数字仇恨文化

欢迎来到《社会生存指南》

Welcome to Surviving Society.

欢迎收听《社会生存指南》特别节目，我是本期客座主持人汉娜·耶伦，来自牛津布鲁克斯大学，以及我的合著者兼联合主持人，兰卡斯特大学的劳拉·克兰西。本期节目聚焦我们的研究项目《数字仇恨文化》，探讨研究人员在公开分享研究成果时遭遇抵制的现象。劳拉，能否请你先谈谈我们开启这项研究的亲身经历？

Welcome to this special episode of Surviving Society, guest presented by me, Hannah Yellen, Oxford Brookes, and my co author and co presenter today, Laura Clancy from Lancaster University. This episode focuses on our research project Cultures of Digital Hate, and what happens when researchers experience backlash when sharing their research publicly. Laura, will you kick us off by outlining our own experiences that started us down this line of research?

是的。汉娜和我最初在2018年开始合作，我们为《名人研究》期刊撰写了一篇关于梅根·马克尔的文章。当时梅根刚嫁入王室——她与哈里王子成婚不久。婚礼期间有很多关于她如何为这个古老机构带来现代化气息的讨论。

Yeah. So Hannah and I first started working together in 2018, and we wrote a piece, a journal article, for the journal Celebrity Studies that was about Meghan Markle. So if you remember around this time, Meghan Markle had just married into the royal family. So she just married Prince Harry. And there was a lot of talk around the time of the wedding, about about her kind of modernising the institution and modernising the monarchy.

汉娜和我合作撰文指出，王室正通过挪用梅根·马克尔的女权主义者和混血身份来塑造进步形象，却未进行实质性的制度变革。文章发表时间大概是12月吧汉娜？年底的时候。某个周六晚上我们突然收到《星期日泰晤士报》的邮件，说他们发现了我们的期刊论文，准备次日早晨在报纸上刊登相关报道。后来他们确实这么做了。

And Hannah and I came together to write a piece that talked about this kind of narrative as the monarchy co opting Meghan Markle's feminist identity and mixed race identity as a way of making the institution appear more progressive while making very little kind of institutional change. So this was published, I think it was December, Hannah, something like that. It was late in the year. And we randomly got this email on a Saturday evening from someone at the Sunday Times saying that they'd they'd found our journal article essentially, and we're gonna publish a piece on it in the in the Sunday Times newspaper the next morning. So they did.

这篇报道随后被全球数百家新闻媒体转载

That then got picked up by hundreds of news outlets around the world, really.

当时的新闻标题是什么，劳拉？

And what was the headline, Laura?

标题是《学者指控梅根·马克尔像甩烫手山芋般抛弃女权主义》

The headline was academics accuse Meghan Markle of dropping feminism like a hot potato.

这不是我们说的，对吧？

Which is not what we said, was it?

不，这完全不是我们说的。我们还注意到，当所有新闻媒体都报道这件事时，他们把‘烫手山芋’打上引号，好像是我们说的，但实际上这是《星期日泰晤士报》的说法。所以我们能看出事情真的失控了。

No. It's not what we said at all. And what we noticed as well, when all the news outlets published a piece about it, they put hot potatoes in quote marks as though that had come from us, whereas actually it had come from the Sunday Times. So we could kind of see this getting really out of hand.

谈到这段经历时我总说——学术界的听众会明白——‘像扔烫手山芋一样抛弃’这种表述根本不可能通过同行评审。且不论这不是我们的观点，这本身就是个彻头彻尾的错误。

And one thing I always say when we talk about this experience is, well, academic listeners will know, drop it like a hot potato isn't really a phrase that would get through peer review. It's not. Aside from it not being what we think, it's just a real No.

而且我们只是...他们根本没那样说。对。那不是他们的意思...根本不是。甚至都不是反梅根·马克尔的，尽管被渲染成那样。这是反君主制，而非反梅根·马克尔。

And we also just They didn't say that. Yeah. That wasn't what they it wasn't. And it wasn't even anti Meghan Markle, really, whether that's how it was portrayed. It was anti monarchy, but not anti Meghan Markle.

所以我们的真实经历就是事态迅速失控。那是个周末，我说过事情发生在周六深夜，大概晚上9点这种荒唐时间。我们联系不上两所大学的任何人，周日也不行。等到周一能联系时，局面已经完全失控了。

So our experience of this really was it got out of hand very quickly. It was a weekend. Obviously, I said it was a sat it was really late on Saturday, about 9PM or something ridiculous. So there was no one we could contact at either of our universities or on Sunday. And by the time we could on Monday, things had just really got out of hand.

全球媒体都在报道。汉娜被邀请上——其实我们俩都被邀请了——但汉娜去了天空新闻台讨论这事，期间他们还在屏幕底部用引号标注‘烫手山芋’作为标语，这实在...不...

There'd been there'd been stuff all around the world. Hannah had been invited on Well, we'd both been invited, but Hannah went on Sky News to talk about it, during which they also had hot potatoes in quote marks as the kind of tagline across the bottom of the screen, which didn't Not

那个我

that I

能看出来。

could see that.

不，我看不出来，所以没法让他们纠正。

No. Couldn't see that, so I couldn't ask them to correct that.

不，我当时惊恐地看着，但从兰卡斯特能做的实在有限。我是说，

No, I was watching in horror, but there was not a lot I could do from Lancaster. Mean,

我们经常见面，但那一刻我其实没在WhatsApp上。确实如此。Sky在推特上发布了这个片段，对吧？一小段视频。然后那个片段被转发、分享到各种其他新闻平台。

we see each other constantly, but I was not actually, at that moment, on WhatsApp. That's true. Sky put this out on Twitter, didn't they? A little clip of it. And that clip got remediated, retweeted, shared around all other kinds of news outlets.

反应如何？

What what was the reaction?

所以我们——我是说，我们当时简直被轰炸了。每小时几百条通知，真的让人应接不暇。我们现在笑着谈这事，但当时其实挺戏剧性的。对，就是铺天盖地的辱骂。

So we I mean, we were just getting absolutely bombarded. I mean, hundreds of notifications every it was really overwhelming. And we're laughing about this, but, like, at the time, it was it was actually quite dramatic. Yeah. Of just abuse.

