When Experts Deny Science: The Rhetorical Performance of Malexpertise
When Experts Deny Science: The Rhetorical Performance of Malexpertise
상세정보
- 자료유형
- 학위논문 서양
- 최종처리일시
- 20250211152021
- ISBN
- 9798384097402
- DDC
- 384
- 저자명
- Shew, Abigail.
- 서명/저자
- When Experts Deny Science: The Rhetorical Performance of Malexpertise
- 발행사항
- [Sl] : University of Washington, 2024
- 발행사항
- Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2024
- 형태사항
- 157 p
- 주기사항
- Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-03, Section: B.
- 주기사항
- Advisor: Ceccarelli, Leah.
- 학위논문주기
- Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2024.
- 초록/해제
- 요약Throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, experts have been relied upon to offer public health information and guidance to members of the public. Most of these experts speak as representatives of science, and work hard to communicate verified health information, including promoting COVID-19 vaccination as a safe and effective method of disease prevention. However, some so-called experts use their status to deny these same recommendations. When experts deny science, when they make dangerous recommendations including avoiding COVID-19 vaccination, they become a new type of rhetorical figure: the malexpert. Malexperts are experts gone wrong. In this dissertation, I establish a framework for differentiating true expertise from malexpertise by analyzing the anti-COVID-vaccination rhetorics of a group of twelve individuals known as the Disinformation Dozen. By engaging in the method of close reading and rhetorical criticism, my ultimate argument is that the identification and subsequent calling-out of malexperts is key to mitigating the effects of COVID-vaccine-related disinformation.
- 일반주제명
- Communication
- 일반주제명
- Public health
- 일반주제명
- Rhetoric
- 키워드
- Expertse
- 키워드
- Malexpertise
- 기타저자
- University of Washington Communication
- 기본자료저록
- Dissertations Abstracts International. 86-03B.
- 전자적 위치 및 접속
- 로그인 후 원문을 볼 수 있습니다.
MARC
008250123s2024 us c eng d■001000017162516
■00520250211152021
■006m o d
■007cr#unu||||||||
■020 ▼a9798384097402
■035 ▼a(MiAaPQ)AAI31332337
■040 ▼aMiAaPQ▼cMiAaPQ
■0820 ▼a384
■1001 ▼aShew, Abigail.
■24510▼aWhen Experts Deny Science: The Rhetorical Performance of Malexpertise
■260 ▼a[Sl]▼bUniversity of Washington▼c2024
■260 1▼aAnn Arbor▼bProQuest Dissertations & Theses▼c2024
■300 ▼a157 p
■500 ▼aSource: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-03, Section: B.
■500 ▼aAdvisor: Ceccarelli, Leah.
■5021 ▼aThesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2024.
■520 ▼aThroughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, experts have been relied upon to offer public health information and guidance to members of the public. Most of these experts speak as representatives of science, and work hard to communicate verified health information, including promoting COVID-19 vaccination as a safe and effective method of disease prevention. However, some so-called experts use their status to deny these same recommendations. When experts deny science, when they make dangerous recommendations including avoiding COVID-19 vaccination, they become a new type of rhetorical figure: the malexpert. Malexperts are experts gone wrong. In this dissertation, I establish a framework for differentiating true expertise from malexpertise by analyzing the anti-COVID-vaccination rhetorics of a group of twelve individuals known as the Disinformation Dozen. By engaging in the method of close reading and rhetorical criticism, my ultimate argument is that the identification and subsequent calling-out of malexperts is key to mitigating the effects of COVID-vaccine-related disinformation.
■590 ▼aSchool code: 0250.
■650 4▼aCommunication
■650 4▼aPublic health
■650 4▼aRhetoric
■653 ▼aExpertse
■653 ▼aMalexpertise
■653 ▼aCOVID-19 vaccination
■653 ▼aRhetorical criticism
■653 ▼aDisinformation Dozen
■690 ▼a0459
■690 ▼a0573
■690 ▼a0681
■71020▼aUniversity of Washington▼bCommunication.
■7730 ▼tDissertations Abstracts International▼g86-03B.
■790 ▼a0250
■791 ▼aPh.D.
■792 ▼a2024
■793 ▼aEnglish
■85640▼uhttp://www.riss.kr/pdu/ddodLink.do?id=T17162516▼nKERIS▼z이 자료의 원문은 한국교육학술정보원에서 제공합니다.
