1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Argumentation in Context
  4. Volume 14, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 14, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In the face of growing medical scepticism and institutional distrust, this article sketches an integrated framework to examine the interplay between public health controversies and clinical interactions. Situated within Community-Centred Approaches (CCA) and participatory public health, the framework employs tools from medical argumentation to show how doubt in healthcare interactions marks a crucial site where communicative and interpretive expertise are essential and trust is actively negotiated — a site that requires participatory practices capable of responding to and repairing it through dialogical engagement and reason-giving. Building on the concept of , it analyses clinical dialogue as the core community in which institutional legitimacy and interpersonal trust are negotiated. A case study on vaccine hesitancy illustrates how expressions of doubt can activate different argumentative potentials — ambivalent, sceptical, or denialist — each opening or closing discursive trajectories that either foster or erode trust. The paper advances the notion of as a key condition for discursive trust, illustrating how clinical dialogue can serve as a site of participatory repair, understood as the active rebuilding of trust through dialogue and shared reasoning, within broader public health controversies.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.25023.ros
2025-12-04
2026-01-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jaic.25023.ros
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amossy, Ruth
    2009 “Argumentation in Discourse: A Socio-Discursive Approach to Arguments.” Informal Logic29 (3): 252. 10.22329/il.v29i3.2843
     https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v29i3.2843 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot
    1983 L’argumentation Dans La Langue. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baghramian, Maria, and Silvia Caprioglio Panizza
    2022 “Scepticism and the Value of Distrust.” Inquiry, 1–28. 10.1080/0020174X.2022.2135821
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2022.2135821 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bigi, Sarah
    2014 “Healthy Reasoning: The Role of Effective Argumentation for Enhancing Elderly Patients’ Self-Management Abilities in Chronic Care.” Studies in Health Technology and Informatics2031: 193–203.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bigi, Sarah, and Giulia Lamiani
    2016 “The Power of Words: Deliberation Dialogue as a Model to Favor Patient Engagement in Chronic Care.” InTransformative Healthcare Practice through Patient Engagement, edited byGuendalina Graffigna, 66–92. Hershey PA: IGI Global.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bigi, Sarah, and Maria Grazia Rossi
    2025 “Future Perspectives in Medical Argumentation.” Journal of Argumentation in Context14 (3): 275–279. 10.1075/jaic.14.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.14.3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brossard, Dominique, and Bruce V. Lewenstein
    2010 “A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory.” InCommunitcating Science: New Agendas in Communication, edited byLeeAnn Kahlor and Patricia Stout, 11–39. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Burgess, Rochelle Ann, Richard H. Osborne, Kenneth A. Yongabi, Trisha Greenhalgh, Deepti Gurdasani, Gagandeep Kang, Adegoke G. Falade, et al
    2021 “The COVID-19 Vaccines Rush: Participatory Community Engagement Matters More than Ever.” The Lancet397 (10268): 8–10. 10.1016/S0140‑6736(20)32642‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32642-8 [Google Scholar]
  9. Candlin, Christopher N.
    2000 “The Cardiff Lecture 2000: Reinventing the Patient/Client: New Challenges to Healthcare Communication (Cardiff Papers on Healthcare Discourse 2).” Cardiff Un. Cardiff.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Carel, Havi, and Ian James Kidd
    2014 “Epistemic Injustice in Healthcare: A Philosophial Analysis.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy17 (4): 529–40. 10.1007/s11019‑014‑9560‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9560-2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dutilh Novaes, Catarina
    2020 “The Role of Trust in Argumentation.” Informal Logic40 (2): 205–36. 10.22329/il.v40i2.6328
     https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v40i2.6328 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dwyer, Harriet, Luisa Enria, Nadine Beckmann, and Julie Leask
    2025 “Trust and the Infodemic: Reframing Information Threats in the Realm of Public Health.” Critical Public Health35 (1). 10.1080/09581596.2025.2535084
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2025.2535084 [Google Scholar]
  13. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
    1984 Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrech: Floris Publications. 10.1515/9783110846089