全是性别歧视的辱骂。真的，

Just sexist abuse all It's really,

比如，这会激发你的战斗或逃跑反应，对吧？

like, activates your flight on fight, doesn't it?

是的，那太可怕了。相当吓人。实际上我们并没有受到多少实质性的威胁，但那种感觉仍然非常恐怖，而且来得那么快。真的完全无法掌控局面。

Yeah. It was horrendous. Quite scary. We actually didn't get many kind of threats, as in physical threats, but it's still really terrifying to have that on you and have it coming in so quickly. Yeah, there was just no way to get a handle on it.

而且我们当时真的不知道该怎么办。现在回想起来，如果同样的事情再发生，我们的反应会完全不同。但在那个时刻，真的很难知道该如何应对。

And we didn't really know what we were doing. Think it's fair to say, like now I think we would react very differently if that happened to us. But when you're in the moment, it's kind of hard to know how to respond to that.

有趣的是，我们一直在写关于梅根·马克尔作为活动人士的声音被压制的事情。这是我们想要批判性关注的重点之一。而对我们文章的回应却延续了这种传统——让我们闭嘴。这里我们收集了一些代表性的评论。

One of the funny things was that we'd been writing about the silencing of Markle's activist voice. That's one of the things that we wanted to kind of critically draw attention to. And then the responses to us were, like, carrying this on. They they carried on this tradition, telling us to shut up. So we've got some of the quotes here.

我们把这些评论找出来提醒自己。这些都是对我上电视后收到的'赞美'：有人说'连她烦人的声音五分钟都受不了'，还有人说'闭嘴吧，你这个疯婆子市长'，或者'这女人听起来像个白痴'。

We pulled them up to remind ourselves. And this is some of the really flattering response to me being on TV. Quote, couldn't stand five minutes of her irritating voice. Another said, shut up, you mad mayor. Or this woman sounds like a bell end.

这些都是推特上的回应。我们思考过这种矛盾——我们讨论梅根·马克尔被消音的现象，结果我们自己却遭到了同样的对待。玛丽·比尔德写过一本很棒的小书《权力中的女性》，她指出社会在文化上对女性声音与公共领域的演讲、辩论和评论之间存在一种尴尬的关系。

So all tweets in response. And this, you know, this yeah. We thought about this and this this contradiction between us talking about the silencing of Meghan Markle and then that happening to us as a response. And Mary Beard has written this very good, very small, very accessible book called Women in Power. And she argues that society has a culturally awkward relationship between the voice of women and the public sphere of speech making, debate, and comment.

玛丽·比尔德用简洁易懂的方式梳理了三千年来男性让女性闭嘴的历史。这正是我们观察评论的现象，结果我们自己就亲身经历了。

And Mary Beard beautifully charts very quickly and easy to kind of follow and understand three thousand years, which is basically men telling women to shut up. That's what we were observing and commenting on, and then that was what we were experiencing.

因此，我们花了几个月时间思考这个问题并让它沉淀一下。但我们后来认为其中有些值得探讨的内容。于是我们撰写了一篇期刊文章，对这个经历进行了自我民族志研究，分析了那些评论。我们在阅读过程中发现了某些模式，并希望提炼出其中的部分内容。最终我们发表了一篇题为《当女性从事影响力工作时：仇恨推文、烫手山芋与专家过剩现象》的文章。

So from, I mean, from this, we kind of we it took us a few months to think about this and let it settle a bit. But then we thought there was something in it. So we we wrote a journal article, an autoethnography of this experience where we looked at the comments. We we could see that there were patterns when we were reading them as we went along, and we wanted to pick some of that out. And so we have an article called, doing impact work while female, hate tweets, hot potatoes, and having enough of experts.

我们分析了评论区留言——比如《每日邮报》的跟帖和社交媒体回复，发现收到的攻击具有明显的性别歧视特征。就像汉娜刚才提到的让女性闭嘴的性别化语言，还有'婊子'这类你能想到的侮辱词汇。同时我们还发现这些言论与'假新闻'和英国脱欧议题存在有趣的关联。要知道2018到2019年间所有话题都绕不开脱欧。

And we analysed the below the line comments. So on the Daily Mail, for example, and replies on social media, and found that the abuse we were receiving was very gendered. So that gendered language that Hannah just mentioned about, you know, telling women to shut up, also things like bitches, things you would imagine coming through in there. And there was some really interesting connections as well to, like, ideas of fake news and Brexit. Obviously, we're we're talking at a time when everything was about Brexit in 2018, 2019.

有条评论说：'为什么天空电视台总给这种人发声机会？这个机构似乎痴迷于女性议题和脱欧——女性议题、脱欧、女性议题。你们能不能报道点不含偏见的真新闻？来点涉及男性的新闻如何？'这些有趣的模式你可以在我们文章里读到更多细节，我们梳理了公众舆论大环境与梅根·马克尔事件这个具体议题之间的关联模式——关于王室与女性主义的特殊争议。

So one comment was, why does Sky constantly give a voice to people like this? It seems like it's an organisation obsessed with female issues, Brexit, female issues, Brexit, female issues. You might want to report on some actual unbiased news for once. How about some news that actually includes men? So there were these really interesting patterns that you can read the article if you want to know a bit more about, where we pick out some of these kinds of patterns between what was happening more broadly in public discourse, and then what was happening towards on this very, very specific issue of Meghan Markle and the monarchy and feminism.

另一个显著模式是针对我们学科领域的攻击。媒体研究长期被污名化为'米老鼠学科'，有评论说：'一个教社会学，另一个研究名人和性别议题——我们真该把这些人当回事吗？'大量此类贬低社会科学的评论涌现。绝非巧合的是，这些学科往往都在质疑现状。

Another one is another pattern that we observed was abuse about our disciplinary areas. So there's a fairly long standing slur about the idea of media studies being a Mickey Mouse subject, and some of the commenters were saying things like, one one lectures in sociology and the other research is celebrity and gender issues. Are we really expected to take these people seriously? And there were lots of comments along these lines, kind of denigrating social sciences kinds of subjects. And it's no coincidence that, you know, a lot of these subjects are ones that question the status quo.

