서브메뉴
검색
Who Are We to Argue? How Conservative Media Mobilize Identity in Science-Hostile Discourse
Who Are We to Argue? How Conservative Media Mobilize Identity in Science-Hostile Discourse
상세정보
- 자료유형
- 학위논문 서양
- 최종처리일시
- 20260202104659
- ISBN
- 9798288824722
- DDC
- 384
- 서명/저자
- Who Are We to Argue? How Conservative Media Mobilize Identity in Science-Hostile Discourse
- 발행사항
- [Sl] : University of Washington, 2025
- 발행사항
- Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2025
- 형태사항
- 357 p
- 주기사항
- Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 87-01, Section: B.
- 주기사항
- Advisor: Bennett, W. Lance;Powers, Matthew.
- 학위논문주기
- Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2025.
- 초록/해제
- 요약Conservative hostility toward the science advocacy of Greta Thunberg and Anthony Fauci has hampered efforts to tackle the crises of climate change and COVID-19. However, the discursive processes that establish and mobilize links between partisan identity and attitudes toward science communication remain poorly understood. This research utilized political discourse analysis on 400 articles from conservative media, 200 of which referenced Thunberg in the title, and 200 of which addressed Fauci. The analysis of these "least similar cases" revealed that conservative media portrayed Fauci and Thunberg as agents of the political left, using science as a tool to dominate the right in a populist, binary struggle over which group should embody American identity. In both instances, conservative media leveraged aspects of conservative identity to morally justify rejecting the messaging of Thunberg and Fauci. While most conservative content avoided direct engagement with the science advocated by Thunberg and Fauci, a subset that did represented conservative identity as respectful of scientific expertise. I describe a discursive method of justifying the rejection of the work of experts while avowing respect for science as an "epistemology of moral discernment," in which conservatives present the moral character of a science communicator as a criterion for assessing claims of truth. I conclude that "selective science hostility discourse" is best understood as a strategy for morally legitimizing politically motivated rejection of the truth claims and policy recommendations of science communicators.
- 일반주제명
- Communication
- 일반주제명
- Political science
- 일반주제명
- Climate change
- 키워드
- Climate science
- 키워드
- COVID-19
- 기타저자
- University of Washington Communication
- 기본자료저록
- Dissertations Abstracts International. 87-01B.
- 전자적 위치 및 접속
- 로그인 후 원문을 볼 수 있습니다.
MARC
008260126s2025 us c eng d■001000017358420
■00520260202104659
■006m o d
■007cr#unu||||||||
■020 ▼a9798288824722
■035 ▼a(MiAaPQ)AAI32116074
■040 ▼aMiAaPQ▼cMiAaPQ
■0820 ▼a384
■1001 ▼aStraub-Cook, Polly.
■24510▼aWho Are We to Argue? How Conservative Media Mobilize Identity in Science-Hostile Discourse
■260 ▼a[Sl]▼bUniversity of Washington▼c2025
■260 1▼aAnn Arbor▼bProQuest Dissertations & Theses▼c2025
■300 ▼a357 p
■500 ▼aSource: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 87-01, Section: B.
■500 ▼aAdvisor: Bennett, W. Lance;Powers, Matthew.
■5021 ▼aThesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2025.
■520 ▼aConservative hostility toward the science advocacy of Greta Thunberg and Anthony Fauci has hampered efforts to tackle the crises of climate change and COVID-19. However, the discursive processes that establish and mobilize links between partisan identity and attitudes toward science communication remain poorly understood. This research utilized political discourse analysis on 400 articles from conservative media, 200 of which referenced Thunberg in the title, and 200 of which addressed Fauci. The analysis of these "least similar cases" revealed that conservative media portrayed Fauci and Thunberg as agents of the political left, using science as a tool to dominate the right in a populist, binary struggle over which group should embody American identity. In both instances, conservative media leveraged aspects of conservative identity to morally justify rejecting the messaging of Thunberg and Fauci. While most conservative content avoided direct engagement with the science advocated by Thunberg and Fauci, a subset that did represented conservative identity as respectful of scientific expertise. I describe a discursive method of justifying the rejection of the work of experts while avowing respect for science as an "epistemology of moral discernment," in which conservatives present the moral character of a science communicator as a criterion for assessing claims of truth. I conclude that "selective science hostility discourse" is best understood as a strategy for morally legitimizing politically motivated rejection of the truth claims and policy recommendations of science communicators.
■590 ▼aSchool code: 0250.
■650 4▼aCommunication
■650 4▼aPolitical science
■650 4▼aClimate change
■653 ▼aClimate science
■653 ▼aCOVID-19
■653 ▼aPolitical discourse
■653 ▼aScience communication
■653 ▼aConservative media
■690 ▼a0459
■690 ▼a0615
■690 ▼a0404
■71020▼aUniversity of Washington▼bCommunication.
■7730 ▼tDissertations Abstracts International▼g87-01B.
■790 ▼a0250
■791 ▼aPh.D.
■792 ▼a2025
■793 ▼aEnglish
■85640▼uhttp://www.riss.kr/pdu/ddodLink.do?id=T17358420▼nKERIS▼z이 자료의 원문은 한국교육학술정보원에서 제공합니다.
