Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Journal of Digital Social Research

Research Articles

Vol. 5 No. 3 (2023): Trust, Media, and Science in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Light At The End Of The Tunnel? The Staging of Expertise During the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign

DOI
https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v5i3.144
Submitted
May 30, 2022
Published
2023-09-01

Abstract

In this paper, we compare the governmental and public framings of expertise in the Dutch Covid-19 vaccination campaign in the period between January 1st and April 30th, 2021. Specifically, we collected all statements regarding vaccination on three interrelated stages: (1) the official press conferences; (2) Twitter, for responses to government policies; and (3) political motions that were put forward by Members of Parliament in the days following the press conferences. We combine an interactional framing approach with a discursive psychological perspective to get insights into how framings between stages modify, contest, or build upon each other. We argue that the press conferences show a persistent technocratic framing, in the sense that a direct line between science and policy is assumed and promoted. Unlike the first period of the COVID-19 crisis in 2020, experts are not often quoted initially, but key political actors themselves act as responsible for the message that there is light at the end of the tunnel, if only citizens will get vaccinated. Once the AstraZeneca vaccine comes under fire, however, experts are again held accountable for the policy message. Throughout, governmental policies are disputed on Twitter and in Parliament, albeit in different ways, by making hidden moralities relevant, such as the government’s assumed complacency, rigidity, and inability to explain policies with the available evidence.