确实。我想这关联到当时的民粹主义情绪——反智思潮也是脱欧的伴生现象。他们称我们是'假新闻'，说我们是'典型的极左学术分子'，还大量谈论'学术界用左派观点给学生洗脑'。这种论调与乔丹·彼得森等右翼人士的言论如出一辙。

Yeah. And I suppose that links to, like, other populist sentiments around there was a lot of anti expert sentiment, again was a was a condition of a symptom of Brexit, I think. So calling us fake news, saying that we were typical far left extremist academics. There was a lot of talk about kind of academia brainwashing student with leftist views, which you can see patterns to, you know, talk talk around right wing things like Jordan Peterson, for example, which uses who uses that kind of language.

当时正值戈夫宣称'民众已受够专家'的时期。嗯。这显然是当时更广泛反智思潮的一部分。

And this is the time around when Gov had said the nation had had enough of experts. Mhmm. So it's definitely was part of a wider anti expert sentiment going on at the time.

最后还有些——可能算比较滑稽的评论，我们当时都笑了。有人质疑我们是否收了梅根·马克尔的钱来侮辱王室。可惜并没有。我想这本质上是在质疑我们的可信度。

And then finally, was some really these were maybe the funnier ones, and we we laughed at the time. Questions about whether we were being paid by Meghan Markle to insult the royal family. Unfortunately, we weren't. That's kind of questioning our legitimacy, I suppose.

这一切都与虚假新闻的环境紧密相连，是的，还有信任的缺失。

And all tied up with that milieu of fake news and Yeah. A lack of trust.

是的，没错。所以我们做了这件事。我们有过那样的经历，我们俩都广泛讨论过它。

Yeah. Exactly. So we did this. We had that experience. We both talked about it quite widely.

当时我正在写一本关于君主制的书，实际上我发现很难重新投入写作。因为每当我试图撰写书中关于梅根的那一章《经营家族企业》时，耳边充斥的都是各种辱骂。这确实困扰了我很长时间。我开始和其他人讨论这个问题，汉娜也是。我们意识到这显然不只是我和汉娜面临的问题，许多人都有类似遭遇。

I was writing a book about the monarchy at the time, and I I I actually found that quite difficult to return to. Because every time I kind of tried to write the chapter in that in my book, Running the Family Firm, that I have about Meghan, all I could hear was this kind of abuse. Really threw me for quite a long time. I kind of started speaking to this with other people, and so did Hannah. And we realised that this is obviously a much bigger problem than just me and Hannah, lots of people were experiencing this.

我们听到了许多关于参与者个人及更广泛社会遭受可怕后果的故事。我们也认识到，作为两名顺性别白人女性，显然还存在其他类型的网络暴力是我们未曾经历的，而其他身份背景的学者可能正在承受。因此我们启动了‘数字仇恨文化’研究项目。这也是今天我们制作这期播客的初衷——分享我们与学者及其他工作人员（稍后会具体提及）合作的研究发现，他们的经历，我们的总体结论，以及对当前学术界现状的思考。当我们经历这些并撰写首篇文章时，学术推特还是主流平台。

And that we heard lots of stories of really terrible ramifications for the individuals involved in this and for wider society. And we also recognise that of course, as two cisgendered white women, there were clearly other experiences of online abuse that were happening that we weren't receiving, that other people, you know, other academics with other types of identity would be receiving. So from that, we set up our project Cultures of Digital Hate. And this is kind of where we're coming from this doing this podcast for you today, to share our findings from that project that we've done with academics and other members of staff that we'll talk about in a minute, and their kind of experiences and our overall findings and our thoughts about where we are in academia with all of us at the minute. When we experienced this and when we wrote that first article, academic Twitter was a really big thing.

现在不是了。我认为这确实带来了一些变化。同时此后还出现了其他更普遍的现象值得我们探讨。今天我们将讨论在已知充斥着种族主义、性别歧视、仇外心理、恐同恐跨等问题的网络文化中，保持可见性意味着什么。以及这种‘作为工作内容一部分必须保持公众形象’的日益增长期望背后的劳动政治。

It's not now. And I think that has changed things a little bit, actually. And there's also other things that have come in since then, that are more prevalent now that we can talk a little bit about. So today, we're gonna have a conversation about what it means to be visible in online cultures that we already know are beset by racism, sexism, xenophobia, queerphobia, transphobia, and so on. The labor politics of this kind of growing expectation that people will have a public profile as part of their job.

当然，这不仅影响学者，还包括各类职业人群，比如记者、政客等。汉娜和我的研究发现与其他群体研究存在许多共性模式。这实质上是关于可见性及其风险的问题，以及在民粹主义抬头、错误信息泛滥和文化战争的背景下，这对更广泛社会可能意味着什么。

And, of course, it doesn't just affect academics, but all kind you know, people with all kinds of roles. So journalists, for example, politicians. There are lots of patterns between what Hannah and I have found in our research and what people have found when they're researching those groups of people as well. So it's a question around visibility and the risks of visibility. And what that might mean for wider society, given the context we're in of rising populism and misinformation and the culture wars.

于是我们着手调查其他学者——特别是与我们背景不同的学者——的经历。我们发放了调查问卷，收到85份来自英国各学科领域学者的回复，并从中选取13人进行深度访谈。还举办了17场公开讨论会，参与者包括法律、科技、数据行动主义慈善机构、智库、学术影响工作者及各学科学者。随后我们开展了第二阶段研究，因为意识到这不仅涉及公众视野中的学者，还包括各类大学行政与专业服务人员群体。

So then what we did was we set out to find out the experiences of other academics, academics from different backgrounds to us. And we sent round a survey and we got 85 responses from academics from all different disciplines across The UK. And then from those, we did a further 13 in-depth interviews. Also did a series of public discussions with 17 speakers from law, tech, data activism charities, think tanks, academic impact workers and academics from across all different disciplines. And then we did a second stage of research, because we realised that this is not just something that is affecting, implicated with the academics who are in the public eye, but there's also a whole set of different types of university and professional services staff who are involved in this as well.

