Science and Politics in the Polio Vaccination Debate on Facebook: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Public Engagement in a Science-Based Dialogue

    Authors: Daniela Orr1,*, Ayelet Baram-Tsabari1
    Affiliations: 1: The Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. March 2018 vol. 19 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1500
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • PDF
    231.11 Kb
  • HTML
    71.34 Kb
  • XML
    81.32 Kb


    This study examines the ways in which the public discusses and debates the scientific issue of vaccinations in the online social media environment of Facebook. We apply a mixed-methods approach, where a qualitative analysis is combined with a quantitative analysis of the characteristics of the debate on polio vaccinations in a Facebook group dedicated to parental and professional dialogue. The qualitative analysis suggested that dialogue became more political than scientific overall, yet the quantitative analysis showed that the discussants did not abandon the scientific nature of the issue at hand.

References & Citations

1. Gesser-Edelsburg A, Shir-Raz Y, Green MS2014Why do parents who usually vaccinate their children hesitate or refuse? General good vs. individual riskJ Risk Res19440542410.1080/13669877.2014.983947 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.983947
3. Kaliner E, Moran-Gilad J, Grotto I, Somekh E, Kopel E, Gdalevich M, Shimron E, Amikam Y, Leventhal A, Lev B, Gamzu R2014Silent reintroduction of wild-type poliovirus to Israel, 2013 – risk communication challenges in an argumentative atmosphereEurosurveillance192070310.2807/1560-7917.ES2014.19.7.20703 http://dx.doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES2014.19.7.20703
4. Orr D, Baram-Tsabari A, Landsman K2016Social media as a platform for health-related public debates and discussions: the Polio vaccine on FacebookIsr J Health Policy Res53410.1186/s13584-016-0093-4278435445103590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13584-016-0093-4
5. Larson HJ, de Figueiredo A, Xiahong Z, Schulz WS, Verger P, Johnston IG, Cook AR, Jones NS2016The state of vaccine confidence 2016: global insights through a 67-country surveyEBioMedicine1229530110.1016/j.ebiom.2016.08.042276587385078590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.08.042
6. Black S2016Recognizing the importance of vaccine confidenceEBioMedicine12282910.1016/j.ebiom.2016.08.048276243905078577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.08.048
7. Larson HJ2014Vaccine confidence and public trust as drivers of vaccine failureInt J Infect Dis21Suppl 15010.1016/j.ijid.2014.03.522 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2014.03.522
8. Kutrovátz G2010Trust in experts: contextual patterns of warranted epistemic dependenceBalk J Philos2576810.5840/bjp20102116 http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/bjp20102116
9. John S2011Expert testimony and epistemological free-riding: the MMR controversyPhilos Q6149651710.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.687.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.687.x
10. Bromme R, Thomm E, Wolf V2015From understanding to deference: laypersons’ and medical students’ views on conflicts within medicineInt J Sci Educ Part B51689110.1080/21548455.2013.849017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2013.849017
11. Scharrer L, Stadtler M, Bromme R2014You’d better ask an expert: mitigating the comprehensibility effect on laypeople’s decisions about science-based knowledge claimsAppl Cogn Psychol2846547110.1002/acp.3018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3018
12. Etzioni A2003What is political?CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts2006SSRNhttps://ssrn.com/abstract=2157170
13. Bucchi M1996When scientists turn to the public: alternative routes in science communicationPublic Underst Sci537539410.1088/0963-6625/5/4/005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/5/4/005
14. Scheufele DA2014Science communication as political communicationProc Natl Acad Sci USA111Suppl135851359210.1073/pnas.1317516111252253894183176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317516111
15. Altheide DL2013Media logic, social control, and fearCommun Theory23322323810.1111/comt.12017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/comt.12017
16. Deuze M2009The media logic of media workJ Media Sociol11&22240
17. van Dijck J, Poell T2013Understanding social media logicMedia Commun1121410.17645/mac.v1i1.70 http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/mac.v1i1.70
18. Plesner U2012The performativity of “media logic” in the mass mediation of sciencePublic Underst Sci21667468810.1177/0963662510385309 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662510385309
19. Bennett WL2005News: the politics of illusion6th edLongmanNew York
20. Hine C2014Headlice eradication as everyday engagement with science: an analysis of online parenting discussionsPublic Underst Sci2357459110.1177/096366251245341925414923 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662512453419
21. Mixter PF, Souza G2016Role-playing in a vaccination debate strengthens student scientific debate skills for various audiences?J Microbiol Biol Educ1729729910.1128/jmbe.v17i2.998 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v17i2.998
