Social Construction and Grounding

Griffith, Aaron M.

doi:10.1111/phpr.12376

Cited by 26 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study has undertaken a relativist ontological position to better understand how people draw different meanings from rumors and content shared online about COVID-19. Moreover, understanding social classes and meanings of language is also parallel to social constructionism, in the sense that social constructionists believe in the social construction of knowledge and the existence of various social realities (Griffith and Griffith, 2018). Therefore, this study has taken a social constructionist epistemological position to gain a better understanding of information sharing as an important social practice in order to address the question of how different people ascribed different meanings to the COVID-19 epidemic.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding misinformation and rumors that generated panic buying as a social practice during COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from Twitter, YouTube and focus group interviews

Naeem

Ozuem

2021

ITP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of the study is to understand how socially shared misinformation and rumors can enhance the motivation to protect personal interests and enhance social practices of panic buying.Design/methodology/approachThe study employed a number of qualitative data collection methods for the purpose of triangulation, as it can offer thick interpretation and can help to develop a context specific research framework.FindingsThe shared misinformation and rumors on social media developed into psychological, physical and social threats; therefore, people started panic buying to avoid these negative consequences. People believed that there were differences between the information shared by politicians and government officials and reality, such as “everything is under control,” whereas social media showed people standing in long queues and struggling to buy the necessities of life. The shared misinformation and rumors on social media became viral and received social validation, which created panic buying in many countries.Research limitations/implicationsIt is the responsibility of government, politicians, leaders, media and the public to control misinformation and rumors, as many people were unable to buy groceries due either to socio-economic status or their decisions of late buying, which increased depression among people.Originality/valueThe study merged the theory of rumor (TORT) transmission and protection motivation theory (PMT) to understand how misinformation and rumors shared through social media increased global uncertainty and the desire to panic buy across the world.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding misinformation and rumors that generated panic buying as a social practice during COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from Twitter, YouTube and focus group interviews

Naeem

Ozuem

2021

ITP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is precisely this point which motivates various non-modal analyses of ontological dependence (Fine 1995(Fine , 1994Koslicki 2012Koslicki , 2013Tahko and Lowe 2016), including much of the recent work on metaphysical grounding. 13 Given this, one possibility is that the collective acceptance view can be revised by appeal to the notion of ground (Griffith 2018a(Griffith , 2018bEpstein 2013Epstein , 2014Epstein , 2015aEpstein , 2015bEpstein , 2016Schaffer 2017). 14 Grounding is a non-causal relation of dependence that holds between more and less fundamental entities.…”

Section: The Collective Acceptance Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Against Social Kind Anti-Realism

Mason

2020

Metaphysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The view that social kinds (e.g., money, migrant, marriage) are mind-dependent is a prominent one in the social ontology literature. However, in addition to the claim that social kinds are mind-dependent, it is often asserted that social kinds are not real because they are mind-dependent. Call this view social kind anti-realism. To defend their view, social kind anti-realists must accomplish two tasks. First, they must identify a dependence relation that obtains between social kinds and our mental states. Call this the Dependence Task. Second, they must show that social kinds are not real because they are mind-dependent. Call this the Anti-Realist Task. In this paper, I consider several different ways of defining the relation that is supposed to obtain between social kinds and our mental states. With respect to each relation, I argue that either it fails to accomplish the Dependence Task, or it fails to accomplish the Anti-Realist Task. As such, anyone who wishes to defend social kind anti-realism must provide an alternative explanation of how social kinds depend on our mental states in a way that impugns their reality. In the absence of such an explanation, there is no reason to endorse social kind anti-realism.

show abstract

“…See also Bennett 2011 : p. 1, Correia forthcoming: Sect. 1, Griffith 2018 : p. 394, Koslicki 2015 : p. 306, Moran 2018 : p. 361, Rabin 2018 : p. 42, Raven 2012 : p. 689, Rosen 2010 : p. 116 and Wilson 2012 : p. 1. It is because Bennett endorses the generalised principle that she included clause (2) in the definiens of her definition of being more fundamental than (see Sect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%