于是我们又发放了另一份调查问卷，这次面向所有参与支持或鼓励学者进入公众视野的人员。调查对象包括英国各大学的高级管理人员和专业服务人员，职位涵盖新闻发言人、各级工业联络员、社交媒体专员、公众参与经理、影响力官员等不同层级，还有诸如研究副校长或研究主任等人员。通过这次调查，我们收到了59份回复，并再次进行了13次深度访谈。

So we then circulated another survey, this time to anyone who was involved in supporting or encouraging academics into the public eye. So we had senior management and professional services staff across UK universities in job roles that included press officers, all different kinds of levels, industrial liaison, social media officers, public engagement managers, impact officers, and all of those were at various levels of seniority. And then we had people like pro vice chancellors for research or research directors. And then from that survey, we got 59 responses, and again, we did another 13 interviews to get that depth.

我们发现学者们普遍反映，这种公开学术活动——即公开分享研究成果——往往是所在机构要求的，是机构极力倡导的行为。许多受访者表示，机构积极鼓励他们这样做，资助方在撰写资助申请时也有类似要求。人们觉得若不参与，职业生涯可能会受损。但63%（即74%）的受访者表示，因在线分享研究而遭受过伤害。绝大多数人都有过这样的经历，尽管雇主及相关方（如资助机构）告诉他们这是工作的一部分。

So what we found was that the academics were telling us that this kind of public academia, sharing your research publicly, is often required by their institution, so it's something their institution really wanted them to do, and lots of them said they they their institution actively encouraged them to do that. And from funders as well when they were writing funding bids. And people felt that their careers might be damaged if they didn't participate in that. But sixty three, so 74% of the survey respondents said that they'd experienced harms as a result of sharing their research online. So their overwhelming majority had experienced some sort of doing this thing that they were told was part of their job by their employers and by people associated with that, like funders.

这是第一份调查中74%的学者受访者的反馈。

And that's 74% of the academic respondents responding to that first survey.

是的。抱歉。没错。这只是学者群体的情况。通过首轮调查和学者访谈，虽然数据并不令人意外，但所听闻事件的严重性确实让我们深感震惊。

Yes. Sorry. Yeah. That was just academics. And from that, again, that same first survey and the first interviews with the academics, I mean, we were really quite I don't think we were surprised by the data, but we were quite shocked by the severity of what we were hearing.

部分遭遇骇人听闻——他们报告了包括性侵和死亡威胁在内的辱骂恐吓，不仅针对学者本人，还牵连其家庭成员。社交媒体（如推特）上存在被煽动、有组织的群体围攻，不仅是个人攻击，而是针对他们的系统性攻击。还有辱骂邮件和实体信件，有人特意查找到他们的住址，这显然非常恐怖。

Some of it is horrendous, where they were reporting things like abuse and threats, including rape and death threats, both to the academics themselves and to the wider families as well that were implicated in that. What people called stoked and coordinated pile ons on social media, like Twitter. So it wasn't just individuals, there was kind of these campaigns against them. Abusive emails and also abusive mails, abusive mail in the post. So people have gone out their way to find their address, which is obviously really scary.

电话窃听、黑客攻击、人肉搜索、跟踪骚扰，有人致电大学要求学者辞职，在工作场所和住宅周围实施针对性骚扰。有人找到他们的家庭住址，发起海报 campaign 等活动逼迫他们离职。

Phone tapping, hacking, doxxing, stalking, calls for them to resign that were sent to the university by people that asked for the academic to be made to leave. And targeted harassment around their workplaces and also around their homes. So people who had found their personal address and were doing poster campaigns or something against them to call for them to have to leave their job.

某种程度上说，这让我们意识到自身遭遇虽不愉快，但相比受访者分享的经历——除了未实际发生的人肉搜索威胁——已算轻微。最令人震惊的是，学者们在雇主鼓励下公开分享研究而陷入这种境地时遭受的虐待。除了这些伤害本身，其后果同样触目惊心：有受访者因此住院，产生自杀念头，出现焦虑、抑郁、创伤后应激障碍等一系列心理健康问题。

I mean, in some ways, put it in perspective for us, that our experience was really unpleasant, but apart from some threats of doxing that didn't actually come to fruition, we didn't have anything as bad as some of our respondents shared with us. Part of what's really shocking is that academics are experiencing this abuse when they're being encouraged by their employers to share their research publicly and be put in this situation. And that's, you know, that's some of the harms that they're experiencing, but also what was really shocking is the effect of those. So our respondents told us that some of them had been hospitalized by these experiences. They'd experienced suicidal ideation, a whole range of mental health issues like anxiety and depression, and PTSD.

他们谈到被这一过程反复创伤的经历，以及心理健康问题。还有身体健康问题导致长期病假离职，甚至不得不搬家。他们向我们讲述了人际关系破裂、自尊心受损的持久伤害，生活在个人安全的恐惧中。许多人表示这不仅影响自己，还波及整个家庭和孩子。

They talked about having been traumatised and re traumatised by this process. As well as mental health issues. There were physical health issues leading to long term sick leave from their jobs or actually having to leave their job or even move house. They told us about breakdowns in their personal relationships, real kind of injuries to their self conscious to self confidence that stuck with them, and they're just existing with a fear for their personal safety. A number of them told us about how this didn't just impact them, but impacted their wider family or their children.

这种影响无孔不入地渗透到生活的方方面面。调查中我们提问：‘您认为所在机构是否有效为员工准备了应对公共学术风险的准备？’90%回答否。另一个问题是：‘机构是否提供过媒体或公共工作相关的培训支持？若有，是否包含应对反弹的内容？’98%回答否，2%表示没有所属机构。

It has this unbounded kind of way of seeping into all these aspects of their lives. As part of the survey, we asked the question, do you feel your institution effectively prepares staff for the risks and challenges of public academia?' And 90% of them said no. We asked another question, which was 'Has your institution offered any staff training or support for doing media or public work? If so, does this cover how to deal with backlash? And 98% said no, and 2% said they don't have an institution.