22. Lewenstein BV2003Models of public communication of science and technologyPublic Underst Sci963288293
23. Merkelsen H2011Risk communication and citizen engagement: what to expect from dialogueJ Risk Res1463164510.1080/13669877.2011.553731 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2011.553731
24. Bhaduri S, Sharma A2012Public understanding of participation in regulatory decision-making: the case of bottled water quality standards in IndiaPublic Underst Sci23447248810.1177/0963662512452231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662512452231
25. Kahan DM2013A risky science communication environment for vaccinesScience3426154535410.1126/science.124572424092722 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1245724
26. Fadda M, Allam A, Schulz PJ2015Arguments and sources on Italian online forums on childhood vaccinations: results of a content analysisVaccine33517152715910.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.00726592140 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.007
27. García-Basteiro AL, Álvarez-Pasquín MJ, Mena G, Llupià A, Aldea M, Sequera VG, Sanz S, Tuells J, Navarro-Alonso JA, de Arísteguí J, Bayas JM2012A public-professional web-bridge for vaccines and vaccination: user concerns about vaccine safetyVaccine30253798380510.1016/j.vaccine.2011.10.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.10.003
28. Mcfarland LA, Ployhart RE2015Social media: a contextual framework to guide research and practiceJ Appl Psychol1001653167710.1037/a003924426052712 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039244
29. Hendriks F, Kienhues D, Bromme R2016Trust in science and the science of trust143159 Blobaum BTrust and Communication in a Digitized WorldSpringer International PublishingThe Netherlands10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8
30. Bromme R, Scharrer L, Stadtler M, Hömberg J, Torspecken R2015Is it believable when it’s scientific? How scientific discourse style influences laypeople’s resolution of conflictsJ Res Sci Teach52365710.1002/tea.21172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21172
31. Hinyard LJ, Kreuter MW2007Using narrative communication as a tool for health behavior change: a conceptual, theoretical, and empirical overviewHeal Educ Behav3477779210.1177/1090198106291963 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198106291963
32. Abeysinghe S2015Vaccine narratives and public health: investigating criticisms of H1N1 pandemic vaccinationPLOS Curr Outbreaks10.1371/currents.outbreaks.17b6007099e92486483872ff39ede178 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/currents.outbreaks.17b6007099e92486483872ff39ede178
33. Betsch C, Renkewitz F, Haase N2013Effect of narrative reports about vaccine adverse events and bias-awareness disclaimers on vaccine decisions: a simulation of an online patient social networkMed Decis Making33142510.1177/0272989X12452342 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X12452342
34. Holton JA2008Grounded theory as a general research methodologyGrounded Theory Rev72http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2008/06/30/grounded-theory-as-a-general-research-methodology/.
35. Oktay JS2012Introduction to grounded theory and its potential for social workGrounded Theory10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753697.003.0001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753697.003.0001
36. Teasdale E, Yardley L2011Understanding responses to government health recommendations: public perceptions of government advice for managing the H1N1 (swine flu) influenza pandemicPatient Educ Couns8541341810.1016/j.pec.2010.12.02621295434 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.026
37. Shan LC, Panagiotopoulos P, Regan Á, De Brún A, Barnett J, Wall P, McConnon A2015Interactive communication with the public: qualitative exploration of the use of social media by food and health organizationsJ Nutr Educ Behav4710410810.1016/j.jneb.2014.09.004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.09.004
38. Condit CM, Gronnvoll M, Landau J, Shen L, Wright L, Harris TM2009Believing in both genetic determinism and behavioral action: a materialist framework and implicationsPublic Underst Sci1873074610.1177/0963662508094098 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662508094098
39. Douglas H2015Politics and science: untangling values, ideologies, and reasonsAnn Am Acad Pol Soc Sci65829630610.1177/0002716214557237 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716214557237
40. Goldman AI2001Experts: which ones should you trust?Philos Phenomenol Res638511010.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00093.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00093.x
41. Guttman N, Salmon CT2004Guilt, fear, stigma and knowledge gaps: ethical issues in public health communication interventionsBioethics1853155210.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00415.x15580723 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00415.x
42. Vinot R2015Ethics in information technologyBoingBoinghttps://boingboing.net/2015/06/13/on-ethics-in-information-techn.html.
43. Bassett EH, O’Riordan K2002Ethics of Internet research: contesting the human subjects modelEthics Inf Technol423324710.1023/A:1021319125207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021319125207