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  14. 1992 Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Eemeren, Frans H Van, Rob Grootendorst, Scott Jacobs, and Sally Jackson
    1993 Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Esmark, Anders
    2023 “How Does Crisis Affect the Conflict between Technocracy and Populism? Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Politics43 (4): 520–35. 10.1177/02633957211049965
     https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957211049965 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ferrer-Urbina, Rodrigo, Yasna Ramírez, Patricio Mena-Chamorro, Marcos Carmona-Halty, and Geraldy Sepúlveda-Páez
    2024 “Naive Skepticism Scale: Development and Validation Tests Applied to the Chilean Population.” Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica37 (1): 6. 10.1186/s41155‑024‑00288‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-024-00288-0 [Google Scholar]
  18. Figueiredo, Alexandre de, Clarissa Simas, Emilie Karafillakis, Pauline Paterson, and Heidi J. Larson
    2020 “Mapping Global Trends in Vaccine Confidence and Investigating Barriers to Vaccine Uptake: A Large-Scale Retrospective Temporal Modelling Study.” The Lancet396 (10255): 898–908. 10.1016/S0140‑6736(20)31558‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31558-0 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fischer, Alain, Patrick Peretti-Watel, and Jeremy Ward
    2025 “Vaccine Policies in France and Europe.” Current Opinion in Immunology921. 10.1016/j.coi.2024.102513
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coi.2024.102513 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gauna, Fatima, Pierre Verger, Lisa Fressard, Marie Jardin, Jeremy K. Ward, and Patrick Peretti-Watel
    2023 “Vaccine Hesitancy about the HPV Vaccine among French Young Women and Their Parents: A Telephone Survey.” BMC Public Health23 (1). 10.1186/s12889‑023‑15334‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15334-2 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldenberg, Maya J.
    2016 “Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy.” Perspectives on Science24 (5): 552–81. 10.1162/POSC_a_00223
     https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00223 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2021 Vaccine Hesitancy. Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 10.2307/j.ctv1ghv4s4
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1ghv4s4 [Google Scholar]
  23. Govier, Trudy
    1987 Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110859249
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110859249 [Google Scholar]
  24. Habermas, Jürgen
    1991 The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Heyde, Sophia, Vanesa Osmani, Gunther Schauberger, Claire Cooney, and Stefanie J. Klug
    2024 “Global Parental Acceptance, Attitudes, and Knowledge Regarding Human Papillomavirus Vaccinations for Their Children: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.” BMC Women’s Health24 (1): 537. 10.1186/s12905‑024‑03377‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03377-5 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ivani, Silvia, and Alfred Archer
    2024 “Taking the Public Seriously: The Role of Respect in Interactions between Scientific Experts and Lay Publics.” Synthese204 (4): 124. 10.1007/s11229‑024‑04772‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04772-z [Google Scholar]
  27. Ivani, Silvia, and Catarina Dutilh Novaes
    2022 “Public Engagement and Argumentation in Science.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science12 (3): 54. 10.1007/s13194‑022‑00480‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00480-y [Google Scholar]
  28. Jackson, Sally
    2024 “Health Controversies: Long-Term Disagreement Management Challenges.” Journal of Health Communication29 (8): 490–501. 10.1080/10810730.2024.2369810
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2024.2369810 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2025 “Health Controversies: A Challenge for Argumentation Theory.” Journal of Argumentation in Context14 (3): 366–384. 10.1075/jaic.25026.jac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.25026.jac [Google Scholar]
  30. Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs
    1980 “Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme.” Quarterly Journal of Speech66 (3): 251–65. 10.1080/00335638009383524
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638009383524 [Google Scholar]
  31. Jackson, Sally, and Jodi Schneider
    2016 “Argumentation Devices in Reasoning About Health.” InCMNA@ IJCAI, 49–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 2018 “Cochrane Review as a ‘Warranting Device’ for Reasoning About Health.” Argumentation32 (2): 241–72. 10.1007/s10503‑017‑9440‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9440-z [Google Scholar]
  33. Kirby, David
    2006 Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kjeldsen, Jens E.
