Sten Hansson

@stenhansson.bsky.social

4480 Followers 465 Following

Associate Professor @UniTartu interested in #government #communication #blameavoidance #disasters #disinformation #discoursestudies https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?hl=en&user=AmIeTJYAAAAJ

Handbook on Critical Discourse Studies Edited by Bernhard Forchtner and Franco Zappettini
When governments introduce controversial policies or face a risk of policy failure, officeholders try to avoid blame and justify their decisions by using various legitimation strategies. This paper focuses on the ways in which legitimations are expressed in government social media communication, using the Twitter posts of the British government’s Brexit department as an example. We show how governments may seek legitimacy by appealing to (1) the personal authority of individual policymakers, (2) the collective authority of (political) organisations, (3) the impersonal authority of rules or documents, (4) the goals or effects of government policy, (5) ‘the will of the people’, and (6) time pressure. The results suggest that official legitimations in social media posts tend to rely more on references to authority and shared values rather than presentation of evidence and sound arguments.
This article draws attention to how the ethics of democratic representation operates as a discreet factor in a crisis of representation afflicting Western democracies by identifying the ways a disregard for truthfulness can harm democratic representation. We argue that such a disregard undermines democratic representation by (1) reducing freedom and equality, (2) weakening accountability, (3) undermining citizens’ trust in democratic institutions, and (4) jeopardising the ability to compromise. We illustrate the processes that produce these effects by analysing examples of untruthful communication about Brexit by senior British politicians in the post-referendum debates. We show how all four of these effects were triggered by the ways they misled the public by (1) making claims about overwhelming popular support for their policy, (2) misrepresenting the power relations between the European Union and the national government, and (3) seriously downplaying the complexity of negotiations involved in leaving the European Union and reaching trade deals thereafter.
In this chapter, I identify the discursive strategies by which the top officeholders who led Brexit tried to avoid blame for their divisive policy. I analyse their public statements to show how they used language to minimise the perceived agency of the government, downplay the contentiousness and harmfulness of their policy, present the UK in a positive and the EU in a negative light, and deal with charges of inconsistency.
Discourses of legitimation in strategic narratives: the case of Russia’s war against Ukraine -- by Sten Hansson, Andreas Ventsel & Mari-Liis Madisson. International security dynamics are increasingly studied within the analytical framework of strategic narratives. We offer a methodological contribution towards analysing the rhetorical mechanisms of legitimation and delegitimation in strategic narratives projected by perpetrators of wars of aggression. Building upon insights from critical discourse studies, we propose an analytical distinction between narratives that primarily function to legitimise the aggression and those that delegitimise the critics of the aggression. A further distinction is made between four kinds of identity narratives: those that primarily focus on either (1) the target of aggression, (2) the aggressor, (3) the allies of the target of the aggression or (4) the allies of the aggressor. We also suggest that legitimations in strategic narratives fall under three broad analytical categories: (1) authorisations, (2) moralisations and (3) rationalisations. These distinctions are useful as they help to think more systematically about how different strategic (de)legitimation narratives may target particular audiences – an idea that could be explored further by drawing on the concept of “Model Reader”. We illustrate this approach by analysing a specialised dataset of English language social media content published by the Russian government during its attack on Ukraine in 2022.
Reducing communication-related vulnerability to disasters: A framework for capacity development. Social vulnerability to disasters is in part driven by communication-related factors, including barriers to accessing, understanding, and acting upon information about hazards. To save lives, disaster risk managers need to develop systemic capacity to reduce these barriers. In this article, we put forward a framework for institutional communication capacity building in the field of disaster risk management. Drawing on the most recent theorisations of the dynamics of disaster vulnerability, the framework combines audience research and engagement and scenario-based vulnerability analysis exercises to provide input to evidence-based changes in organisational practices that reinforce preparedness and communication capabilities. The identified development tasks help to address the needs of people in vulnerable situations, take into account situational complications that may emerge in a particular disaster scenario, and guide the filling of capacity gaps in disaster management and social support structures.
Disaster preparedness capacity development: A scenario-based system for social vulnerability reduction. By Kati Orru, Sten Hansson, Kristi Nero, Salvatore Marchese. While capacity development in the field of disaster risk management should be evidence-based, institutional capacity building is rarely rooted in a thorough vulnerability analysis. This study highlights gaps in all-hazards disaster preparedness approaches and examines how disaster preparedness planning can systematically draw upon social vulnerability triage. We propose a novel system for identifying and prioritising vulnerable groups in various hazard scenarios and for translating their needs into institutional capacity-development plans in five domains of disaster management: (1) governance, (2) infrastructure and critical services, (3) risk management, (4) communication, and (5) engagement. To enhance preparedness, scenario-based social vulnerability assessments must be integrated into disaster management capacity development.
