混合葬礼:在线出席如何促进和阻碍参与

IF 0.7 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Mortality Pub Date : 2023-04-17 DOI:10.1080/13576275.2023.2201421
Jennifer Riley, V. Entwistle, A. Arnason, L. Locock, P. Maccagno, A. Pattenden, Rebecca Crozier
{"title":"混合葬礼:在线出席如何促进和阻碍参与","authors":"Jennifer Riley, V. Entwistle, A. Arnason, L. Locock, P. Maccagno, A. Pattenden, Rebecca Crozier","doi":"10.1080/13576275.2023.2201421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Livestreaming and filming death rites and funeral ceremonies to enable remote engagement proliferated rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and many expect these options to remain prevalent going forward. This paper draws on interviews with a diverse UK sample of 68 bereaved people, funeral directors, officiants and celebrants. It illustrates how, and explains why, people's experiences and evaluations of hybrid funerals can vary. In a context when in-person gatherings were limited, hybridisation played a valuable role in enabling more people to engage with funerals. However, virtual attendance was often considered less satisfying than in-person attendance because it did not enable people to participate well in the funeral activities that mattered to them or to participate with others as they would in person. Scope for participation was partly contingent on the functionality and use made of technology, including whether and which steps were taken to facilitate engagement and a sense of connection for those joining online. People's evaluations of hybrid funerals could also reflect their relationships to the deceased and their frames of reference–for example, whether they were comparing virtual attendance to attending in person, or to being unable to attend at all, or to an overwhelmingly large funeral. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.","PeriodicalId":40045,"journal":{"name":"Mortality","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hybrid funerals: how online attendance facilitates and impedes participation\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Riley, V. Entwistle, A. Arnason, L. Locock, P. Maccagno, A. Pattenden, Rebecca Crozier\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13576275.2023.2201421\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Livestreaming and filming death rites and funeral ceremonies to enable remote engagement proliferated rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and many expect these options to remain prevalent going forward. This paper draws on interviews with a diverse UK sample of 68 bereaved people, funeral directors, officiants and celebrants. It illustrates how, and explains why, people's experiences and evaluations of hybrid funerals can vary. In a context when in-person gatherings were limited, hybridisation played a valuable role in enabling more people to engage with funerals. However, virtual attendance was often considered less satisfying than in-person attendance because it did not enable people to participate well in the funeral activities that mattered to them or to participate with others as they would in person. Scope for participation was partly contingent on the functionality and use made of technology, including whether and which steps were taken to facilitate engagement and a sense of connection for those joining online. People's evaluations of hybrid funerals could also reflect their relationships to the deceased and their frames of reference–for example, whether they were comparing virtual attendance to attending in person, or to being unable to attend at all, or to an overwhelmingly large funeral. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40045,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mortality\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mortality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13576275.2023.2201421\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mortality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13576275.2023.2201421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,直播和拍摄死亡仪式和葬礼仪式以实现远程参与的做法迅速增加,许多人预计这些选择在未来仍将普遍存在。本文借鉴了采访不同的英国样本68失去亲人的人,殡仪馆馆长,司仪和司仪。它说明了人们对混合葬礼的体验和评价如何以及为什么会有所不同。在面对面的聚会受到限制的情况下,混合在使更多人参与葬礼方面发挥了宝贵的作用。然而,虚拟出席通常被认为不如亲自出席令人满意,因为它不能使人们很好地参与对他们重要的葬礼活动,也不能像亲自出席一样与他人一起参与。参与的范围部分取决于技术的功能和使用,包括是否以及采取了哪些步骤来促进参与和在线加入的人的联系感。人们对混合葬礼的评价也可以反映出他们与死者的关系和他们的参照系——例如,他们是否将虚拟出席与亲自出席、或根本无法参加、或压倒性的大型葬礼进行比较。©2023作者。由Informa UK Limited出版,以Taylor & Francis Group的名义进行交易。
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
Hybrid funerals: how online attendance facilitates and impedes participation
Livestreaming and filming death rites and funeral ceremonies to enable remote engagement proliferated rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and many expect these options to remain prevalent going forward. This paper draws on interviews with a diverse UK sample of 68 bereaved people, funeral directors, officiants and celebrants. It illustrates how, and explains why, people's experiences and evaluations of hybrid funerals can vary. In a context when in-person gatherings were limited, hybridisation played a valuable role in enabling more people to engage with funerals. However, virtual attendance was often considered less satisfying than in-person attendance because it did not enable people to participate well in the funeral activities that mattered to them or to participate with others as they would in person. Scope for participation was partly contingent on the functionality and use made of technology, including whether and which steps were taken to facilitate engagement and a sense of connection for those joining online. People's evaluations of hybrid funerals could also reflect their relationships to the deceased and their frames of reference–for example, whether they were comparing virtual attendance to attending in person, or to being unable to attend at all, or to an overwhelmingly large funeral. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
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
Mortality
Mortality Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: A foremost international, interdisciplinary journal that has relevance both for academics and professionals concerned with human mortality. Mortality is essential reading for those in the field of death studies and in a range of disciplines, including anthropology, art, classics, history, literature, medicine, music, socio-legal studies, social policy, sociology, philosophy, psychology and religious studies. The journal is also of special interest and relevance for those professionally or voluntarily engaged in the health and caring professions, in bereavement counselling, the funeral industries, and in central and local government.
期刊最新文献
Death enchanted: comparing conventional and conservation burial in the United States with a technological mediation lens Can death be casual: the paradox in Death Café blogs Respect, agency, and posthumous wishes Caring for the dead at home: an exploratory study of home deathcare in England The communicative functions of epitaphs in the linguistic landscape of Libingan ng mga Bayani (Heroes’ Cemetery), Philippines
×
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