44. British Psychological Society2013Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated ResearchINF206/1.2013Leicester, UKwww.bps.org.uk/publications/policy-andguidelines/research-guidelines-policydocuments/research-guidelines-poli
45. Flicker S, Haans D, Skinner H2004Ethical dilemmas in research on Internet communitiesQual Health Res1412413410.1177/104973230325984214725180 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732303259842
46. Carrion ML2017“You need to do your research”: vaccines, contestable science, and maternal epistemologyPublic Underst Sci96366251772802
47. Kummervold PE, Schulz WS, Smout E, Fernandez-Luque L, Larson HJ2017Controversial Ebola vaccine trials in Ghana: a thematic analysis of critiques and rebuttals in digital newsBMC Public Health1764210.1186/s12889-017-4618-8287841095547580 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4618-8
48. Poltorak M, Leach M, Fairhead J, Cassell J2005“MMR talk” and vaccination choices: an ethnographic study in BrightonSoc Sci Med61370971910.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.01415899328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.014
49. Dalrymple KE, Young R, Tully M2016Facts, not fear: uncertainty on social media during the 2014 Ebola crisisSci Commun3844246710.1177/1075547016655546 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547016655546
50. Browne M, Thomson P, Rockloff MJ, Pennycook G2015Going against the herd: psychological and cultural factors underlying the “vaccination confidence gap.”PLOS One10e013256210.1371/journal.pone.0132562 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132562
51. Fadda M, Depping MK, Schulz PJ2015Addressing issues of vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment in the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination decision-making: a qualitative studyBMC Public Health1583610.1186/s12889-015-2200-9263285514556054 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2200-9
52. Kennedy AM, Brown CJ, Gust DA2005Vaccine beliefs of parents who oppose compulsory vaccinationPublic Health Rep12025225810.1177/003335490512000306161345641497722 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003335490512000306
53. Binyaminy B, Bilenko N, Haas EJ, Grotto I, Gdalevich M2016Socioeconomic status and vaccine coverage during wild-type poliovirus emergence in IsraelEpidemiol Infect1442840284710.1017/S095026881600084427141821 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268816000844
54. Velan B2016Vaccine hesitancy as self-determination: an Israeli perspectiveIsr J Health Policy Res51310.1186/s13584-016-0071-x270515174820980 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13584-016-0071-x
55. Luthy KE, Beckstrand RL, Callister LC, Cahoon S2012Reasons parents exempt children from receiving immunizationsJ Sch Nurs2815316010.1177/1059840511426578 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059840511426578
56. Funk C, Kennedy B, Hefferon M2017Vast majority of Americans say benefits of childhood vaccines outweigh risksPew Research CenterWashington, DC
57. Peretti-Watel P, Ward JK, Schulz WS, Verger P, Larson HJ2015Vaccine hesitancy: clarifying a theoretical framework for an ambiguous notionPLOS Curr10.1371/currents.outbreaks.6844c80ff9f5b273f34c91f71b7fc289257892014353679 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/currents.outbreaks.6844c80ff9f5b273f34c91f71b7fc289
58. Tustin JL, Crowcroft NS, Gesink D, Johnson I, Keelan J, Lachapelle B2017Facebook recruitment of vaccine-hesitant Canadian parents: cross-sectional studyJMIR Public Heal Surveill3e4710.2196/publichealth.6870 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.6870
59. Keelan J, Pavri V, Balakrishnan R, Wilson K2010An analysis of the human papilloma virus vaccine debate on MySpace blogsVaccine281535154010.1016/j.vaccine.2009.11.060 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.11.060
60. Bragazzi NL, Barberis I, Rosselli R, Gianfredi V, Nucci D, Moretti M, Salvatori T, Martucci G, Martini M2017How often people Google for vaccination: qualitative and quantitative insights from a systematic search of the web-based activities using Google trendsHum Vaccin Immunother1346446910.1080/21645515.2017.12647425328221 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2017.1264742
61. McClure CC, Cataldi JR, O’Leary ST2017Vaccine hesitancy: where we are and where we are goingClin Ther391550156210.1016/j.clinthera.2017.07.00328774498 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.07.003
62. Brennan SE2004How conversation is shaped by visual and spoken evidence95130 Trueswell JC, Tanenhaus MKApproaches to studying world-situated language useMIT PressCambridge, MA

Supplemental Material


Article metrics loading...



This study examines the ways in which the public discusses and debates the scientific issue of vaccinations in the online social media environment of Facebook. We apply a mixed-methods approach, where a qualitative analysis is combined with a quantitative analysis of the characteristics of the debate on polio vaccinations in a Facebook group dedicated to parental and professional dialogue. The qualitative analysis suggested that dialogue became more political than scientific overall, yet the quantitative analysis showed that the discussants did not abandon the scientific nature of the issue at hand.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...


This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error