Thread by @_FelixSimon_

I was supposed to present my and @evoluchico’s thoughts on how the field of disinformation studies could be reformed at the #ica22 pre-conference #afterdisinfo (unc.live/39Motq9)

As I sadly cannot attend, I summarise it here…📝

Disinformation is now firmly entrenched in various academic disciplines & well-funded by various actors. Journalists continue to display a keen interest not least given a multitude of crises which regularly bring the topic back into focus.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Disinformation studies—the loose assortment of researchers, activists, journalists, & policymakers devoted to the study of the creation, distribution & reception of misleading information—has had positive & negative effects.

The most evident positive effect of the emergence of disinformation studies is the mobilisation of wider society around the topic and the dangers arising from dis- and misinformation during elections, pandemics, or various conflicts.

From the multiple fact-checking initiatives to a wealth of research, terms such as ‘disinformation studies’ have become effective trading zones which allow different stakeholders to communicate & investigate topics which clearly call for interdisciplinary perspectives.

Sadly there are also negative effects. While a dilution of scientific quality is one possible outcome of any rallying around a topic, we have also seen concrete political actions with work sometimes based on questionable premises/methods shaping policies.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…

With mis-/disinformation studies ‘too big to fail’ the question is then what to do with this state of affairs in light of the obvious shortcomings of the field. As interested observers positioned largely at the margins of the field, we deem a ‘revolution’ of the same unlikely.

Instead, the only feasible and pragmatic way forward is in our view reforms. Drawing on our conceptual criticism of the recent ‘infodemic’, we have the following suggestions that might contribute to pushing disinfo studies as a whole onto firmer ground.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…

We should ask:

1) Who is mis-/disinformation studies for? What agenda does the field serve?

The heightened attention around its subject matter places the field of disinformation studies in a unique position: whatever counts as mis-/dis-information will be regulated as such.

This extra pressure means that it is of fundamental importance for scholars to be mindful not just of whether their research is useful at all, but who it is useful for, and for them to do what.

For instance, computer science approaches to disinformation often focus on the automated detection of fact-checkable information. It is less concerned (and often not concerned) with how those tools might be used, or with who might be using them.

2) What is the wider impact of mis-/disinformation studies?

Despite the positive effects of a rallying cry, crisis discourse (‘misinformation crisis’, ‘information wars’, ‘infodemic’) can obfuscate the complexity of a situation and create an atmosphere of ‘moral panic’.

This can contribute to a delegitimisation of democratic processes and institutions, and potentially provide cover for political leaders keen to curb human rights. Various governments have used the alleged flood of ‘fake news’ as an excuse to pass laws that curtail human rights.

There needs to be a reckoning with the impact mis- /disinformation studies as a field has, especially in light of the problematic quality of some work in this area.

3) We need to critically assess relationships with funders, policymakers, and journalists

The field of disinformation studies would benefit from becoming an object of studies itself. A thorough self-assessment is needed to reveal the core actors and tenets of the field…

…, and shining a light on the flows of influence, values, and priorities between philanthropists, funders, academics, policymakers and the media.

4) We need to challenge the ahistoricism of mis- and disinformation studies

One of the key problems of mis- and disinformation studies is its lack of historical perspective, as for example @Chanders has argued.

misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/propag…

According to Anderson, ‘the field needs to be more conscious of its own history, particularly its historical conceptual predecessors [in propaganda studies and behavioural science].

This includes, as Anderson goes on to state, the need to ‘take a normative position on what a good information environment would look like from the point of view of political theory’ something that, so far, has not been expressed clearly enough.

Also related is the notion that information is situated: mis- and disinformation, propaganda, and other forms of communication are inherently contextual, and any scholarship on the topic should reflect that.

By this, we mean that disinformation studies should go beyond looking at Twitter, or at the Global North, or at English-speaking countries. Widening perspectives, case studies, and sources of scholarship will result in methodologically stronger papers.

5) We need to improve mis- and disinformation studies’ rigour.

While this can take (and should take) many different forms, one particularly promising avenue here could be adversarial collaborations.

web.sas.upenn.edu/adcollabprojec…

We believe that mis- and disinformation studies would benefit from such an adversarial collaborations approach, both in empirical and theoretical work (and we’d of course be open to the same ourselves)

As things stand, the wider field of mis- and disinformation studies is composed of actors with widely differing viewpoints, something well-encapsulated for example by the debates around the effects of mis- and disinformation.

Such good-faith collaborations might lead to better outcomes than the current gridlock often marked by ad hominems & the somewhat credulous belief in the self-correcting nature of the scientific enterprise (which might be the case in the longue durée but often fails short term).

The ‘after’ of disinformation studies does not have to look like the present. Yet naturally, the main problem with reforming a field from the inside is that it requires uncomfortable choices by the involved actors which go against very strong incentives to keep things the same.

In that sense, the pressure might come (or have to come) from external bodies such as funding agencies and national strategic programmes, but from other parts of the information ecosystem.

These are, of course, just some cursory thoughts but we think they present a good launching pad for a discussion about possible reforms as well as ways to implement them.

Either way, make sure you follow the pre-conference hashtag #afterdisinfo. @Chanders, @meredithdclark, @kreissdaniel, @rachelkuo and Sylvain Parasie have organised a great pre-conference and I am gutted not to be there right now.

Many wonderful presenters, incl. @berriche_manon, @lizdubois, my @oiioxford & @risj_oxford colleagues @MaCinders & @kirstenaeddy, @alicetiara, @PeckReece, @schradie, Paula Chakravartty, @dhirajmurthy, @moiragweigel, @mckelveyf, @HeidiTworek & many others =>citap.unc.edu/ica-preconfere…