Search results

The purpose of this paper is to critically engage with societal origins of public (dis)trust and public credibility of nutrition science and offer suggestions for addressing its public dismissal.

This viewpoint presents a conceptual analysis of public dismissal of nutrition science, drawing together perspectives on the relationships between science and society from the history, sociology and philosophy of science.

The origin of trust amongst scientists relies is actively tied to their social and moral status and science as a cultural activity is inextricably linked to institutions of power. Accordingly, trust in science relies heavily on public perceptions of those institutions, the ways in which citizens feel represented by them, and to what extent citizens consider these institutions to be held accountable. Ignoring this origin leads to expectations of science and scientists they cannot live up to and inevitable disappointment in those holding such expectations.

Managing responsible expectations asks that we first dismiss dominant portrayals of science as pure, neutral, value-free and fuelled by curiosity. Second, we should pursue a reorganisation of science, favouring social inclusiveness over scientific exceptionalism.

Post-truth dynamics are a source of concern in the dissemination of nutrition science. Rather than dismissing it as a consequence of public ignorance, a comprehensive engagement with post-truth arguments allows a constructive repositioning of nutrition science organisation and communication. It asks that we design research programmes and studies differently, incorporate different voices. Above all else, it asks humility of researchers and tolerant approaches to other perspectives.

The idea that user comments on journalistic articles would help to increase the quality of the media has long been greeted with enthusiasm. By now, however, these high hopes have mostly evaporated. Practical experience has shown that user participation does not automatically lead to better journalism but may also result in hate speech and systematic trolling – thus having a dysfunctional impact on journalistic actors. Although empirical journalism research has made it possible to describe various kinds of disruptive follow-up communication on journalistic platforms, it has not yet succeeded in explaining what exactly drives certain users to indulge in flaming and trolling. This paper intends to fill this gap.

It does so on the basis of problem-centered interviews with media users who regularly publish negative comments on news websites.

The evaluation allows for a nuanced view on current phenomena of dysfunctional follow-up communication on journalistic news sites. It shows that the typical “troll” does not exist. Instead, it seems to be more appropriate to differentiate disruptive commenters according to their varying backgrounds and motives. Quite often, the interviewed users display a distinct political (or other) devotion to a certain cause that rather makes them appear as “warriors of faith.” However, they are united in their dissatisfaction with the quality of the (mass) media, which they attack critically and often with a harsh tone.

The study reflects these differences by developing a typology of dysfunctional online commenters. By helping to understand their aims and intentions, it contributes to the development of sustainable strategies for stimulating constructive user participation in a post-truth age.

Since the end of 2016, “fake news” has had a clear meaning in the USA. After years of scholarship attempting to define “fake news” and where it fits among the larger schema of media hoaxing and deception, popular culture and even academic studies converged following the 2016 US presidential election to define “fake news” in drastically new ways. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

In light of the recent elections in the USA, many fear “fake news” that have gradually become a powerful and sinister force, both in the news media environment as well as in the fair and free elections. The scenario draws into questions how the general public interacts with such outlets, and to what extent and in which ways individual responsibility should govern the interactions with social media.

Fake news is a growing threat to democratic elections in the USA and other democracies by relentless targeting of hyper-partisan views, which play to the fears and prejudices of people, in order to influence their voting plans and their behavior.

Essentially, “fake news” is changing and even distorting how political campaigns are run, ultimately calling into question legitimacy of elections, elected officials and governments. Scholarship has increasingly confirmed social media as an enabler of “fake news,” and continues to project its potentially negative impact on democracy, furthering the already existing practices of partisan selective exposure, as well as heightening the need for individual responsibility.

To elaborate the picture of credibility assessment by examining how participants of online discussion evaluate the informational credibility of conspiracy theories.

Descriptive quantitative analysis and qualitative content analysis of 2,663 posts submitted to seven Reddit threads discussing a conspiracy operation, that is, the damage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines in September 2022. It was examined how the participants of online discussion assess the credibility of information constitutive of conspiracy theories speculating about (1) suspected actors responsible for the damage, (2) their motives and (3) the ways in which the damage was made. The credibility assessments focussed on diverse sources offering information about the above three factors.