Doxxing is the deliberate, unauthorized disclosure of personal information, often with malicious intent. Notably, it became a key method of public shaming and vigilantism during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. This Element understands and examines doxxing as a discursive practice. Using critical discourse analysis (CDA), it analyzes online forum discussions, survey and interview data from Hong Kong university students. Findings are examined alongside institutional legal texts to show how doxxing is discursively constructed, legitimized, and contested by different social actors. The case study identifies linguistic strategies such as metaphor, euphemism, and irony, along with legitimation discourses framing doxxing as social justice, deterrence, or moral self-defense. The Element also problematizes legal ambiguities and ethical tensions surrounding doxxing practices. By foregrounding the interplay between grassroots and legal discourses, it contributes to forensic linguistics scholarship on digital harm, power, and morality in contemporary mediated environments.
Handbook on Critical Discourse Studies Edited by Bernhard Forchtner and Franco Zappettini Featuring a series of engaging conversations with key figures in the field, this accessible Handbook outlines the crucial concepts of Critical Discourse Studies (CDS). Mapping the existing literature, contributors use qualitative and quantitative research to invite new engagements with CDS and to provide insight into primary debates.
Qualitative Research Methods in Argumentation Studies Edited By Corina Andone, Marianne Doury, Sara Greco, Kati Hannken-Illjes, Menno Reijven
Morality in Discourse, edited by Michael Haugh and Rosina Márquez-Reiter. Morality is pervasive, touching all aspects of social life. The aim of this volume is to provide an introduction to research on how morality is socially constructed in and through discourse, and the implications of this for the empirical analysis and theorization of morality. The volume addresses both an ongoing gap in understanding how morality gets practically done in everyday practices, including the discursive and linguistic mechanisms participants deploy in order to be recognized as moral subjects, as well as attending to the practical concerns that discussions of morality inevitably entail. It does so by assembling a collection of current studies that delve into how morality is socially constructed in an array of communicative environments through the lens of a range of different discourse analytic traditions. Part I of this volume addresses “Moralizing in Interaction,” and the ways in which morality is enacted and interactionally negotiated in different mundane and institutional settings. Part II, “Morality and Narrative,” encompasses studies of moral positioning in narratives through the lens of linguistic anthropology and interactional sociolinguistics. The chapters in Part III, “The Politics of Morality,” concentrate on the relationship between government, (mainstream) publics, and morality, with a particular focus on studying moral condemnation and moral standing, and the policing of morality more generally. Finally, the chapters in Part IV, “Digitally Mediated Morality,” focus on the pervasive moralization of exchanges via different forms of social media and ensuing moral conflict, drawing attention to the ongoing contestation of morality in online settings.
Morality in Discourse Edited by Michael Haugh and Rosina Márquez-Reiter Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics Offers the first compilation of present-day discursive research on questions of morality Fosters dialogue between different discourse and social interaction traditions
Government Communication on Social Media: Research Foci, Domains, and Future Directions. By Sten Hansson & Nic DePaula. The aim of this review essay is to draw attention to the diversity of work done in the field of government social media communication research. It is a rapidly developing area of study that has been approached from multiple disciplinary perspectives and a variety of research traditions. We suggest that studies of government social media communication may be broadly classified based on two characteristics: (a) whether their focus is mainly on the senders, messages, media, audiences, or effects of communication; and (b) the domains of government policy and public administration that they address. We review existing literature along this classification and conclude by suggesting fruitful directions for future research.
Communication-Related Vulnerability of War Refugees: The Case of Ukrainians Escaping Russia's Invasion. When war refugees arrive in a host country, they may find themselves in a vulnerable condition and struggle to cope in a foreign setting. This article presents a systematic approach to identifying important communication-related challenges that should be addressed by policymakers at the national level of the host country to reduce the vulnerability of refugees. Building upon the theoretical framework of “communication-related vulnerability to disasters,” a case study of Ukrainian refugees fleeing to Estonia to escape Russia's invasion in 2022 is used to map out the ways in which displaced individuals may become more vulnerable due to various individual, social-structural, and situational factors that impede access to, understanding of, or responding to risk and crisis information. The data from 15 semi-structured interviews with key crisis managers show how access to vital information may be disrupted by a digitized communication environment unfamiliar to the refugees and the authorities' lack of experience in dealing with mass immigration. It also reveals how barriers to understanding arise from limited language skills and exposure to disinformation, and how crisis managers cannot provide adequate support if they experience information overload and poor interagency cooperation.
