Search

Abstract The application of social sciences has been recognized as valuable to inclusive humanitarian programming that aims to be attentive to the needs and initiatives of affected communities. However, the integration of social science-informed community engagement (CE) approaches in humanitarian action remains episodic, fragmented, and under-resourced. This research article provides insights from a study that reviewed existing and needed capacities for the systematic integration of social sciences for community engagement in humanitarian action. We examined what capacity resources exist and what resources need to be developed for strengthening social science integration into humanitarian programming for improved engagement of affected and at-risk communities in conflict and hazard contexts. A mixed method approach was used, including twenty-two key informant interviews and a focus group discussion with social scientists and humanitarian practitioners, an online survey with 42 respondents, a literature review, and a year-long monthly consultation with social scientists and humanitarian practitioners in a UNICEF-led global technical working group. Results illustrate insights on the value of the “social science lens” in humanitarian action and current usage of different social science disciplines. Challenges found include different understandings (e.g., on standardization), languages and methods used by practitioners and social scientists, and how to integrate the seemingly “slow” processes of social sciences to fit emergency response. Institutional barriers to mainstream community-centered humanitarian action facilitated by the social sciences include top-down decision-making and resourcing, lack of localization, and many siloed, dispersed, and episodic efforts.

Background In this era of global health crises, public trust in scientists is a crucial determinant of adherence to public health recommendations. Studies of trust in scientists often link sociodemographic and other factors to such adherence but rely on assumptions about scientists and neglect scientific uncertainty. We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-methods study evaluating factors associated with public trust of scientists in Europe, investigating how and why respondents embraced certain claims in scientific debates.Methods A survey was administered to 7000 participants across seven European countries in December 2020. Data concerning sociodemographic characteristics, trust in scientists, information source preferences, COVID-19 experiences and beliefs about pandemic origins were analysed using a multiple regression model. We employed thematic analysis to interpret open-text responses about pandemic origins and likely acceptance of treatments and vaccination.Results Trust in scientists was associated with multiple sociodemographic characteristics, including higher age and educational levels, left/centre political affiliation and use of certain information sources. Respondents claiming that COVID-19 was deliberately released and that 5G technology worsened COVID-19 symptoms had lower levels of trust in scientists. Explaining their positions in debates about pandemic origins, respondents trusting and not trusting scientists invoked scientific results and practices, arguing that scientists were not the most important actors in these debates.Conclusions Although our quantitative analyses align with prior studies, our qualitative analyses of scientists, their practices and perceived roles are more varied than prior research presumed. Further investigation of these variations is needed to strengthen scientific literacy and trust in scientists.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has been widely described as an infodemic, an excess of rapidly circulating information in social and traditional media in which some information may be erroneous, contradictory, or inaccurate. One key theme cutting across many infodemic analyses is that it stymies users’ capacities to identify appropriate information and guidelines, encourages them to take inappropriate or even harmful actions, and should be managed through multiple transdisciplinary approaches. Yet, investigations demonstrating how the COVID-19 information ecosystem influences complex public decision making and behavior offline are relatively few. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate whether information reported through the social media channel Twitter, linked articles and websites, and selected traditional media affected the risk perception, engagement in field activities, and protective behaviors of French Red Cross (FRC) volunteers and health workers in the Paris region of France from June to October 2020. MethodsWe used a hybrid approach that blended online and offline data. We tracked daily Twitter discussions and selected traditional media in France for 7 months, qualitatively evaluating COVID-19 claims and debates about nonpharmaceutical protective measures. We conducted 24 semistructured interviews with FRC workers and volunteers. ResultsSocial and traditional media debates about viral risks and nonpharmaceutical interventions fanned anxieties among FRC volunteers and workers. Decisions to continue conducting FRC field activities and daily protective practices were also influenced by other factors unrelated to the infodemic: familial and social obligations, gender expectations, financial pressures, FRC rules and communications, state regulations, and relationships with coworkers. Some respondents developed strategies for “tuning out” social and traditional media. ConclusionsThis study suggests that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the information ecosystem may be just one among multiple influences on one group’s offline perceptions and behavior. Measures to address users who have disengaged from online sources of health information and who rely on social relationships to obtain information are needed. Tuning out can potentially lead to less informed decision making, leading to worse health outcomes.