事实胜于雄辩:Reddit 上关于 COVID-19 的讨论中的社区规范、对话和证据实践。

IF 3.5 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-04 DOI:10.1177/09636625231178428
Mark Felton, Ellen Middaugh, Henry Fan
{"title":"事实胜于雄辩:Reddit 上关于 COVID-19 的讨论中的社区规范、对话和证据实践。","authors":"Mark Felton, Ellen Middaugh, Henry Fan","doi":"10.1177/09636625231178428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present study sought to explore the distinct discourse norms and evidentiary practices in discussions of COVID-19 in four subcommunities on Reddit. Qualitative analysis found that communities differed in the degree to which they reinforce and augment Reddit's platform-wide norms for dialog and evidence use. One of the three communities (r/AskTrumpSupporters) differed from the rest by establishing discourse norms for turn-taking between politically opposed users and structuring dialog around authentic questions aimed at understanding alternative points of view. Quantitative analyses revealed that this community significantly differed from the other communities in the proportion of dialogic exchanges and in the use of evidentiary practices (sourcing, source evaluation, and interpretation of evidence). Excerpts of dialog from this community are used to illustrate findings. We conclude with implications for educators interested in preparing youth to critically engage with scientific information they encounter in public discourse.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10333560/pdf/10.1177_09636625231178428.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Facts do not speak for themselves: Community norms, dialog, and evidentiary practices in discussions of COVID-19 on Reddit.\",\"authors\":\"Mark Felton, Ellen Middaugh, Henry Fan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09636625231178428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The present study sought to explore the distinct discourse norms and evidentiary practices in discussions of COVID-19 in four subcommunities on Reddit. Qualitative analysis found that communities differed in the degree to which they reinforce and augment Reddit's platform-wide norms for dialog and evidence use. One of the three communities (r/AskTrumpSupporters) differed from the rest by establishing discourse norms for turn-taking between politically opposed users and structuring dialog around authentic questions aimed at understanding alternative points of view. Quantitative analyses revealed that this community significantly differed from the other communities in the proportion of dialogic exchanges and in the use of evidentiary practices (sourcing, source evaluation, and interpretation of evidence). Excerpts of dialog from this community are used to illustrate findings. We conclude with implications for educators interested in preparing youth to critically engage with scientific information they encounter in public discourse.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10333560/pdf/10.1177_09636625231178428.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231178428\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Understanding of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231178428","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在探索 Reddit 上四个子社区在讨论 COVID-19 时的不同话语规范和证据实践。定性分析发现,各社区对 Reddit 平台范围内的对话和证据使用规范的强化和加强程度各不相同。三个社区中的一个(r/AskTrumpSupporters)与其他社区不同,它建立了政治对立用户之间轮流发言的话语规范,并围绕旨在理解其他观点的真实问题展开对话。定量分析显示,该社区在对话交流的比例和证据实践(来源、来源评估和证据解释)的使用方面与其他社区有显著不同。该社区的对话节选用于说明研究结果。最后,我们提出了对教育工作者的启示,即有兴趣培养青少年批判性地对待他们在公共讨论中遇到的科学信息。
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
Facts do not speak for themselves: Community norms, dialog, and evidentiary practices in discussions of COVID-19 on Reddit.

The present study sought to explore the distinct discourse norms and evidentiary practices in discussions of COVID-19 in four subcommunities on Reddit. Qualitative analysis found that communities differed in the degree to which they reinforce and augment Reddit's platform-wide norms for dialog and evidence use. One of the three communities (r/AskTrumpSupporters) differed from the rest by establishing discourse norms for turn-taking between politically opposed users and structuring dialog around authentic questions aimed at understanding alternative points of view. Quantitative analyses revealed that this community significantly differed from the other communities in the proportion of dialogic exchanges and in the use of evidentiary practices (sourcing, source evaluation, and interpretation of evidence). Excerpts of dialog from this community are used to illustrate findings. We conclude with implications for educators interested in preparing youth to critically engage with scientific information they encounter in public discourse.

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
7.30
自引率
9.80%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Public Understanding of Science is a fully peer reviewed international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Public Understanding of Science is the only journal to cover all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Topics Covered Include... ·surveys of public understanding and attitudes towards science and technology ·perceptions of science ·popular representations of science ·scientific and para-scientific belief systems ·science in schools
期刊最新文献
Public understanding of preprints: How audiences make sense of unreviewed research in the news. Towards a trusted genomics repository: Identifying commercialisation fears and preferred forms of governance across segments of the community. Communicating trust and trustworthiness through scientists' biographies: Benevolence beliefs. Issue ownership of science in the United States. The four "R"s: Strategies for tailoring science for religious publics and their prices.
×
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