The participants assessed the credibility of information by drawing on four main criteria: plausibility of arguments, honesty in argumentation, similarity to one's beliefs and provision of evidence. Most assessments were negative and indicated doubt about the informational believability of conspiracy theories about the damage. Of the information sources referred to in the discussion, the posts submitted by fellow participants, television programmes and statements provided by governmental organizations were judged most critically, due to implausible argumentation and advocacy of biased views.

As the study focuses on a sample of posts dealing with conspiracy theories about a particular event, the findings cannot be generalized to concern the informational credibility conspiracy narratives.

The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the nature of credibility assessments by focussing on information constitutive of conspiracy theories.

Background: Democratic societies thrive when citizens actively and critically engage with new ideas, developments and claims to truth. Not only can such practices result in more effective choice-making, but they can also lead to widespread support for progressive beliefs, such as social justice. Yet with western societies in the midst of environmental, social and political crises, it seems more pertinent than ever that citizens become “ideas-informed”.

Methods: Drawing on a survey of 1,000 voting age citizens in England, this paper aims to provide insight into the following: (1) the current “state of the nation” in terms of whether, and how, individuals keep themselves up to date with regards to new ideas, developments and claims to truth; (2) the impact of staying up to date on beliefs such as social justice; (3) the factors influencing people’s propensity to stay up to date, their support for value-related statements, as well as the strength of these influencing factors; and (4) clues as to how the extant “state of the nation” might be improved.

Results: Our findings indicate that many people do keep up to date, do so in a variety of ways, and also engage with ideas as mature critical consumers. There is also strong importance attached by most respondents to the values one would hope to see in a progressive and scientifically literate society. Yet, as we illustrate with our structural equation model, there are a number of problematic network and educational related factors which affect: (1) whether and how people stay up to date; and (2) the importance people ascribe to certain social values, irrespective of whether they stay up to date or not.

Conclusions: Suggestions for the types of social intervention that might foster “ideas-informed” democracies (such as improved dialogue) are presented, along with future research in this area.

To elaborate the nature of fact-checking in the domain of political information by examining how fact-checkers assess the validity of claims concerning the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and how they support their assessments by drawing on evidence acquired from diverse sources of information.

Descriptive quantitative and qualitative content analysis of 128 reports written by the fact-checkers of Snopes – an established fact-checking organisation – during the period of 24 February 2022 – 28 June, 2023. For the analysis, nine evaluation grounds were identified, most of them inductively from the empirical material. It was examined how the fact-checkers employed such grounds while assessing the validity of claims and how the assessments were bolstered by evidence acquired from information sources such as newspapers.

Of the 128 reports, the share of assessments indicative of the invalidity of the claims was 54.7%, while the share of positive ratings was 26.7%. The share of mixed assessments was 15.6%. In the fact-checking, two evaluation grounds, that is, the correctness of information and verifiability of an event presented in a claim formed the basis for the assessment. Depending on the topic of the claim, grounds such as temporal and spatial compatibility, as well as comparison by similarity and difference occupied a central role. Most popular sources of information offering evidence for the assessments include statements of government representatives, videos and photographs shared in social media, newspapers and television programmes.

As the study concentrated on fact-checking dealing with political information about a specific issue, the findings cannot be extended to concern the fact-checking practices in other contexts.

The study is among the first to characterise how fact-checkers employ evaluation grounds of diverse kind while assessing the validity of political information.

This paper aims to conduct an interdisciplinary systematic literature review (SLR) of fake news research and to advance the socio-technical understanding of digital information practices and platforms in business and management studies.

The paper applies a focused, SLR method to analyze articles on fake news in business and management journals from 2010 to 2020.

The paper analyzes the definition, theoretical frameworks, methods and research gaps of fake news in the business and management domains. It also identifies some promising research opportunities for future scholars.

The paper offers practical implications for various stakeholders who are affected by or involved in fake news dissemination, such as brands, consumers and policymakers. It provides recommendations to cope with the challenges and risks of fake news.

The paper discusses the social consequences and future threats of fake news, especially in relation to social networking and social media. It calls for more awareness and responsibility from online communities to prevent and combat fake news.

