Vayreda-Antaki2011

From emcawiki
Revision as of 06:19, 19 June 2019 by PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Agnès Vayreda; Charles Antaki; |Title=To vaccinate or not? The disqualification of commercial sources of health advice in an online for...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Vayreda-Antaki2011
BibType ARTICLE
Key Vayreda-Antaki2011
Author(s) Agnès Vayreda, Charles Antaki
Title To vaccinate or not? The disqualification of commercial sources of health advice in an online forum
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Online interaction, Vaccinations, Disqualification
Publisher
Year 2011
Language English
City
Month
Journal Communication & Medicine
Volume 8
Number 3
Pages 273-282
URL
DOI 10.1558/cam.v8i3.273
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Public health debates in online forums allow the emergence of ordinary practical reasoning about 'official' health information. We used a Discursive Psychology approach to analyse postings in a forum devoted to the discussion of the H1N1 (Swine flu) virus. We identify the discursive practices that contributors use to valorise certain elements in the debate (what they cast as science, rationality and 'proper' scepticism) over others (especially commercial interests, 'charlatanism' and 'profiteering'). A forum participant can be disqualified on the basis of their alleged partiality and interest, if they can be accused of having a commercial stake in the matter. But no such opprobrium results if they have a 'scientific' interest.

Notes