The Shifting Sands of Disinformation Research: From Global Crisis to Localized Phenomenon
The narrative surrounding online disinformation has undergone a significant evolution. Initially portrayed as a global menace driving political polarization, recent research suggests a more nuanced reality. While the United States has witnessed a marked increase in political division, a recent study indicates that polarization remained stagnant or even decreased in most other countries between 1980 and 2020. This challenges the prevailing notion of social media as the primary culprit behind societal fragmentation and points towards the unique political and media landscape of the U.S. as a significant contributing factor.
One of the central challenges in disinformation research lies in quantifying its impact on electoral outcomes. Experts acknowledge the difficulty of isolating the effect of misinformation from a complex web of other influences. The authors of a study published in the Misinformation Review described this challenge as "an impossible task for researchers," highlighting the inherent difficulties in establishing a direct causal link between misinformation and voting behavior. Even with extensive data and resources, accurately measuring this impact remains elusive, raising questions about the feasibility of quantifying such a complex phenomenon.
Irene Pasquettto, assistant professor at the University of Maryland’s College of Information and a co-author of the Misinformation Review piece, echoes this sentiment, emphasizing the inherent limitations of current research methodologies. Pasquettto argues that the impact of misinformation on elections cannot be definitively quantified through scientific means, suggesting that a shift in approach may be necessary to gain more meaningful insights. This acknowledgment of the limitations of current research paradigms underscores the need for a reevaluation of existing methodologies and a potential exploration of alternative approaches.
Reframing the Disinformation Narrative: Moving Beyond "Units of Facts"
As the field of disinformation research grapples with these challenges, experts anticipate a shift in focus. Emerging research may concentrate on disinformation campaigns originating in the global south, reflecting the evolving landscape of online manipulation. Furthermore, some researchers are reassessing the dominant frameworks that emerged after the 2016 US presidential election, turning instead to "foundational frameworks" that predate this period. This reassessment is driven by growing criticism of existing approaches and the recognition that a broader, more historical perspective might be necessary to fully understand the phenomenon of disinformation.
The prevailing focus on the veracity of information as the primary lens for political analysis is also being questioned. Alice Marwick, a prominent researcher in the field, argues that an overemphasis on individual "units of facts" limits our understanding of the broader narrative landscape. She suggests that the real issue lies in the propagation of "big, sticky stories"—narratives that often have deep historical roots and resonate powerfully with individuals. These narratives, whether entirely true or containing elements of falsehood, can shape public perception and influence political behavior in ways that transcend the simple dissemination of individual facts.
Marwick’s critique challenges the dominant paradigm in disinformation research, suggesting a need to move beyond a narrow focus on fact-checking and debunking. Instead, she advocates for a deeper understanding of the underlying narratives that drive disinformation campaigns and their historical context. By exploring the broader narratives that resonate with specific audiences, researchers can gain valuable insights into the mechanisms by which disinformation takes hold and spreads. This shift in perspective could ultimately lead to more effective strategies for combating disinformation and promoting a healthier information ecosystem.