The paper contributes to the literature on information management by showing the importance and consequences of fake news sharing for societies. It is among the frontier systematic reviews in the field that covers studies from different disciplines and focuses on business and management studies.

This paper aims to unify fragmented definitions of fake news and also present a comprehensive classification of the concept. Additionally, it provides an agenda for future marketing research based on the findings.

A review of 36 articles investigating fake news from 1990 to 2020 was done. In total, 615 papers were found, and the article pool was refined manually in two steps; first, articles were skimmed and scanned for nonrelated articles; second, the pool was refined based on the scope of the research.

The review resulted in a new definition and a collective classification of fake news. Also, the feature of each type of fake news, such as facticity, intention, harm and humor, is examined as well, and a definition for each type is presented.

This extensive study, to the best of the author’s knowledge, for the first time, reviews major definitions and classification on fake news.

Este artículo pretende unificar las definiciones fragmentadas de las noticias falsas y también presentar una clasificación exhaustiva del concepto. Además, ofrece una agenda para futuras investigaciones de marketing basada en los resultados.

Se realizó una revisión de 36 artículos que investigaban las noticias falsas desde 1990 hasta 2020. Se encontraron 615 artículos, y el grupo de artículos se refinó manualmente en dos pasos, primero, se descremaron los artículos y se escanearon los artículos no relacionados, segundo, el grupo se refinó basado en el alcance de la investigación.

La revisión dio como resultado una nueva definición y una clasificación colectiva de las noticias falsas. Además, se examinan las características de cada tipo de noticias falsas, como la facticidad, la intención, el daño y el humor, y se presenta una definición para cada tipo.

este amplio estudio revisa por primera vez las principales definiciones y la clasificación de las noticias falsas.

本文旨在统一假新闻的零散定义, 并对假新闻的概念进行全面的分类。此外, 它还根据本文的研究结果为未来的营销研究提供了一个议程。

对1990年至2020年期间调查假新闻的36篇文章进行了回顾。一共发现了615篇论文, 并分为两步对此文章库进行了人工提炼：首先, 对文章进行略读和扫描以找出非相关文章, 其次, 根据研究范围对文章库进行了提炼。

此次审查导致了对假新闻的新定义和集体分类。此外, 还分析了假新闻的真实性、意图、危害性、幽默性等各种类型的特征, 并给出了各种类型的定义。

此项涉及广泛假新闻内容的研究首次回顾了关于假新闻的主要定义和分类。

Although management scholars have embraced grand challenges research, in many cases, grand challenges have been treated as merely a context for exploring extant theoretical perspectives. By comparison, our approach – robust action – provides a novel theoretical framework for tackling grand challenges. In this invited article, we revisit our 2015 model, clarifying and elaborating its key elements and taking stock of subsequent developments. We then identify three promising directions for future research: scaffolding, future imaginaries, and distributed actorhood. Ultimately, our core message is remarkably simple: robust action strategies – participatory architecture, multivocal inscription and distributed experimentation – jointly provide a means for tackling grand challenges that is well matched to their complexities, uncertainties, and evaluativities.

Recent changes in university systems, debates on academic freedom, and changing roles of knowledge in society all point to questions regarding how higher education and research should be governed and the role of scientists and faculty in this. Rationalizations of systems of higher education and research have been accompanied by the questioning and erosion of faculty authority and challenges to academic collegiality. In light of these developments, we see a need for a more conceptually precise discussion about what academic collegiality is, how it is practiced, how collegial forms of governance may be supported or challenged by other forms of governance, and finally, why collegial governance of higher education and research is important.

We see collegiality as an institution of self-governance that includes formal rules and structures for decision-making, normative and cognitive underpinnings of identities and purposes, and specific practices. Studies of collegiality then, need to capture structures and rules as well as identities, norms, purposes and practices. Distinguishing between vertical and horizontal collegiality, we show how they balance and support each other.

Universities are subject to mixed modes of governance related to the many tasks and missions that higher education and research is expected to fulfill. Mixed modes of governance also stem from reforms based on widely held ideals of governance and organization. We examine university reforms and challenges to collegiality through the lenses of three ideal types of governance – collegiality, bureaucracy and enterprise – and combinations thereof.