因此实际上是100%的否定回答，只是其中2%指出自己属于非稳定就业——是的，临时聘用或失业的独立学者。这点数据揭示了更严峻的现实：即便我们受访者那些遭遇机构漠视的恐怖经历，他们仍算是有机构庇护的‘特权群体’，而更多人不得不在毫无支持下开展这类工作，寄望于能换取职位或资助机会。

So that's actually 100% saying no, just that 2% of them pointed out that they're precariously employed, yeah, precariously employed or not employed, and they are independent academics. So they are, you know, shining a light, that little bit of data is there, shining a light on the fact that even the horrific experiences and, you know, horrific experiences of being unsupported that we're receiving from our participants, they're the privileged ones that have an institution, and there's a whole another issue there about people having to do this work in the hope that it'll translate into jobs or funding bids to do this work in more supported environments.

我们在学者和研究参与协调员的访谈调查中发现，正如汉娜先前概述的，大学内部存在不同机制。双方都承认绝大多数受访者意识到问题的严重性。每个人都讲述了所在机构发生的各种可怕遭遇。许多人感到困惑的是——这些问题该由谁负责？许多协调员表示，他们其实在自发为遭遇创伤的学者提供支持。

So what we found in the surveys and interviews with both the academics and the research engagement facilitators, So there's kind of different stuff within the university that Hannah outlined earlier. They both demonstrated that there's kind of an acknowledgement of the severity of the issue amongst the vast majority of those people that we surveyed. And they all had variously horrendous stories to tell us about different things that had happened at their institution. And there was also everyone, well, a lot of them, sorry, felt there was a lack of clarity around who is responsible for these issues. So many of the research engagement facilities were saying that, you know, they were doing some of this support work for academics who'd been through these really awful experiences.

这些支持工作完全出于个人担当。既非岗位职责，也未经专业培训，更无应对周一早晨可能突然出现的创伤性经历的预案。但因为作为学术人员 Engagement 的对接窗口，学者们自然倾向于向他们求助。

They were kind of doing that support work off their own backs. You know, it wasn't in the job description. It wasn't what they signed up for. There wasn't any training available for how to do that or any support for dealing with some pretty traumatic stories and experiences that might just land on their desk on a Monday morning. But they ended up doing it because as the person who, you know, talks to staff about engagement, academic staff felt comfortable going to them.

他们自认具备开展这项工作的关系基础，却深感准备不足——这本非他们的分内之事。学者和协调员都指出，大学内部关于公众参与工作的组织结构往往极不透明。很多人表示：‘当问题升级需要多方介入时，我根本不知道该找谁，因为没有明确的流程指引。’学者们反映，这导致他们不得不向机构内不同人员反复讲述创伤经历，只因缺乏规范的升级处理机制。有人提到，由于被迫不断复述遭遇和展示收到的辱骂信息，他们经历了反复的二次伤害。

Basically, they felt that they had those relationships to do that work, but they themselves felt felt wholly unprepared to do that, and it's not necessarily what they signed up for. And both the academics and the research engagement facilitators said the organ the organisational structures within universities around public engagement work were often very opaque. So a lot of them were telling us that, you know, if I come across this and this is this is an issue that escalates and we need to get more people involved, I don't necessarily know who I should go to if if these issues arise because there's no kind of obviously outlined flowchart or whatever that might be for you people to follow to know how to escalate that and know where to go. And what academics were telling us about this is that that meant they were often having to repeat, you know, these quite traumatic experiences over and over again to various people within within the institution, in order to get the help that they needed, because there was no process in place to help them, you know, help to help that be escalated by somebody else. So one person said, you know, they've been retraumatised again and again by having to keep recounting the same information and sharing the same, you know, abusive messages that they were getting and and recounting their story.

我认为这指向了——也是我和汉娜观察到的——机构普遍缺乏对员工福祉的系统考量。稍后我们会详述这点：这种既属于大学工作范畴（因我们被鼓励建立个人公众形象），又发生在体制外的公共活动，在组织结构中处于尴尬位置。我们认为这正是问题被忽视的原因之一——它甚至不被视为正式工作。

So I think what this points to and what Hannah and I observed is kind of a general lack of organisational thought around employee well-being. And we'll say a bit more about that later, but the ways in which this kind of public work that is kind of in the university, but also kind of isn't because it happens outside of it. And it's kind of on the individual because we're encouraged to make our own profiles and build our own kind of public profile, but is also as part of our job. You know, this this sits really weirdly, I think, within organisational structures. And we think that's part of the reason why it's fallen through the cracks, and then it's not considered work.

但我们确实观察到这种组织结构缺失的现象，以及它如何影响参与这项工作的各个层级的各类人群。

But we really observe this kind of lack of organisational structure and how that affected all different people involved in this work at all the different levels.

因此，我们基于这些数据发表的首篇论文——如果你想了解更多，可以在《新形态》期刊上找到，标题是《我的邮箱里有个叫'仇恨邮件'的文件夹》（这确实是我们某位受访者的原话），副标题是《学术公共参与、数字仇恨与可见性风险的不平等分配》。你可以查阅这篇论文了解细节，不过我们会介绍一些关键发现。显然，第一个重要发现是学者们正遭受严重伤害，而我认为当前那些对影响力、公众参与和知识交流一味乐观的讨论中，这点完全未被重视。我们并非守旧派想要退回象牙塔——当你对这种公共学术活动持保留态度时，就会被贴上这样的标签。

So our first publication that we have produced from this data, if you wanna find out more about it, it's in New Formation's journal, and it's called I have a folder in my email called hate mail, that's that's a real verbatim quote from one of our respondents academic public engagement, digital hate, and the unequally distributed risks of visibility. So you can look that up if you want to find out in more detail, but we'll tell you about some of the key findings. I mean, obviously, the first key finding is that academics are seriously suffering, and I don't think that that's something that is accounted for in the uncritically positive discussions of impact and public engagement and noise exchange that we're always having. And, you know, it's not that we're dinosaurs and want to kind of retreat to the ivory tower. That's how you get characterized if you're not too keen on doing this kind of public academia.