Qualitative Research Methods in Argumentation Studies Edited By Corina Andone, Marianne Doury, Sara Greco, Kati Hannken-Illjes, Menno Reijven This book explores the core principles, related theories, and conventions of qualitative research methods within the field of argumentation studies. In each chapter, contributors identify, contextualize, and offer solutions to various issues that a qualitative researcher in argumentation is likely to encounter. In doing so, the book provides a set of guidelines, instruments, and recommendations that enable readers to effectively conduct research and analyze arguments. Furthermore, the book presents discussions of the ethics, validity, and reliability of qualitative research methods as well as the intersections between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Looking to the future, chapters explore what the field could learn from other disciplines and how research could better integrate alternative data sources.
Social vulnerability triage: a dynamic scenario-based system for disaster planning and response. By Kati Orru , Sten Hansson and Kristi Nero. Disaster response planners face a difficult task: not only do they need to foresee a multitude of complex future hazard scenarios, but they also make critical decisions concerning what kind of assistance should be provided to various vulnerable groups, how quickly, and in what order. To complement existing risk and vulnerability assessment methods, we developed a dynamic social vulnerability triage system that supports such evidence-based decision-making. The novel software solution can be used to first systematically map the intersecting sources of hazard in a real or future hazard scenario, including the direct impact of the hazardous event (e.g. flood, wildfire, terrorist attack), disruptions of vital services and support structures, and communication barriers that hamper accessing or understanding risk and crisis information. Subsequently, based on this mapping of the hazard situation, the system guides the user through identifying vulnerable groups and assessing the nature and urgency of the assistance they may need. The triage results support more effective disaster risk mitigation, preparedness, communication and response planning, and help to ensure more fair and efficient resource use in crisis response.
Modern politics is permeated by blame games – symbolic struggles over the blameworthiness or otherwise of various social actors. This special issue is the first of its kind to provide a state-of-the-art overview of a range of linguistic approaches to the study of political blame games and cover a variety of mediated contexts in which blaming and blame avoidance occur.
Social media communication of government agencies should ideally be truthful and impartial to sustain public trust in government and support democratic goals. However, the politicization of agencies may harm the benefits that impartial and engaged communication brings. In this study, we provide a linguistic framework for analyzing how agency politicization is reflected in the language of government social media communication by asking: How does the agency (1) use speech acts (e.g., commands, requests), (2) talk about itself and others, (3) refer to statistical and scientific information, and (4) express positive and negative sentiment? We demonstrate the application of the framework by conducting a case study of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s messaging on Twitter across administrations with distinct ideological alignments between the agency and its top administrator. The analysis shows that (1) requests and statistical information were used substantially more under the administrator more aligned with the agency mission; (2) expressive speech acts were used more often during the administration less aligned with the agency mission; and (3) posts were generally positive but more so under the administration less aligned with the agency mission, possibly to counteract increased public criticism. We discuss the results in relation to theories of politicization and government communication, and the implications for citizens and public sector communicators using social media sites.
During emergencies, people may become more vulnerable due to difficulties with accessing and understanding crisis information and may react inadequately to hazards due to being exposed to false information. In this article, we explore how table-top exercises can be used as part of vulnerability assessment to systematically identify a range of barriers to disaster communication that may put people at risk. We conducted a table-top exercise with disaster risk management practitioners, using a complex crisis scenario that included hazards arising from severe weather, disruptions of vital services, and the diffusion of harmful false information about the crisis. The participants were provided with specialised questionnaires, assessment tables that structured and facilitated the process of identifying vulnerable groups and the causes of their vulnerability throughout the exercise. The results suggest that the proposed table-top exercise format helps to foresee potential barriers to accessing crisis information and uncover capacity gaps within the authorities responsible for communication management during a disaster.
