What sources do individuals use to validate arguments in scientific discourses today? An exploratory study of YouTube comments on vaccination

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to explore scientific discourses on vaccination in YouTube comments using the Connectivism theory as a foundational guide in the inquiry of understanding knowledge seeking and sharing. The authors sought to understand how individuals share and seek information by using external sources through URL links to validate their arguments. Design/methodology/approach Using content analysis, the authors extracted and analysed 584 random comments with URL links from eight YouTube videos scientifically addressing the purpose of vaccines. The comments were coded by stance (pro, anti, and neutral) and the type of resource to observe how their links were used. Findings The results showed that URL links were composed of quotes, questions, and opinions. Many sources came from research papers, conspiracy websites, or other videos. Some of the comments did not accurately reflect the information from research papers and showed little scientific reasoning. This suggests the need for critical evaluation among individuals when finding information online. Research limitations/implications The findings can be expanded to explore different types of information literacy practices in the comment section of social media for both informal and formal environments. Practical implications YouTube is useful in fostering scientific discourse and information-seeking/sharing practices among individuals. However, considering the inaccuracy of content deliverance, educators and individuals will need to consider how to teach/conduct information literacy skills when implementing social media for educational purposes. Originality/value Only a few studies have conducted research on comments using URL links, the originality of sources and how the sources were used in argumentation.