Institutional Communication Concerning the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Critical Discourse Analysis of WHO Director-General’s Speeches

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, institutional communication has been playing a crucial role. For instance, WHO (World Health Organization) has been involved in criticism concerning information related to the origins of the pandemic delivered or not in due time.1 Starting from this assumption, the study is aimed at investigating the WHO Director-General communication concerning news related to the pandemic through the analysis of speeches delivered by Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO Director-General, from 22nd January to 29th May 2020. From a methodological perspective, the approach of Critical Discourse Analysis will be adopted with particular emphasis on semantic / syntactic relations. Furthermore, the representation of social actors will be explored in order to better understand the roles played by both WHO and China in the news concerning the pandemic. In short, this work will try to explore the processes involved in the communication concerning the pandemic and the representations of the roles played by both WHO and China in order to understand legitimation strategies enacted by these two social actors

Analisi delle assenze e presenze del personale dell’Istituto di Scienze Marine CNR-ISMAR - Sede secondaria di Napoli

Nel documento sono riportati i risultati delle analisi delle presenze/assenze, relative all’anno 2021, per la Sede di Napoli dell’Istituto di Scienze Marine (ISMAR-CNR)

Tolerability of vortioxetine compared to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in older adults with major depressive disorder (VESPA): a randomised, assessor-blinded and statistician-blinded, multicentre, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND Major depressive disorder (MDD) is prevalent and disabling among older adults. Standing on its tolerability profile, vortioxetine might be a promising alternative to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in such a vulnerable population. METHODS We conducted a randomised, assessor- and statistician-blinded, superiority trial including older adults with MDD. The study was conducted between 02/02/2019 and 02/22/2023 in 11 Italian Psychiatric Services. Participants were randomised to vortioxetine or one of the SSRIs, selected according to common practice. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events after six months was the primary outcome, for which we aimed to detect a 12% difference in favour of vortioxetine. The study was registered in the online repository clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03779789). FINDINGS The intention-to-treat population included 179 individuals randomised to vortioxetine and 178 to SSRIs. Mean age was 73.7 years (standard deviation 6.1), and 264 participants (69%) were female. Of those on vortioxetine, 78 (44%) discontinued the treatment due to adverse events at six months, compared to 59 (33%) of those on SSRIs (odds ratio 1.56; 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.39). Adjusted and per-protocol analyses confirmed point estimates in favour of SSRIs, but without a significant difference. With the exception of the unadjusted survival analysis showing SSRIs to outperform vortioxetine, secondary outcomes provided results consistent with a lack of substantial safety and tolerability differences between the two arms. Overall, no significant differences emerged in terms of response rates, depressive symptoms and quality of life, while SSRIs outperformed vortioxetine in terms of cognitive performance. INTERPRETATION As opposed to what was previously hypothesised, vortioxetine did not show a better tolerability profile compared to SSRIs in older adults with MDD in this study. Additionally, hypothetical advantages of vortioxetine on depression-related cognitive symptoms might be questioned. The study's statistical power and highly pragmatic design allow for generalisability to real-world practice. FUNDING The study was funded by the Italian Medicines Agency within the "2016 Call for Independent Drug Research"

Misinformation through Social Media: The TikTok ‘Debate’ on the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Institutional Reaction

Disseminating scientific knowledge involves a high amount of responsibility on the shoulder of its authors. Therefore, it is extremely important to uphold the standards of ethical conduct while writing for a biomedical journal (Bithal 2016). According to the US department of Health and Human Services, scientific misconduct can be defined as plagiarism (presenting author’s ideas without attribution), fabrication (presenting unsubstantiated facts or data) or falsification (changing or selecting certain data to achieve a desired result, misrepresenting evidence, facts, or authorship. In particular, the latter is particularly entangled with the proliferation of scientific culture through the media. Fake news in today’s digital world commands headlines globally. Furthermore, misleading information is shared on social networks and spread across all sorts of social media. Being able to distinguish credible information from alternative facts is fundamental to curbing the dissemination and amplification of such misinformation, thus hindering the spread of unethical medical information (Sethi 2017). This is particularly true and relevant when scientific and medical information needs to be popularized. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the proliferation of fake news concerning vaccine information has produced common myths and rumours including, among others, dangerousness of ingredients in vaccines, variants and events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) caused by vaccination, etc.. For instance, lies and conspiracy theories about Covid-19, which have amassed millions of views and are accessible to young children, have been available on the social media platform TikTok for months. (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/08/revealed-anti-vaccine-tiktok-videos-viewed-children-as-young-as-nine-covid). Starting from these assumptions, the objective of this study is twofold: to analyse the argumentative structure of fake news concerning Covid-19 vaccination and explore the strategies enacted by some official institutions to debunk misinformation. The corpus includes posts published on social media (e.g. Twitter, Tik Tok, Facebook) concerning fake news on Covid-19 vaccines in 2020 and 2021 along with institutional campaigns promoted by the official institutions (WHO; Unicef, etc.) to fight them. Methodology is based on studies on argumentation (Sethi 2017; Kertész, Rákosi 2014; Toulmin 1958) and Multimodal Analysis (Jewitt, C. / Bezemer, J. / Halloran, KL 2016; Gunther K. / van Leeuwen, T. 1996 / 2006. Reading images: the grammar of visual design. London: Routledge; Gunther Kress / Theo van Leeuwen 2001). In short the study will attempt to answer the following research questions: 1) What kind of argumentative structures can be found in misinformation concerning Covid-19 vaccination on social media? 2) What kind of strategies have been enacted by the official institutions to debunk misinformation