Discourses of Political Blame Games. Modern politics is permeated by blame games – symbolic struggles over the blameworthiness or otherwise of various social actors. This special issue is the first of its kind to provide a state-of-the-art overview of a range of linguistic approaches to the study of political blame games and cover a variety of mediated contexts in which blaming and blame avoidance occur. Guest Editors: Sten Hansson, University of Tartu, Estonia Ruth Page, University of Birmingham, UK
The Politics and Governance of Blame -- introductory chapter free to read until 31 October here https://academic.oup.com/book/57606/chapter/469210123 Oxford University Press #blameavoidance
The Politics and Governance of Blame Edited by Prof Matthew Flinders, Dr Gergana Dimova, Dr Markus Hinterleitner, Prof R. A. W. Rhodes, and Prof R. Kent Weaver
As government officeholders face criticism for misconduct or policy failures, they are tempted to communicate in self-defensive ways. In this paper, I draw attention to how strategic blame avoidance in government may involve coercive impoliteness, that is, the use of expressions that attack the face of (potential) critics with an aim of forcing them to withhold their (future) criticism. Taking a discourse-historical approach to political rhetoric, I present illustrative examples of institutional government messaging from the United States, the United Kingdom, Estonia, and Russia to demonstrate how these face attacks may be accomplished in subtle ways, such as via sarcasm or mock politeness. I discuss the ethical implications of the uses of coercive impoliteness in government communication for democratic debates over public policy issues. The paper contributes to the study of political blame games, language aggression, and incivility in (digitally) mediated contexts.
During major crises, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, government officeholders issue commands to change people’s behaviour (e.g., ‘Stay at home!’) and express thanks to acknowledge the efforts of others and build solidarity. We use specialised datasets of replies to social media posts by government ministers in the United Kingdom during Covid-19 lockdowns to explore how people react to their messages that contain directive speech acts and thanking. Empirically, our corpus-assisted analysis of evaluative language and blaming shows that far from promoting team spirit, thanking may elicit at least as much, if not more blaming language than commands. Methodologically, we demonstrate how to analyse government social media communication dialogically to gain more nuanced insights about online feedback from citizens.
In this article, we provide an overview of the ways in which disaster managers in eight European countries use social media to mitigate people's vulnerability to hazards. Our document analysis and 95 expert interviews in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Hungary, Finland, Norway, and Estonia revealed six distinct institutional social media practices that may reduce disaster vulnerability: sharing educational guidelines, informing and warning the public, identifying citizens' concerns, identifying missing persons, sharing guidelines during disaster, and organizing volunteers. We discuss how these practices could affect people's ability to access, understand, and react adequately to information about risks and hazards. Our findings can be used to improve guidelines for official crisis communication on social media and demonstrate the value of using social media in disaster risk reduction.
The outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 propelled the creation, transmission, and consumption of false information – unverified claims, misleading statements, false rumours, conspiracy theories, and so on – all around the world. When various official or unofficial sources issue erroneous, misleading or contradicting information during a crisis, people who are exposed to this may behave in ways that cause harm to the health and well-being of themselves or others, e.g., by not taking appropriate risk reducing measures or blaming or harassing vulnerable groups. To work towards a typology of informational content that may increase people’s vulnerability in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, we explored 98 instances of potentially harmful information that spread in six European countries – France, Italy, Norway, Finland, Lithuania, and Estonia – between March and May 2020.
This article introduces an original theoretical model for understanding how the linguistic framing of political protest messages influences how blame spreads in social media. Our model of blame retweetability posits that the way in which the basis and focus of blame are linguistically construed affects people’s perception of the strength of criticism in the message and its likelihood to be reposted. Two online experiments provide empirical support for the model. We find that attacks on a person’s character are perceived as more critical than blaming focused on the negative outcomes of their actions, and that negative judgements of social sanction have a greater impact than those of social esteem. The study also uncovers a “retweetability paradox”—in contrast to earlier studies, we find that blame messages that are perceived as more critical are not more likely to be reposted. #polisky #commsky #polcom
Modern politics is permeated by blame games—symbolic struggles over the blameworthiness or otherwise of various social actors. In this article, we develop a framework for identifying different strategies of blaming that protesters use on social media to criticize and delegitimize governments and political leaders. We draw on the systemic functional linguistic theory of Appraisal to distinguish between blame attributions based on negative judgments of the target’s (1) capacity, such as references to their incompetence and policy failures; (2) veracity, questioning their truthfulness or honesty via references to deceitful character or dishonest acts and utterances; (3) propriety, questioning their moral standing by references to, for instance, corruption; and (4) tenacity, suggesting that the politicians are not dependable due to, for example, dithering.