    2007 “Visual Argumentation in Scandinavian Political Advertising: A Cognitive, Contextual, and Reception Oriented Approach.” Argumentation and Advocacy43 (3–4): 124–32. 10.1080/00028533.2007.11821668
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821668 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kurpas, Donata, Dorota Stefanicka–wojtas, Aneta Soll–morka, Katarzyna Lomper, Bartosz Uchmanowicz, Beata Blahova, Aelita Bredelytė,
    2025 “Vaccine Hesitancy and Immunization Patterns in Central and Eastern Europe: Sociocultural, Economic, Political, and Digital Influences Across Seven Countries.” Risk Management and Healthcare Policy181: 1911–34. 10.2147/RMHP.S519479
     https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S519479 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lavezzolo, Sebastián, Luis Ramiro, and Pablo Fernández-Vázquez
    2022 “Technocratic Attitudes in COVID-19 Times: Change and Preference over Types of Experts.” European Journal of Political Research61 (4): 1123–42. 10.1111/1475‑6765.12491
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12491 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lewiński, Marcin, and Dima Mohammed
    2016 “Argumentation Theory.” InThe International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy, 1–15. New York: John Wiley \& Sons. 10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect198
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect198 [Google Scholar]
  38. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Sarah Bigi
    2017 “Analyzing the Pragmatic Structure of Dialogues.” Discourse Studies19 (2): 148–68. 10.1177/1461445617691702
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mark, Navin
    2015 Values and Vaccine Refusal: Hard Questions in Ethics, Epistemology, and Health Care. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Mohammed, Dima
    2019a “Managing Argumentative Potential in the Networked Public Sphere : The Anti- # MeToo Manifesto as a Case in Point.” InProceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, edited byB. Garssen, D. Godden, G. R. Mitchell, and Wagemans, J. H. M., 813–22. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 2019b “Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What Is at Stake in a Public Political Argument?” Argumentation33 (3): 307–22. 10.1007/s10503‑018‑9473‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9473-y [Google Scholar]
  42. 2023 “Argument by Association: On the Transmissibility of Commitment in Public Political Arguments.” Topoi42 (2): 625–34. 10.1007/s11245‑023‑09914‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-023-09914-5 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2025 “Where the Hate Lies in Soft Hate Speech: The Argumentative Potential in Hostile Public Spheres.” Critical Discourse Studies. 10.1080/17405904.2024.2446938
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2024.2446938 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mohammed, Dima, and Maria Grazia Rossi
    2022 “The Argumentative Potential of Doubt: From Legitimate Concerns to Conspiracy Theories About COVID-19 Vaccines.” InArgumentation Library, edited bySteve Oswald, Marcin Lewiński, Sara Greco, and Serena Villata, 431:125–44. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑91017‑4_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91017-4_7 [Google Scholar]
  45. Nacoti, Mirco, Andrea Ciocca, Pietro Brambillasca, Francesco Fazzi, Michele Pisano, Massimo Giupponi, Antonio Pesenti, Oliviero Valoti, and Maurizio Cereda
    2021 “A Community-Based Model to the COVID-19 Humanitarian Crisis.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology111. 10.3389/fcimb.2021.639579
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.639579 [Google Scholar]
  46. Nacoti, Mirco, Andrea Ciocca, Angelo Giupponi, Pietro Brambillasca, Federico Lussana, Michele Pisano, Giuseppe Goisis, et al
    2020 “At the Epicenter of the Covid-19 Pandemic and Humanitarian Crises in Italy: Changing Perspectives on Preparation and Mitigation.” Catalyst Non-Issue Content1 (2). 10.1056/CAT.20.0080
     https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.20.0080 [Google Scholar]
  47. Nyhan, Brendan, Jason Reifler, Sean Richey, and Gary L. Freed
    2014 “Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial.” Pediatrics133 (4): e835–42. 10.1542/peds.2013‑2365
     https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2365 [Google Scholar]
  48. O’Mara-Eves, A., G. Brunton, D. McDaid, S. Oliver, J. Kavanagh, F. Jamal, T. Matosevic, A. Harden, and J. Thomas
    2013 “Community Engagement to Reduce Inequalities in Health: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Economic Analysis.” Public Health Research1 (4): 1–526. 10.3310/phr01040
     https://doi.org/10.3310/phr01040 [Google Scholar]
  49. Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1969 The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Pilgram, Roosmaryn