Empowering Women from an Institutional Perspective.The Case of “Spotlight Initiative”

Social semiotics mainly deals with the social dimension of meaning . In particular, ‘[…] it sets out to reveal how processes of meaning making shape individuals and societies. Its basic assumption is that meanings derive from social action and interaction using semiotic resources as tools’ (Halloran et al 2016: 58). Starting from this theoretical assumption, the study is aimed at investigating EU And UN social commitment to protect women from violence through the’ Spotlight Initiative’. The initiative ‘[…] is so named as it brings focused attention to this issue, moving it into the spotlight and placing it at the centre of efforts to achieve gender equality and women’s empowerment, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The name reminds us that violence often takes place in the dark, is denied or rendered invisible and that it cannot survive in the light. It also highlights the importance of targeted investments in women and girls to achieve sustainable development, making this renewed and unwavering commitment of the EU and the UN visible’ (https://www.un.org/en/spotlight-initiative/index.shtml). Thus, the study will examine the ‘Spotlight initiative’ website from a multimodal perspective. More specifically, the interplay of its semiotic resources employed to promote non-violence measures against women will be analysed. As a matter of fact, ‘[…] a multimodal analysis can be best aligned with the core aims of critical discourse studies: to reveal buried ideologies in texts and to show how the powerful seek to re-contextualise social practice in their own interests and maintain control over ideology’ (Machin et al 2016: 303). In short, this work will attempt to focus on ideologies and social practices enacted by EU and UN through their efforts to achieve gender equality and women’s empowerment

Institutional Communication Concerning the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Critical Discourse Analysis of WHO Director-General's Speeches

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, institutional communication has been playing a crucial role. For instance, WHO (World Health Organization) has been involved in criticism concerning information related to the origins of the pandemic delivered or not in due time.1 Starting from this assumption, the study is aimed at investigating the WHO Director-General communication concerning news related to the pandemic through the analysis of speeches delivered by Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO Director-General, from 22nd January to 29th May 2020. From a methodological perspective, the approach of Critical Discourse Analysis will be adopted with particular emphasis on semantic / syntactic relations. Furthermore, the representation of social actors will be explored in order to better understand the roles played by both WHO and China in the news concerning the pandemic. In short, this work will try to explore the processes involved in the communication concerning the pandemic and the representations of the roles played by both WHO and China in order to understand legitimation strategies enacted by these two social actors

Why hire disabled people? Corporate inclusive policies by three tech giants

According to some recent studies from Social Sciences, when it comes to finding appropriate jobs, people with disabilities are still heavily disadvantaged (Aichner 2021, Ali et al 2011). This is mainly due to negative prejudices by employers, who often think that people with disabilities can’t perform as efficiently as non-disabled workers. These prejudices have a significant impact on the lives of people with disabilities who are looking for a job or that are currently working. Whether it is because companies are not hiring a person with a disability or because they are not fully using their employee’s skills, they are missing out important opportunities and ultimately hurting their firm’s profitability and success. Notwithstanding, some companies from the field of Information Technology have recognized the importance of hiring disabled people (Accenture et al 2018). For instance, they have realized that some computer-assisted activities can be performed by blind people or people with severe motor disabilities. The increasingly frequent possibility of working from home also facilitates the integration of these people into the world of work. Starting from these assumptions, the study will focus on inclusion policies related to disabled people promoted by some companies from the technological field. In particular, website sections devoted to inclusion and diversity of five tech giants, including Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, will be explored. Methodology will be based on studies from Multimodal analysis (Wignell, O’ Halloran, Tan 2018; Jewitt, Bezemer, Halloran 2016, O’ Toole 2011; Kress, Van Leeuwen 1996/ 2001) and corporate identity discourse (Brown 2006; Boje 2001). In short, the study will attempt to analyse corporate awareness related to disability and promotion of inclusiveness while offering job opportunities to disabled people

Europe: Home of Migrants Built on Sand. EU Political and Legal Discourse on Immigration and Asylum

Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam on 1 May 1999 and the European Council at Tampere in October 1999, the European Union committed itself to developing a common policy on immigration and asylum to ensure more effective management of migration flows to the EU. From 2001to 2005 Directives were introduced by the EU in order to guarantee refugees and displaced people civil and human rights and promote a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons, thus improving the process of harmonisation. Nevertheless, EU policy and legislation did not reveal as effective as expected. For example, Europe’s response to the crisis of displaced Iraqis has been hugely inadequate with European governments failing to fairly share the responsibility for Iraqi refugees with one another and with other countries around the world . The study is aimed at investigating to what extent the language employed in the Directives contributed to failure of adoption of common procedures for guaranteeing refugees civil and human rights. Particularly, vagueness of lexis and legal concepts were investigated. Vagueness in normative texts is a crucial issue. ‘People may not necessarily and not always be aware of vagueness in language use, while in other cases they choose deliberately to be vague. This holds particularly true for the use of vagueness in normative texts which are usually taken to have a high degree of precision’ (Bhatia, V./ Engberg, J./ Gotti M, /Heller, D. 2005: 9). It is worth noting that in EU legislation, Directives represent particular legislative instruments involved in EU harmonisation process. ‘… la direttiva è lo strumento prescritto per l’armonizzazione delle disposizioni legislative e regolamentari degli Stati Membri’(Strozzi 2005: 198