但我们的目标之一是引入批判性视角，让大家意识到这些风险也并非均匀分布。或许并不意外，我们发现来自边缘群体的学者尤其容易成为攻击目标且受影响更严重。有位受访者称之为'性别与种族的双重打击'，凸显了这种数字仇恨的交叉性。这让我们想起伊丽莎白·格罗斯的杰作《易变的身体：走向肉体女性主义》，她探讨了身心二元论——我们总把学术界视为纯粹的精神领域。

But, you know, one of our goals has been to bring in a little criticality and awareness that these risks also are not distributed equally. Because we found that, perhaps unsurprisingly, academics from marginalised backgrounds are particularly targeted and disproportionately affected. So one of our respondents called that the double whammy of gender and race, highlighting that this kind of digital hate is functioning intersectionally. And when we reflected on this, we were we're reminded of a brilliant piece of work by Elizabeth Gross called Volatile Bodies Towards a Corporal Femininity. And she talks about the mind body dichotomy, and we have this idea of, you know, academia as a place of the life of the mind.

这种对知识分子的'去身体化'想象，实际上只适用于那些享有特权、不被身体特征所标记的人群，即白人、顺性别、异性恋男性。只有他们能超越肉体与心智等同。我们有项数据是询问受访者网络暴力是否针对其个人特征。

It's a kind of disembodiment, this idea of the intellectual, and that disembodiment is really reserved only for those who have the privilege to be not marked by their body that is namely white, cisgendered, heterosexual men. Right? So they can transcend their body to be associated with mind. And we had this piece of data. We asked the question whether online abuse ever focused upon personal characteristics.

一位受访者回答：'我是个研究疫苗话题的肥胖女性移民，你觉得呢？'这个回答完美呼应了格罗斯的理论——某些身体永远被标记，永远不被视为适合学术界的'知识分子无身体状态'。

And one respondent answered, I'm a plus sized female immigrant who talks about vaccine related topics. What do you think? Which I think, you know, really kind of calls to mind Gross's work that shows how certain bodies are always marked and not considered to be the right body for academia this kind of disembodied state of being the intellectual.

我们还发现学术界认可的'合规身体'与不同身份特征相关。大量种族主义和仇外辱骂表现为让受害者'滚回自己国家'。有人说仅因外貌非白人就会收到这种攻击——推特头像等视觉线索就能引发种族主义辱骂。有位研究白人至上主义的学者，在其非居住国开展研究时，

We also found this, you know, the type of body that is accepted in Cuomo, within academia, kind of traced along different identities. So we found a lot of racist and xenophobic abuse, as the people being told to go back to their country. And somebody said they're being told that just because that person does not look white. So it was based on your little kind of profile picture on Twitter or whatever it might be that then led to that kind of racist abuse. Another person who a respondent who was researching white supremacy, and they were researching the topic in a country that they did not live in.

就因涉足他国事务而遭受指责。这种对边界和话语权的管制，其分类标准完全基于不同类型的身体特征与归属资格。这让我们想起萨拉·艾哈迈德关于'被纳入'的论述：她反思了作为有色人种在白人主导机构中的沉默效应。众所周知英国大学教授中少数族裔比例仍低得可悲——这些辱骂现象正是这种结构性问题的映射。

They were researching about another topic, and they were getting these accusations that they should stay out of other country's business. So that idea of kind of policing borders and policing boundaries, and who is kind of permitted to speak. You know, what that categorisation is based on, you know, it's based on different types of bodies and who's allowed to belong. And that made us think about Sarah Ahmed's work on being included, where she kind of reflects on that silencing effect of being a person of colour in a predominantly white institution. And as we know, universities in The UK still are, the amount of people of colour in particular among professors, for example, is still depressingly low, and how we can see that reflected in some of this abuse.

同样值得指出的是，这种基于个人外貌特征的针对性辱骂往往与研究内容无关。比如那些研究环境与气候危机的学者反而遭受种族主义攻击。这表明网络暴民会先搜寻目标人物的照片，然后针对其身份特征进行攻击，而非因其研究内容本身。

And it's worth pointing out as well that this kind of personalised abuse based upon, you know, particular what they visibly saw about people's bodies, it wasn't necessarily linked to the research. The people, for example, who were doing research on the environment and the environmental crisis were getting racist abuse. So it wasn't that there was a connection between the kind of the research itself and what someone was reading about it and the person, it was that people online were were looking for that a picture of that person, then targeting them, and targeting their identity.

身份和话题就像两个独立的风险因素，都可能给人招致大量攻击。我们观察到的另一个现象是性别因素以不同方式起作用。有趣的是，一方面我们已讨论过女性学者遭受的性别攻击——比如有位受访者提到'烧死女巫'这类充满性别暴力的威胁话语。

It's like they're both separately risk factors, both the identities and the topics can bring heaps of risk and abuse on people. Another one another theme that we observed was gender functioning in different ways. Quite interestingly, on the one hand, the we've already talked about the female academics receiving gendered abuse. So, you know, for example, one of our respondents talked about threatening violence, but along the lines of witch burning or burning her at the stake. So really gendered language.

另有学者指出她们收到的仇恨言论几乎全部来自男性。这种性别仇恨与玛丽·比尔德的研究相呼应，朱莉·博伊斯·凯在《性别、媒体与声音》中也指出：敢于发声的女性自古就面临惩罚与羞辱，从浸水椅（惩罚长舌妇的刑具）开始就有这样的传统。有位女受访者就被命令'滚回厨房'，这种典型言论试图将女性排除在公共领域之外。

Another observed that nearly all of the hate that they received was from men and not from women. So there's this kind of gendered hate that really fits in with we've talked about Mary Beard, but there's also that brilliant book by Julie Boyce Kay, gender media and voice, where she points out that we've got a long history of punishment and humiliation for women who dare to speak out. And she she traces this starting with the ducking stool, which was a form of punishment for women who were deemed to be gossips, where they were strapped in and submerged in water. So there's this kind of attack on women that's kind of very much in that history. One of the female respondents told that she was she was told to get back into the kitchen, like like classic way of telling women that they don't belong in the public sphere, they belong in the private sphere.

