Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Ahead of Print.
The present study contributes to information behavior research by examining how people seek and share information related to the threat of nuclear war. To achieve this, a sample of 1279 posts submitted to Quora—a social Q&A site—were scrutinized by means of qualitative content analysis. The analysis was based on identification of three question types indicative of attempts to seek information and five answer types expressive of information sharing. The findings indicate that the online participants mainly presented opinion questions, while the role of fact questions remained marginal. While sharing threat-related information, the participants primarily offered opinion answers. To a lesser extent, the repertoire of answers also included explanation, prediction, fact, action directive and encouragement answers. The predominance of opinion answers is understandable because there is no recent experience about the use of nuclear weapons against civil targets. Therefore, much of threat-related information shared in online discussion necessarily originates from people’s personal views of what a nuclear war and its effects could be like. The findings highlight that people mainly seek opinions of other people, rather than factual information about the threat of nuclear war.
Author Archives: Reijo Savolainen
Defending and refuting information sources rhetorically: The case of COVID-19 vaccination
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Ahead of Print.
This investigation compares how COVID-19 vaccination supporters and refusers make use of rhetorical strategies to judge the credibility of information sources in online discussion. To this end, the Aristotelian tripartite approach to rhetoric, that is, ethos, pathos and logos was utilized. The empirical findings draw on the analysis of 2257 posts submitted to Suomi24—a Finnish online discussion in May—October 2021. The findings indicate that both vaccine supporters and vaccine refusers mainly drew on the pathos- and ethos-related rhetorical strategies such as appeal to blameworthiness and ad hominem arguments while judging the credibility of information sources. Coronavirus vaccination appeared to be a highly contested topic giving rise to polarized debates, deep mistrust and mutual accusations between opposing parties. The rhetorical strategies were used to attack opponents’ views on the credibility of information sources, rather than making attempts to create mutual understanding of their value for arguments used in online discussion.
This investigation compares how COVID-19 vaccination supporters and refusers make use of rhetorical strategies to judge the credibility of information sources in online discussion. To this end, the Aristotelian tripartite approach to rhetoric, that is, ethos, pathos and logos was utilized. The empirical findings draw on the analysis of 2257 posts submitted to Suomi24—a Finnish online discussion in May—October 2021. The findings indicate that both vaccine supporters and vaccine refusers mainly drew on the pathos- and ethos-related rhetorical strategies such as appeal to blameworthiness and ad hominem arguments while judging the credibility of information sources. Coronavirus vaccination appeared to be a highly contested topic giving rise to polarized debates, deep mistrust and mutual accusations between opposing parties. The rhetorical strategies were used to attack opponents’ views on the credibility of information sources, rather than making attempts to create mutual understanding of their value for arguments used in online discussion.