Search

This paper represents a comparative study that explores the governmental vaccine advertising campaigns that were authorised by two English-speaking and two German-speaking countries – namely Australia, Britain, Austria and Germany – within the context of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The data set in question comprises 40 vaccination posters issued by each country's respective government between January 2021 and July 2022, all of which were displayed in public spaces. The study aims to explore how national governments use their ideological foothold to persuade their respective populations to take action against the virus by getting vaccinated, thus demonstrating how ideology and persuasion are interrelated in governmental vaccine campaigns across countries. In terms of methodology, this comparative study employs primarily methods of Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA). The strategies identified in the four countries under investigation concentrate largely on two key strategies: (1) providing a sense of community and solidarity; (2) issuing warnings and eliciting a sense of fear. The discourses of the German-speaking countries gravitate towards the discursive strategy of community, with Austria constituting a notable exception. In contrast, the Anglophone discourse in Britain and Australia employs strategies involving fear and warning, although their campaigns differ in terms of the intensity of the discourse they employ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on observational data, individual interviews (N = 22) and focus groups (N = 8) with practitioners in Italy, Norway and Slovenia, this study applies a grounded theory approach in exploring frontline practitioners' experiences of supporting families involved with child welfare services. It was anticipated that there would be significant differences between the countries regarding practitioners' understandings of families' needs and problems, and approaches to help. However, the analysis showed considerable transnational similarities. This study, therefore, offers a new perspective to the welfare regime literature in suggesting that there are important similarities to be recognised across child welfare typologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]