Abstract
Public health debates in online forums allow the emergence of ordinary practical reasoning about 'official' health information. We used a Discursive Psychology approach to analyse postings in a forum devoted to the discussion of the H1N1 (Swine flu) virus. We identify the discursive practices that contributors use to valorize certain elements in the debate (what they cast as science, rationality and 'proper' scepticism) over others (especially commercial interests, 'charlatanism' and 'profiteering'). A forum participant can be disqualified on the basis of their alleged partiality and interest, if they can be accused of having a commercial stake in the matter. But no such opprobrium results if they have a 'scientific' interest.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
