Beskrivelse
Focusing on three case studies on political humour participation, as well as our collaborative process, this presentation captures both research and the work it involved. From vivid lunch room discussions on a satire scandal in Swedish public service media, to the challenges of working across disciplines, our story includes issues such as finding a common language, catching unexpected opportunities, and combining conceptual and methodological frameworks. Research-wise, the first case study (Rhetorica Scandinavica, 2021) analyses a controversial episode of "Svenska nyheter" (SVT, 2018-) and satire-as-genre as forensic (judicial) rhetoric; showing how audience positioning oscillates between the roles of accused culprit, judge, and duped victim. The second (Javnost-The Public, 2022), delves into the dynamics of joking and seriousness in the audience and institutional engagement with the abovementioned controversy; establishing how citizens and institutional actors responded very differently, and how digital and established media mattered here. Finally, in our third study (National Identities, 2025) we turned to civic satire and developed the notion of joking nationalism, based off an analysis of digital memes and civic interaction in Swedish-speaking Reddit, concerning Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Sweden’s ensuing NATO-application.| Periode | 2 apr. 2025 |
|---|---|
| Begivenhedstitel | KOM-Seminar: Lund University |
| Begivenhedstype | Konference |
| Placering | Lund, SverigeVis på kort |
| Grad af anerkendelse | International |
Emneord
- humor
- affekt
- metode
- Tværfaglig forskning
- satire
Relateret indhold
-
Aktiviteter
-
”Jämtland? Tror du mener Øst-Trøndelag”. Skämt, allvar och banal skandinavism på internet
Aktivitet: Præsentationer, medlemskaber og andre aktivitetstyper › Foredrag og mundtlige bidrag
-
“Everyone knows that the king rides a moose into battle”: Canonical Memes and National Identity in Joking Online Interaction.
Aktivitet: Præsentationer, medlemskaber og andre aktivitetstyper › Foredrag og mundtlige bidrag
-
Accusations as Role Distribution in Public Forensic Rhetoric
Aktivitet: Præsentationer, medlemskaber og andre aktivitetstyper › Foredrag og mundtlige bidrag
-
Satire Research Network (Begivenhed)
Aktivitet: Præsentationer, medlemskaber og andre aktivitetstyper › Medlemskab af forskningsnetværk
-
Skämt över gränserna. Humor, allvar och nordisk gemenskap online
Aktivitet: Præsentationer, medlemskaber og andre aktivitetstyper › Foredrag og mundtlige bidrag
-
Humlab Talk: How serious and silly comments interactively construct nationalism on Reddit
Aktivitet: Præsentationer, medlemskaber og andre aktivitetstyper › Foredrag og mundtlige bidrag
-
Publikation
-
“Do you realize what you have done @svtnyheter – public service?” The SKOLKO scandal as media mixing
Publikation: Konferencebidrag › Paper › Forskning › peer review
-
Joking nationalism: modes, moods, and national identity in foreign policy discourse on Swedish Reddit
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review
-
Serious Grappling with Satire: Rhetorical Genre Affordances and Invitations to Participation in Public Controversy
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review
-
Humor
Publikation: Andet › Udgivelser på nettet - Net-publikation › Forskning › peer review
-
“No fun with a political public service” The SKOLKO controversy and public service satire
Publikation: Konferencebidrag › Paper › Forskning › peer review
-
Den anklagade tittaren: Strategiskt publiktilltal i satiriska anklagelser
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review
-
Satire, subversion and subsequent struggle: The SKOLKO scandal as symbolic process
Publikation: Konferencebidrag › Paper › Forskning
-
”Håll gränsen!”: Skämtsam nationalism och reflexiv nostalgi i Whiskey on the rocks
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review
-
Kategoria: anklagens retorik
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review