活的社会文化视角中理解。
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
”Bara framtiden kan visa om vi gör det här rätt”
Syftet med den har artikeln ar att studera hur manniskor skapar mening av den svenska coronastrategin samt hur de implementerar denna strategi i sina vardagsliv. Artikeln bygger pa en intervjustudie med atta personer boendes i Stockholm. Samtliga intervjuer genomfordes under pandemins initiala fas (april–maj 2020). Artikeln tar sin teoretiska utgangspunkt i ett risksociologiskt intresse for hur manniskor skapar mening kring osakerheter, har exemplifierat genom en vardag praglad av coronapandemin och den svenska strategin for att hantera denna. Resultaten visar att intervjupersonerna stodjer den svenska strategin och dess vetenskapliga grund samtidigt som de upplever en stor osakerhet infor hur strategin ska omsattas i vardagliga praktiker. Denna ambivalens kan forstas i relation till Becks risksamhalle och hans antaganden om manniskans paradoxala installning till vetenskap och riskexperter samt mot bakgrund av Tulloch och Luptons sociokulturella perspektiv pa vardag och risk.Alternate abstract:The purpose of this article is to study how people make sense of the "Swedish strategy" in dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic as well as how they implement this strategy in their everyday life. The article is based on an interview study with eight people living in Stockholm and the interviews were all performed during the initial phase of the pandemic (April–May 2020). Theoretically, this article takes its point of departure in a sociological interest for how people make sense of uncertainty, here exemplified by everyday life during the Covid-19 pandemic. The results show that the interviewees support the Swedish strategy and its scientific ground at the same time as they experience uncertainty in how this strategy should be transformed into everyday practices. This ambivalence can be understood in relation to Beck's "risk society" and his thesis about human's paradoxical approach to science and risk experts as well as in relation to Tulloch and Lupton's sociocultural perspective on risk and everyday life.
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
Toward a resonant society Elton Chan. The Last Urban Frontier. Commodification of Public Space and the Right to the City in Insurgent Hong Kong. Lund University, 2023. PhD Thesis. Sociologisk Forskning ger ut sin 60:e årgång! Michael Carolan, The Sociology of Food and Agriculture, tredje utgåvan. Routledge 2021. Humboldt i Sverige?
×
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