但与此形成鲜明对比的是，一位跨性别受访者竟被威胁要夺走其子女监护权。女性被要求'不该公开讲话'，而跨性别者却连私人领域都要被侵犯——

But then, you know, in contrast to that, we had a trans respondent say that they were told to that they should have their children taken away from them, is terrifying, horrible thing to be told. But really kind of interesting to sit next to, you know, for the women, you shouldn't be speaking publicly, you should be in the public sphere. For the trans people, we're going to come and intervene in your private sphere because

这种

this is

数字文化无边界特性导致的渗透现象，加上人肉搜索的思维模式，使陌生人能够发出威胁到家庭生活的恐吓，让我们难以维持纯粹的职业安全。

the porosity that arises in this kind of unbounded nature of digital culture that doesn't actually allow us to maintain that solely professional safety, I suppose, enable you know, along with that kind of doxing mentality, enables strangers to make threats of of that that might affect your home life.

残障学者则谈到他们缺乏非正式支持系统。有位学者说：'我的健康问题必须优先处理，实在没精力应付这些失控的烂摊子'。这反映出大学里日益严重的健全主义歧视，特别是近期平等多元包容政策的倒退，我确信这会影响所有相关群体。

And then scholar academics who were had a disability were talking to us around how they kind of don't have these informal systems of support that might, might give them support that the institution was not. So one said that they've got a lot of health issues and they had to take priority. And their quote was, I simply cannot afford to let all this get into such a shit storm that I can't control it. In a way, you know, they're talking about a privilege of of kind of having being able to kind of go through that, whereas they had these other things that are much more pressing, they needed to take care of. And I mean, that reflects more generally things like ableism across universities that are increasing, particularly more recently when we're seeing the erosion of things like EDI, for example, that will be affecting all of that, I'm sure.

我们还发现，工人阶级学者实际上在获取支持系统方面表达了类似的观点。有些人说，我没有从学校获得任何支持，但通过学术圈的朋友或会议结识的同行为我提供了帮助。而另一群人则表示，拥有这些资源本身就是一种特权，我没有这种条件，只能依赖雇主来提供支持。那些缺乏工作保障的人尤其如此，他们身边没有可以依靠的人际网络。

And we also found working class academics were saying kind of similar things actually around the ability to access systems of support. So some people were saying, you know, I didn't get any support from my institution, but I got support from other networks of academics that I'm friends with or who I know from conferences. And then there were these other group of people who were saying, well, actually, you know, it's a privilege to have those things, and I don't have them, and I need to rely upon my employer to do these things for me. So people who were saying that they don't if they, you know, they don't have job security. So there isn't that kind of network of people who can come to their support.

还有人提到自己因阶级背景而遭受攻击。我们收到两条关于北方口音的评论：有人抱怨他们的口音，甚至因'太北方'而遭到辱骂。我认为根本不存在'太北方'这回事。但这确实成为他们被针对的原因之一，再次体现了人们外在特征带来的可见性问题。

There was also people who said they were being targeted about their class. So we had two comments around someone who had a northern accent, who had been had comments about that, complaining about their accent, then receiving abuse for being too northern. I don't think there's any such thing as being too northern. But how they were that was one of the things they were being targeted for. So again, another kind of aspect of people's visibility coming into play.

学术界关于阶级与工人阶级学者已有大量出色研究。贝尔·胡克斯曾描述她的大学经历：某些阶级背景的人会被视为不受欢迎，他们被鼓励背叛自己的阶级出身来融入环境。这让我想起那些关于口音的评论——特别是当口音变得非常显眼时。说到这里，我不禁反思起自己的口音。

And there's lot I mean, there's loads of great research about academia and and class and working class academics. And Bell Hooks wrote of her own university experience about how some individuals from class backgrounds can become can be deemed undesirable. And they're kind of encouraged to betray their class origins in order to fit in. And I think that reflected some of those comments around those accents in particular, which become very visible. I'm thinking about my own accent now as I'm saying this.

这会让人产生强烈的自我意识。比如在广播或电视上，你的口音会变得异常突出，促使来自不同地区的人们对此进行反思。

It makes you really self aware. Radio, for example, or TV, where your accent becomes, you know, very hyper visible and how that can melt make people from different places reflect on that.

我们即将发表的文章将探讨这背后的劳动政治学，将其与职场安全问题联系起来，思考这些现象如何被资源配置、管理和制度所塑造，从而真正审视催生这些学者处境的文化环境。这是首篇整合我们所谓（暂未确定发表渠道）'大学根本不重视这类工作'（这是原话）调查数据的文章，题为《公共学术、数字仇恨与健康安全的劳动政治》。我们借鉴了托马斯·阿尔默等杰出学者的研究，他在《学术劳动、数字媒体与资本主义》中指出：我们习惯性将大学误认为知识分子空间和学者社区，而非工作场所，这种认知阻碍了我们对劳动实践的批判，也妨碍了我们审视本文涉及的健康安全等问题。关键在于，大学不仅因'学术热情'不被视为职场，而且正如我们下篇文章标题引用的那句话——'大学根本不重视这类公共学术工作'。

And our next publication is reflecting on the labor politics of this, thinking about it in relation to questions of workplace safety and how this stuff is resourced and managed and enabled, to really think about the culture that produces these circumstances that these academics experience. That's the first article where we're bringing in this data from what we're calling can't tell you where it will be yet is called 'Universities don't value this sort of work at all', again, that's a verbatim quote, 'public academia, digital hate, and the labour politics of health and safety'. So we're drawing on the work of brilliant scholars before us like Thomas Almer, who, in an article called Academic Labor, Digital Media, and Capitalism, pointed out that the fact that we frequently characterise, or in Alma's terms, misidentify universities as intellectual spaces and communities of scholars, instead of considering them as workplaces, means that we are impeded in critiquing the labour practices or considering issues that we're bringing in here, like health and safety. You know, part of the issue here is not only is the university not seen as a workplace, because we're all so passionate that it's, you know, not considered work, but also when it comes to this kind of public academia as a part of the work that we do, to repeat that quote that's in the title of our next article, universities don't value this sort of work at all.

