生物黑客COVID-19:分享并不总是关心

IF 5.1 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Public Policy & Marketing Pub Date : 2023-06-26 DOI:10.1177/07439156231183001
Vitor M. Lima, R. Belk
{"title":"生物黑客COVID-19:分享并不总是关心","authors":"Vitor M. Lima, R. Belk","doi":"10.1177/07439156231183001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This netnographic study investigates how and why people engage with citizen science initiatives and share insights from them in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, this research focuses on biohacking, a form of citizen science in which individuals conduct innovative but controversial self-experiments. In a context of ideological, behavioral, and emotional tensions, biohackers seek to do what they consider to be “the right thing” for themselves and others. Some biohackers believed that governmental “solutions” for the pandemic were not “correct” or “the best” and shared scientifically unproven protocols to develop, for example, homemade vaccines. However, in many cases, biohackers may unintentionally create harm while intending to do good by sharing such “solutions.” In this vein, this research shows that sharing is not always caring, as biohacking related to COVID-19 exemplifies. Although sharing is a form of prosocial behavior, it has different motivations that may invert its epistemic prosocial orientation to an antisocial one. This orientation results in new challenges, as well as strengthening old challenges, for policy makers facing public crises, such as pandemics. The prescriptions for policy makers offered in this article aim to help reduce such an impact on governmental efforts to tackle collective crises.","PeriodicalId":51437,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Policy & Marketing","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biohacking COVID-19: Sharing Is Not Always Caring\",\"authors\":\"Vitor M. Lima, R. Belk\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/07439156231183001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This netnographic study investigates how and why people engage with citizen science initiatives and share insights from them in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, this research focuses on biohacking, a form of citizen science in which individuals conduct innovative but controversial self-experiments. In a context of ideological, behavioral, and emotional tensions, biohackers seek to do what they consider to be “the right thing” for themselves and others. Some biohackers believed that governmental “solutions” for the pandemic were not “correct” or “the best” and shared scientifically unproven protocols to develop, for example, homemade vaccines. However, in many cases, biohackers may unintentionally create harm while intending to do good by sharing such “solutions.” In this vein, this research shows that sharing is not always caring, as biohacking related to COVID-19 exemplifies. Although sharing is a form of prosocial behavior, it has different motivations that may invert its epistemic prosocial orientation to an antisocial one. This orientation results in new challenges, as well as strengthening old challenges, for policy makers facing public crises, such as pandemics. The prescriptions for policy makers offered in this article aim to help reduce such an impact on governmental efforts to tackle collective crises.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Policy & Marketing\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public Policy & Marketing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156231183001\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Policy & Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156231183001","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这项网络研究调查了人们在COVID-19大流行背景下如何以及为什么参与公民科学倡议,并分享他们的见解。具体来说,这项研究侧重于生物黑客,这是一种公民科学形式,个人在其中进行创新但有争议的自我实验。在意识形态、行为和情感紧张的背景下,生物黑客寻求做他们认为对自己和他人“正确的事情”。一些生物黑客认为,政府对大流行的“解决方案”不是“正确的”或“最好的”,并分享了未经科学证明的开发方案,例如自制疫苗。然而,在许多情况下,生物黑客可能无意中造成伤害,同时打算通过分享这些“解决方案”来做好事。在这种情况下,这项研究表明,分享并不总是关心,就像与COVID-19相关的生物黑客一样。虽然分享是一种亲社会行为,但它有不同的动机,可能使其认知上的亲社会取向转变为反社会取向。这一方向给面临公共危机(如流行病)的决策者带来了新的挑战,并加强了旧的挑战。本文为政策制定者提供的处方旨在帮助减少这种对政府解决集体危机努力的影响。
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
Biohacking COVID-19: Sharing Is Not Always Caring
This netnographic study investigates how and why people engage with citizen science initiatives and share insights from them in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, this research focuses on biohacking, a form of citizen science in which individuals conduct innovative but controversial self-experiments. In a context of ideological, behavioral, and emotional tensions, biohackers seek to do what they consider to be “the right thing” for themselves and others. Some biohackers believed that governmental “solutions” for the pandemic were not “correct” or “the best” and shared scientifically unproven protocols to develop, for example, homemade vaccines. However, in many cases, biohackers may unintentionally create harm while intending to do good by sharing such “solutions.” In this vein, this research shows that sharing is not always caring, as biohacking related to COVID-19 exemplifies. Although sharing is a form of prosocial behavior, it has different motivations that may invert its epistemic prosocial orientation to an antisocial one. This orientation results in new challenges, as well as strengthening old challenges, for policy makers facing public crises, such as pandemics. The prescriptions for policy makers offered in this article aim to help reduce such an impact on governmental efforts to tackle collective crises.
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
10.20
自引率
15.40%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Journal of Public Policy & Marketing welcomes manuscripts from diverse disciplines to offer a range of perspectives. We encourage submissions from individuals with varied backgrounds, such as marketing, communications, economics, consumer affairs, law, public policy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, or philosophy. The journal prioritizes well-documented, well-reasoned, balanced, and relevant manuscripts, regardless of the author's field of expertise.
期刊最新文献
EXPRESS: Cultivating Sustainable Return Migration to Lebanon: Supporting Young Migrants through Marketing Systems Amidst Ongoing Conflict EXPRESS: Resourcing Hope: Refugee Agentive Consumption Acts in Protracted Displacement EXPRESS: Response Satisficing across Online Data Sources: Effects of Satisficing on Data Quality and Policy-Relevant Results Social Impact at Scale: Reflections on the Recommendations of the TCR Impact Task Force Commentary on “Transitioning to New Paradigms for Societally Impactful Research: Recommendations from the TCR Impact Task Force and an Agenda”
×
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