This paper compares the effect of social isolation on students enrolled in online courses versus students enrolled in on campus courses (called in this paper Face-to-Face or F2F). Grade data was collected from one online section and two F2F sections of a computer literacy course that was recently taught by one of the authors of this study. The same instructor taught all sections thereby providing a controlled comparison between the two forms of teaching (F2F and online). This paper first introduces the plan and the limitation of this study. It provides a literature review and notes the trend of social isolation found in online courses. This paper then presents a summary of the collected data; and offers a conclusion based on the collected data.
COVID-19 vaccine development has been widely awaited, but concerns around acceptance and political polarisation prevail. We sought to determine the willingness of Australians to take a (then prospective) COVID-19 vaccine, compared with their previously recorded opinions about other vaccines. We also sought to determine reasons for hesitancy, levels of support for possible government mandates, and the political basis of support. We surveyed 1200 Australians, including 898 participants in a panel previously asked in 2017 about vaccines and mandates. In all, 66% of respondents indicated they would take a coronavirus vaccine, less than the 88% who in 2017 agreed that vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary. Also, 70% of the respondents who indicated hesitancy were concerned about the safety of the vaccine if it was developed too quickly, and 73% of all respondents agreed that the government should require a coronavirus vaccine for work, travel, and study. This is lower than the 85% who agreed with the childhood vaccine mandate in 2017, but slightly higher than the number of respondents who indicated that they would definitely be willing to take the coronavirus vaccine themselves. Older respondents, higher income respondents, and respondents who vote for major parties were all significantly more likely to take a coronavirus vaccine and to support government requirements.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical framework for understanding the identity politics associated with parental hesitancy and refusal of vaccines for their children (“vaccine hesitancy or refusal” or “VHR”). Understanding these identity politics helps policymakers to craft appropriate communication interventions that do not make the problem worse.
Design/methodology/approach
Social identity theory is a way of understanding how group identities develop around the lifestyle practices that often include refusal to vaccinate, and how this group identity is accentuated by conflict with the pro-vaccinating societal mainstream. This paper critically appraises existing studies of VHR to explore this groupness across many different contexts.
Findings
Groupness is evident across many different contexts. There are also key group characteristics: preference for natural birth and breastfeeding, nature as a concept and use of complementary and alternative medicine.
Research limitations/implications
The paper is speculative and theoretical, using existing sources. Future studies will need to demonstrate empirically with new data. However, this theoretical approach sets up a new research agenda.
Social implications
These findings can help governments and policymakers minimise social conflict that risks further polarising vaccine conversations and wedging parents on the fence.
Originality/value
This paper argues that the decision to vaccinate or not is an inherently social one, not a matter of pure individual rationality. This is a novel approach to engaging with what is often characterised and studied as an individual decision.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.