Derivazioni: Space for communication by TANAKA Sigeto
[About] [Author] [Archive] [Mobile] [RSS]

« 感染症対策「日本モデル」を検証する: その隠された恣意性 (『世界』934号) «  | |  » Politics of Double-Meaning Buzzwords: The High-Context Usage of the "Three Cs" Concept of Japan's COVID-19 Response (under review) »

Preprint 「「3密」概念の誕生と変遷: 日本のCOVID-19対策とコミュニケーションの問題」

「3つの密」「3密」という概念が生まれて変質してきた過程について、 https://remcat.hatenadiary.jp/entry/20200921/3m で紹介した資料等を基にした論文を書きました。
OSF Preprints でとりあえず公開しています:

Tanaka Sigeto. 2020. 「3密」概念の誕生と変遷: 日本のCOVID-19対策とコミュニケーションの問題. OSF Preprints. October 3. http://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/25ba6
(The Emergence and Modification of the Concept of “(Overlapping) Three Cs”: A Problem in Public Communication in Japan's Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Response)

目次


1. 「3密」概念をめぐるコミュニケーション問題
2. 課題と方法
3. 資料からわかる時系列
4. 議論
5. 結語

要約


日本の新型コロナウイルス感染症 (COVID-19) 対応を特徴づける概念である「3密」「3つの密」について、その創出と変容の過程を調べた。政府・専門家による文書を探索した結果、つぎのことがわかった。(1) 換気が悪く、人が多く、近距離での接触があるという3条件すべてを満たす状況を回避すべきという提言が公表されたのが2020年2月29日。(2) これら3条件に「密閉」「密集」「密接」という名称があたえられ、まとめて「3つの密」ということばができたのが3月18日。(3) 3条件が同時に重なった場を「3つの密」と呼ぶ定義があたえられたのが4月1日。(4) 条件が1つでもあれば「3つの密」と呼ぶ定義に変更されたのが4月7日。(5) この定義変更について説明・広報はなく、変更後の定義にしたがうことが徹底されているわけでもない。(6) 3密回避の方針は従来と変わっていないとのメッセージが政府と専門家の文書にふくまれるため、定義変更があったことが一般的に認知されず、「3密」が何を指すかについての解釈に齟齬が生まれる結果になっている。

The concept of “three Cs” (situations characterized by three conditions of closed space with poor ventilation, crowding, and close contact with a short distance) has played an important role in Japan's COVID-19 response. The government and experts have employed this concept to guide people in avoiding such situations in order to prevent outbreaks. To investigate the emergence and modification of this concept, the author traced government documents. The findings were as follows. (1) On February 29, 2020, the government, for the first time, appealed to the public to avoid places with the three overlapping conditions. (2) On March 18, a new Japanese phrase was coined that was later translated as “the (overlapping) three Cs.” (3) On April 1, experts defined the term as a place that satisfied all the three conditions. (4) On April 7, the government modified the definition to include places with at least one of the three conditions. (5) However, the government and experts have not explained the difference between the two definitions to the public. (6) Rather, they insist that their policy on the need for avoiding these three conditions has been consistent and unchanged. Their conduct has led to miscommunication and misunderstanding among the public.

Related articles



Comment:


Leave your comment

All items are optional (except the comment content). Posted comment will be immediately published, without preview/confirmation.

To pass my SPAM filter, include some non-ASCII characters more than 1% of Your Comment content. If you cannot type non-ASCII characters, copy & paste the star marks: ★☆★☆★☆.

Name
Title
E-mail (not to be published)
Your comment
Secret
Only the blog owner can read your comment


Trackback:

http://blog.tsigeto.jp/tb.php/383-cc3fb8e1


Recent

Articles

Comments

Trackbacks


Archive

Monthly

Categories [Explanation]

| News:0 || Research:78 || Education:4 || School:278 || School/readu:3 || School/writing:17 || School/family:18 || School/occ:16 || School/quesu:6 || School/statu:4 || School/readg:18 || School/quesg:13 || School/statg:25 || School/kiso:5 || School/study:24 || School/intv:12 || School/book:0 || Profile:2 || WWW:7 || WWW/this:4 |