Gesser-Edelsburg Anat, Zemach Mina, Hijazi Rana
School of Public Health and the Health and Risk Communication Research Center, University of Haifa, Haifa, 3498838, Israel.
Midgam Research & Consulting Ltd, Bnei Brak, 5126112, Israel.
Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021 Jun 21;14:2553-2569. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S311334. eCollection 2021.
The uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 crisis and the different approaches taken to manage it have triggered scientific controversies among experts. This study seeks to examine how the fragile nature of Israeli democracy accommodated differences of opinion between experts during the COVID-19 crisis.
To map and analyze the discourse between experts surrounding issues that were the topic of scientific controversy. To examine the viewpoints of the public regarding the positions of the different experts.
A sequential mixed study design. The qualitative research was a discourse analysis of 435 items that entailed mapping the voices of different experts regarding controversial topics. In the quantitative study, a total of 924 participants answered a questionnaire examining topics that engendered differences of opinion between the experts.
The results showed that there was no dialogue between opposition and coalition experts. Moreover, the coalition experts labeled the experts who criticized them as "coronavirus deniers" and "anti-vaxxers." The coalition changed its opinion on one issue only-the issue of lockdowns. When we asked the public how they see the scientific controversy between the coalition and the opposition experts, they expressed support for opposition policies on matters related to the implications of the lockdowns and to transparency, while supporting government policy mainly on topics related to vaccinations. The research findings also indicate that personal and socio-demographic variables can influence how the public responds to the debate between experts. The main differentiating variables were the personal attribute of conservatism, locus of control, age, and nationality.
Controversy must be encouraged to prevent misconceptions. The internal discourse in the committees that advise the government must be transparent, and coalition experts must be consistently exposed to the views of opposition experts, who must be free to voice their views without fear.
围绕新冠疫情危机的不确定性以及应对危机所采取的不同方法引发了专家之间的科学争议。本研究旨在探讨以色列民主的脆弱性如何在新冠疫情危机期间包容专家之间的意见分歧。
梳理和分析围绕科学争议话题的专家间话语。考察公众对不同专家立场的看法。
采用序贯混合研究设计。定性研究是对435项内容进行话语分析，梳理不同专家对争议话题的观点。定量研究中，共有924名参与者回答了一份问卷，问卷涉及引发专家意见分歧的话题。
结果显示，反对派专家和联盟派专家之间没有对话。此外，联盟派专家将批评他们的专家称为“新冠病毒否认者”和“反疫苗接种者”。联盟派仅在一个问题上改变了立场，即封锁问题。当我们询问公众如何看待联盟派和反对派专家之间的科学争议时，他们表示支持反对派在与封锁影响及透明度相关问题上的政策，而在主要与疫苗接种相关的话题上支持政府政策。研究结果还表明，个人和社会人口统计学变量会影响公众对专家间辩论的反应。主要的区分变量是保守主义的个人特质、控制点、年龄和国籍。
必须鼓励争议以防止误解。为政府提供建议的委员会内部话语必须透明，联盟派专家必须持续接触反对派专家的观点，反对派专家必须能够自由表达观点而无需担忧。
