Constructing the Anti‐Vaxxer: Discursive analysis of public deliberations on childhood vaccination

Abstract

Public deliberation is a form of dialogue that allows members of the public to provide input on a policy issue. Public deliberation processes invite participants to engage with each other respectfully, learn about the topic and each other's perspectives, and then work together toward solutions to an issue that are broadly acceptable. In this article, we develop a discursive psychological analysis of public deliberation on the topic of childhood vaccination. In particular, we focus on how descriptions of a parent who did not have her children vaccinated were developed iteratively by a small group of deliberants; how these descriptions came to be accepted as factual; and how these descriptions came to be used to support normative claims about childhood vaccination. Our main argument is that we can develop a deeper understanding of deliberation processes if we understand participants' statements to be rhetorically organised. This is achieved by examining how descriptions of events or people that are relevant to the final conclusions of the group are developed in the course of deliberation; how they come to be accepted as factual and accurate by the group; and how they then become instrumental in supporting a final consensus position.