    2025 “Shared Decision-Making and Argumentation: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective on Medical Consultations as Discussion Situations.” Journal of Argumentation in Context14 (3): 305–320. 10.1075/jaic.25025.pil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.25025.pil [Google Scholar]
  51. Pilgram, Roosmaryn, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2018 “A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective on Obstacles to Shared Decision-Making.” Journal of Argumentation in Context7 (2): 161–76. 10.1075/jaic.18027.pil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18027.pil [Google Scholar]
  52. Popa, Elena
    2024 “Values in Public Health: An Argument from Trust.” Synthese203 (6). 10.1007/s11229‑024‑04650‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04650-8 [Google Scholar]
  53. Prasad, Sakshi, Abia Shahid, Edzel Lorraine F. Co, Govinda Khatri, Huzaifa Ahmad Cheema, Ian Christopher N. Rocha, Mainak Bardhan, and Mohammad Mehedi Hasan
    2022 “Vaccine Apartheid: The Separation of the World’s Poorest and Most Vulnerable and the Birth of Omicron.” Therapeutic Advances in Vaccines and Immunotherapy101. 10.1177/25151355221107975
     https://doi.org/10.1177/25151355221107975 [Google Scholar]
  54. Regina Wu, Ruey-Jiuan
    2009 “Repetition in the Initiation of Repair.” InConversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, edited byJack Sidnell, 31–59. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Romer, Daniel, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson
    2020 “Conspiracy Theories as Barriers to Controlling the Spread of COVID-19 in the U.S.” Social Science and Medicine2631: 113356. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113356
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113356 [Google Scholar]
  56. Rossi, Maria Grazia, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2021 “The Communicative Functions of Metaphors between Explanation and Persuasion.” InPerspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy and Psychology, edited byFabrizio Macagno and Alessandro Capone, 271:171–91. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑56437‑7_12
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56437-7_12 [Google Scholar]
  57. Rossi, Maria Grazia, Fabrizio Macagno, and Sarah Bigi
    2022 “Dialogical Functions of Metaphors in Medical Interactions.” Text and Talk42 (1): 77–103. 10.1515/text‑2019‑0166
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0166 [Google Scholar]
  58. Rossi, Maria Grazia, and Dima Mohammed
    2025 (forthcoming). “An Argumentative View on Medical Skepticism.” InProceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) Conference.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Rossi, Maria Grazia, Dima Mohammed, and Sarah Bigi
    2024a “Dealing with Uncertainty: The Argumentative Potential of Doubt in Medical Consultations.” Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentacion2024 (2): 35–48. 10.15366/ria2024.m2.003
     https://doi.org/10.15366/ria2024.m2.003 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2024b “Exploring the Argumentative Potential of Doubt in Medical Consultations.” InECA Proceedings. College Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Scavarda, Alice, Mario Cardano, and Luigi Gariglio
    2025 “Childhood Vaccine Hesitancy as an Interaction-Based Phenomenon.” Sociology of Health and Illness47 (4). 10.1111/1467‑9566.70036
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.70036 [Google Scholar]
  62. Serafis, Dimitris
    2022 “Unveiling the Rationale of Soft Hate Speech in Multimodal Artefacts.” Journal of Language and Discrimination6(2): 261–288. 10.1558/jld.22363
     https://doi.org/10.1558/jld.22363 [Google Scholar]
  63. Shah, Parth D., William A. Calo, Melissa B. Gilkey, Marjorie A. Margolis, Susan Alton Dailey, Karen G. Todd, and Noel T. Brewer
    2021 “Easing Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Hesitancy: A Communication Experiment With U.S. Parents.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine61 (1): 88–95. 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.02.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.02.009 [Google Scholar]
  64. Snoeck-Henkemans, Francisca
    1997 “Verbal Indicators of Argumentation and Explanation.” InOSSA Conference Archive. 1001.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Snoeck Henkemans, Francisca, and Dima Mohammed
    2014 “Institutional Constraints on Strategic Maneuvering in Shared Medical Decision-Making.” Journal of Argumentation in Context1 (1): 19–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Snoeck Henkemans, Francisca, Nanon Labrie, and Roosmaryn Pilgram
    2018 “Argumentation and Patient Centered Care.” Journal of Argumentation in Context7 (2): 117–19. 10.1075/jaic.18026.sno
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18026.sno [Google Scholar]
  67. South, Jane, Anne Marie Bagnall, Jude A. Stansfield, Kris J. Southby, and Pritti Mehta
    2019 “An Evidence-Based Framework on Community-Centred Approaches for Health: England, UK.” Health Promotion International34 (2): 356–66. 10.1093/heapro/dax083
     https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dax083 [Google Scholar]
