Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36714037›Full record

ArticleTransactions (Institute of British Geographers : 1965)2022

Beyond compliance: Good citizenship during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nick Clarke, Clive Barnett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transactions (Institute of British Geographers : 1965), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Beyond compliance: Good citizenship during the COVID-19 pandemic.Transactions (Institute of British Geographers : 1965) · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nick ClarkeGeography and Environmental Science University of Southampton Southampton UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9148-9849
Clive BarnettSchool of Geography University of Exeter Exeter UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1291-1421

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the UK, discussion of good citizenship during the COVID-19 pandemic largely focused on compliance and non-compliance with government rules. In this paper, we offer an alternative point of focus. Pandemic governance proceeded not only through rules/morality, but also through freedom/ethics. Good citizenship, therefore, involved practical reasoning in response to situations. We demonstrate this using diaries and other forms of writing collected by Mass Observation during the first six months of the pandemic. Responses to government rules and guidance varied by situation. Many people found governance through freedom/ethics confusing and burdensome. Faced with ethical dilemmas, they managed risks and responsibilities by deliberating, weighing justifications, and sometimes falling back on rules of thumb or heuristics. Discussion of good citizenship during future emergencies would benefit from a greater focus on situations, dilemmas, and justifications.

Indexed as

citizenshipCOVID‐19 pandemicMass ObservationresponsibilityriskUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID36714037
PMCPMC9874751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.