References

  1. Abbey, E. J., Khalifa, B. A., Oduwole, M. O., Ayeh, S. K., Nudotor, R. D., Salia, E. L., Lasisi, O., Bennett, S., Yusuf, H. E., & Agwu, A. L. (2020). The Global Health Security Index is not predictive of coronavirus pandemic responses among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. PLoS One, 15(10), e0239398-e0239398.
  2. Bargain, O., & Aminjonov, U. (2020). Trust and compliance to public health policies in times of COVID-19. Journal of public economics, 192, 104316.
  3. Blair, R. A., Morse, B. S., & Tsai, L. L. (2017). Public health and public trust: Survey evidence from the Ebola Virus Disease epidemic in Liberia. Social Science & Medicine, 172, 89-97.
  4. Bollyky, T. J., Hulland, E. N., Barber, R. M., Collins, J. K., Kiernan, S., Moses, M., Pigott, D. M., Reiner Jr, R. C., Sorensen, R. J., & Abbafati, C. (2022). Pandemic preparedness and COVID-19: an exploratory analysis of infection and fatality rates, and contextual factors associated with preparedness in 177 countries, from Jan 1, 2020, to Sept 30, 2021. The Lancet, 399(10334), 1489-1512.
  5. Crosby, S., Dieleman, J., Kiernan, S., & Bollyky, T. (2020). All bets are off for measuring pandemic preparedness. Retrieved from https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/all-bets-are-measuring-pandemic-preparedness.
  6. De Swaan, A. (1988). In care of the state: health care, education and welfare in Europe and the USA in the modern era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Demasi, M. A. (2020). Post?truth politics and discursive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(9), e12556.
  8. Dewulf, A., Gray, B., Putnam, L., Lewicki, R., Aarts, N., Bouwen, R., & Van Woerkum, C. (2009). Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human relations, 62(2), 155-193.
  9. Durnová, A. (2019). Understanding emotions in post-factual politics: negotiating truth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  10. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
  11. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
  12. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (2005). Discursive psychology, mental states and descriptions. In H. Te Molder & J. Potter (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp. 241 - 260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
  14. Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. London: Sage.
  15. Gilles, I., Bangerter, A., Clémence, A., Green, E. G., Krings, F., Staerklé, C., & Wagner-Egger, P. (2011). Trust in medical organizations predicts pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccination behavior and perceived efficacy of protection measures in the Swiss public. European journal of epidemiology, 26(3), 203-210.
  16. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  17. Hajer, M. A. (2009). Authoritative governance: Policy making in the age of mediatization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Han, Q., Zheng, B., Cristea, M., Agostini, M., Bélanger, J. J., Gützkow, B., Kreienkamp, J., Leander, N. P., & Collaboration, P. (2021). Trust in government regarding COVID-19 and its associations with preventive health behaviour and prosocial behaviour during the pandemic: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Psychological medicine, 1-11.
  19. Harambam, J. (this volume). Distrusting Consensus: How a Uniform Corona Pandemic Narrative Fostered Suspicion and Conspiracy Theories. Journal of Digital Social Research.
  20. Hochschild, A. (2016). Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York: New Press.
  21. Hoekstra, H., Jonker, T., & van der Veer, N. (2022). Nationale Social Media Onderzoek 2022. Retrieved from https://www.newcom.nl/social-media-onderzoek-2022/
  22. Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis.
  23. Jasanoff, S., & Simmet, H. R. (2017). No funeral bells: Public reason in a ‘post-truth’age. Social studies of science, 47(5), 751-770.
  24. KNAW. (2022). The pandemic academic. How COVID-19 has impacted the research community. Retrieved from https://storage.knaw.nl/2022-07/Advies-The-pandemic-academic-20220705-def.pdf.
  25. Kruikemeier, S. (2014). How political candidates use Twitter and the impact on votes. Computers in human behavior, 34, 131-139.
  26. Liu, B. F., & Mehta, A. M. (2021). From the periphery and toward a centralized model for trust in government risk and disaster communication. Journal of Risk Research, 24(7), 853-869.
  27. Morse, B., Grépin, K. A., Blair, R. A., & Tsai, L. (2016). Patterns of demand for non-Ebola health services during and after the Ebola outbreak: panel survey evidence from Monrovia, Liberia. BMJ global health, 1(1), 1-8.
  28. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2015). Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine, 33(3), 459-464.
  29. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), e835-842.
  30. Oudenampsen, M. (2013). Explaining the Swing to the Right: the Dutch Debate on the Rise of Right-wing Populism. In R. Wodak, N. M. Khosravi, & B. Mral (Eds.), Right-wing populism in Europe (pp. 191-208). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  31. OVV. (2022). Aanpak coronacrisis Deel 2': september 2020 - juli 2021. Retrieved from https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/nl/aanpak-coronacrisis-deel2.
  32. Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L., & Zani, B. (2011). Compliance with recommendations for pandemic influenza H1N1 2009: the role of trust and personal beliefs. Health education research, 26(5), 761-769.
  33. Prettner, R., Te Molder, H., Hajer, M. A., & Vliegenthart, R. (2021). Staging Expertise in Times of COVID-19: An Analysis of the Science-Policy-Society Interface in the Dutch" Intelligent Lockdown". Frontiers in Communication, 6, 1-12.
  34. Prettner, R., Te Molder, H., & Hum?, B. (2023). How does a ‘good’ parent decide whether to have their child vaccinated? Demonstrating independence and deliberation in Dutch consultations on childhood vaccination. . Manuscript submitted for publication.
  35. Reich, J. A. (2016). Calling the shots. New York: New York University Press.
  36. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 4(4 Part 1), 696-735.
  37. Schmeets, H., & Exel, J. (2022). Vertrouwen in medemens en instituties voor en tijdens de pandemie. Retrieved from https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/statistische-trends/2022/vertrouwen-in-medemens-en-instituties-voor-en-tijdens-de-pandemie.
  38. Schwarz, C. (2018). ldagibbs: A command for topic modeling in Stata using latent Dirichlet allocation. The Stata Journal, 18(1), 101-117.
  39. Shanka, M. S., & Menebo, M. M. (2022). When and How Trust in Government Leads to Compliance with COVID-19 Precautionary Measures. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1275-1283.
  40. Shapin, S. (2007). Expertise, common sense, and the Atkins diet. In J. Porter & P. W. B. Phillips (Eds.), Public science in liberal democracy (pp. 174-193). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  41. Snow, D. A., & Corrigall-Brown, C. (2005). Falling on deaf ears: Confronting the prospect of nonresonant frames. In D. Croteau, W. Hoynes, & C. Ryan (Eds.), Rhyming hope and history: Activists, academics, and social movement scholarship (pp. 222 - 238). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  42. Swierstra, T., & Rip, A. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics, 1(1), 3-20.
  43. Swierstra, T., Stemerding, D., & Boenink, M. (2009). Exploring Techno-Moral Change: The Case Of The Obesitypill. In P. Sollie & M. Duwell (Eds.), Evaluating New Technologies (pp. 119-138). Dordrecht: Springer.
  44. Te Molder, H. (2012). Discourse communities as catalysts for science and technology communication. In L. J. Phillips, A. Carvalho, & J. Doyle (Eds.), Citizen Voices: Performing Public Participation in Science and Environment Communication (pp. 97-118): Intellect, The University of Chicago Press.
  45. Te Molder, H. (2014). The Hidden Moralities of Science and Technology. Communicating Science and Technology in the Life Science Context. Inaugural Lecture. Wageningen University.
  46. Te Molder, H., & Potter, J. (2005). Conversation and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  47. van Burgsteden, L., & Te Molder, H. (2022). Shelving Issues: Patrolling the Boundaries of Democratic Discussion in Public Meetings. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(6), 685-715.
  48. van Burgsteden, L., Te Molder, H., & Raymond, G. (2022a). Going against the interactional tide: The accomplishment of dialogic moments from a conversation analytic perspective. Discourse Studies, 24(4), 471-490.
  49. van Burgsteden, L., Te Molder, H., & Raymond, G. (2022b). The turn-by-turn unfolding of “dialogue”: Examining participants’ orientations to moments of transformative engagement. Language & Communication, 82, 64-81.
  50. van Burgsteden, L. M. (2022). From debate to dialogue: A conversation analysis of public meetings on the health effects of livestock farming in the Netherlands. (PhD-Thesis), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
  51. van der Weerd, W., Timmermans, D. R., Beaujean, D. J., Oudhoff, J., & Van Steenbergen, J. E. (2011). Monitoring the level of government trust, risk perception and intention of the general public to adopt protective measures during the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands. BMC public health, 11(1), 1-12.
  52. Van Dijck, J., & Alinejad, D. (2020). Social media and trust in scientific expertise: Debating the Covid-19 pandemic in the Netherlands. Social Media+ Society, 6(4), 1-11.
  53. Van Dooren, W., & Noordegraaf, M. (2020). Staging science: Authoritativeness and fragility of models and measurement in the COVID?19 crisis. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 610-615.
  54. Versteeg, W., & Te Molder, H. (2018). ‘You must know what you mean when you say that’: the morality of knowledge claims about ADHD in radio phone?ins. Sociology of health & illness, 40(4), 718-734.
  55. Vliegenthart, R., & Van Zoonen, L. (2011). Power to the frame: Bringing sociology back to frame analysis. European journal of communication, 26(2), 101-115.
  56. WHO. (2021). COVID-19: make it the last pandemic. Retrieved from https://theindependentpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/COVID-19-Make-it-the-Last-Pandemic_final.pdf.
  57. Wiggins, S. (2017). Discursive psychology: Theory, method and applications. London: Sage.
  58. Wildavsky, A. B. (1979). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.