  68. South, Jane, Jude Stansfield, and Kevin Fenton
    2015 “Putting Communities at the Heart of Public Health.” Perspectives in Public Health135 (6): 291–93. 10.1177/1757913915610495
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913915610495 [Google Scholar]
  69. Stansfield, Jude, Jane South, and Tom Mapplethorpe
    2020 “What Are the Elements of a Whole System Approach to Community-Centred Public Health? A Qualitative Study with Public Health Leaders in England’s Local Authority Areas.” BMJ Open10 (8): e036044. 10.1136/bmjopen‑2019‑036044
     https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036044 [Google Scholar]
  70. Wallerstein, Nina, and Bonnie Duran
    2010 “Community-Based Participatory Research Contributions to Intervention Research: The Intersection of Science and Practice to Improve Health Equity.” American Journal of Public Health100 (SUPPL. 1). 10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036
     https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036 [Google Scholar]
  71. Wallerstein, Nina, Rosilda Mendes, Meredith Minkler, and Marco Akerman
    2011 “Reclaiming the Social in Community Movements: Perspectives from the USA and Brazil/South America: 25 Years after Ottawa.” Health Promotion International26 (SUPPL. 2). 10.1093/heapro/dar077
     https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dar077 [Google Scholar]
  72. Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe
    1995 Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Wesley, Jared, and Samuel Goertz
    2025 “Trust, Technocracy, and the Public Servant’s Bargain: The Evolving Role of Canadian Health Leaders Post-COVID.” Healthcare Management Forum, February, 8404704251320301. 10.1177/08404704251320301
     https://doi.org/10.1177/08404704251320301 [Google Scholar]
  74. World Health Organization
    World Health Organization 1978 “Declaration of Alma-Ata.” https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-1978-3938-43697-61471
  75. World Health Organization
    World Health Organization 1986 “Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion.” Health Promotion International. Vol.11. 10.1093/heapro/1.4.405
     https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/1.4.405 [Google Scholar]
  76. World Health Organization
    World Health Organization 2019 “Ten Threats to Global Health in 2019.” https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019
  77. World Health Organization
    World Health Organization 2021 “WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at 148th Session of the Executive Board.” https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-148th-session-of-the-executive-board
  78. Wright, Jake
    2019 “The Truth, but Not yet: Avoiding Naïve Skepticism via Explicit Communication of Metadisciplinary Aims.” Teaching in Higher Education24 (3): 361–77. 10.1080/13562517.2018.1544552
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1544552 [Google Scholar]
  79. 2020 “‘Many People Are Saying…’: Applying the Lessons of Naïve Skepticism to the Fight against Fake News and Other’ Total Bullshit.’” Postdigital Science and Education2 (1): 113–31. 10.1007/s42438‑019‑00051‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00051-0 [Google Scholar]
  80. Wu, Dadong, Peiyi Liu, He Wang, Wenwen Wan, and Yueyun Wang
    2024 “Willingness and Hesitancy towards the Governmental Free Human Papillomavirus Vaccination among Parents of Eligible Adolescent Girls in Shenzhen, Southern China.” BMC Women’s Health24 (1). 10.1186/s12905‑024‑03083‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03083-2 [Google Scholar]
  81. Wynne, Brian
    1991 “Knowledges in Context.” Science, Technology, & Human Values16 (1): 111–21. www.jstor.org/stable/690044. 10.1177/016224399101600108
     https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600108 [Google Scholar]
  82. Zagarella, Roberta Martina, and Marco Annoni
    2019 “A Rhetorical Perspective on Conspiracies.” Journal of Argumentation in Context8 (2): 262–83. 10.1075/jaic.18006.zag
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18006.zag [Google Scholar]
  83. Zheng, Heng, Theodore Dreyfus Ledford, and Jodi Schneider
    2024 “Arguing About Controversial Science in the News: Does Epistemic Uncertainty Contribute to Information Disorder? BT — Wisdom, Well-Being, Win-Win.” In, edited byIsaac Sserwanga, Hideo Joho, Jie Ma, Preben Hansen, Dan Wu, Masanori Koizumi, and Anne J. Gilliland, 211–35. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Zilinsky, Jan, and Yannis Theocharis
    2025 “Conspiracism and Government Distrust Predict COVID-19 Vaccine Refusal.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications12 (1): 1002. 10.1057/s41599‑025‑05267‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05267-z [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.25023.ros
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentative participation; argumentative potential; medical scepticism; vaccine hesitancy

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error