这两个因素共同导致这类工作不被视为正式劳动，自然也不被纳入职业健康安全范畴。需要指出的是，《1974年工作健康安全法》规定雇主有责任为员工提供'安全工作系统'和'安全工作场所'，并必须'全面告知'所有工作流程中的潜在危害。回想我们的调查数据：一个问题中90%的受访者，另一个问题中100%的受访者表示，他们从未被告知这些法律条文明确提到的、与工作相关的潜在危害。

And these two things together mean that, you know, that work is not being considered work, so it's not being considered an issue of work based health safety. And it's worth just pointing out that the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 states that employers have a responsibility to provide employees with a, quote, safe system of work, a, quote, safe place of work, and that they must inform workers, quote, fully about all potential hazards associated with any work process. And we can just think back to that data that we had where on one question, 90%, and on the other question, 100% said that they had not been prepared for these kinds of hazards, these potential hazards, to use the phrasing that's actually in the law, associated with their work.

这促使我们反思现代大学的本质。关于新自由主义大学有很多精彩研究，比如学术工作与网红文化的相似性——我们都被期待进行自我品牌塑造，许多参与者表示这需要耗费巨大精力。罗斯·吉尔对大学体制的几篇研究很精辟地指出，公共学术在这种环境下处于尴尬境地：一方面不被视为严肃工作而遭贬低，另一方面在新自由主义大学模式中又被不断鼓吹，公众参与则卡在中间地带。

And it, I mean, it made us reflect on what universities are today, and there's loads of really good research on kind of the neoliberal university, patterns between academic work and things like influencer cultures, for example, where we're kind of all meant to be doing this kind of self branding exercise that as lots of our participants said, is that it's a hell of a of work to set yourself up in that vein. The work of Ross Gil has written a few really nice pieces around the setup of of universities. And how this kind of public academia sits in a really weird place in the middle of all of this. So on the one hand, it's kind of not considered serious work, and it's not valued. But on the other hand, you're being constantly encouraged to do it as part of this kind of neoliberal model of of what the university is, and and public engagement is sitting somewhere in the middle.

我们论点的一部分是，这正是为什么它容易被忽视的原因，它既不完全符合那种在某些地方仍然存在的、非常老派的、穿着粗花呢夹克、肘部打补丁的大学形象，也不完全契合将大学视为企业的新模式，而公众参与恰恰尴尬地夹在这两者之间。许多参与者指出，这并未被纳入工作量模型中。这是你必须在个人时间里额外完成的事情。而且要做好它需要大量时间，人们说这是一项技能。

And part of our argument is, you know, this is why it's kind of falling through the cracks, and that it doesn't neatly sit really in this kind of very old fashioned, you know, tweed jacket, elbow pad version of the university that still exists in some places, versus this new model of the university as as a business, and and public engagement sits really weirdly in the middle of that. Lots of our participants noted that it's not accounted for own workload models. It's something you have to kind of do additionally in your own time. And to get good at it, you know, it takes a lot of time. People say it's a skill.

这是一项需要学习的技能，比如从事媒体工作就要学会如何与媒体沟通。很多时候，记者会在最后时刻联系你，只提前几小时通知，要求你立即发表评论或上直播电视，或者晚上9点接到电话让你参加次日清晨6点的电台节目。这种工作完全不符合朝九晚五、周一至周五的正常工作时间规律。如果你教学任务已经很满，再兼顾这些会非常困难。

It's a skill to, you know, learn if you do media work to kind of learn how to speak to the media. A lot of the time, journalists will contact you very last minute with a few hours notice, wanting you to kind of jump in with a comment or go on live TV, or you'll get a call at 9PM for a radio show at 6AM the next day. It doesn't necessarily follow the patterns of of normal working hours, nine to five, Monday to Friday. And it's quite difficult to fit in. If you've got a full teaching load, that's quite difficult to kind of fit in alongside that.

维护社交媒体账号、运营网站、与记者沟通——所有这些工作都需要投入大量精力。记者通常要求事先沟通，有时这种预沟通会促成正式合作，有时却无疾而终。有时他们会要求你跨越全国去完成某项工作。我们的研究发现，这些额外工作几乎从未被纳入任何工作量计算模型。

And all the work that goes into having a social media profile, having a website, talking to the journalists, they'll often want a pre chat. And sometimes that pre chat will lead to the real thing. Sometimes it'll lead to nothing. Sometimes they'll want you to travel across the country to go and do some kind of something. There's all of this work that kind of goes into it, and it's very rarely, we found, with our participants accounted for in any kind of workload models.

所以人们只能挤出时间来完成这些工作。

So people kind of get out and get in the hours for doing that work.

需要说明的是，这不仅仅是学者们在抱怨。

And it's worth saying here as well that that's not just the academics complaining.

所以

So

这不仅体现在资源分配上不被重视——没有给予学者相应的时间支持，我们接触的研究参与协调员也指出，他们同样缺乏足够的资源来提供支持。在这方面，他们获得的时间配给也严重不足。

it's not valued in terms of resource, it's not valued materially by giving the academics time, but also the research engagement facilitators that we spoke to were also pointing out how they're really not resourced well to support it. It's very inadequate, the time that they're given on that side as well.

通常，那些全心投入的协调团队是最先被裁撤的对象。正如我们目前所见，大学里正在进行大量裁员计划，这些团队往往首当其冲受到机构变革的影响。

And often those teams of full engagement facilitators are the first ones to be caught. And as we know with what's going on in universities at the moment where there's so many redundancy programmes going through, those are the teams that people said are affected anyway by these kinds of changes within institutions.

因此，无论是从物质资源角度，还是从地位声望层面来看，这项工作都未得到应有的重视。

So it's not valued in material resource terms, and it's also not valued in kind of the kind of, you know, status or prestige terms either.

确实。有人质疑这类工作的产出是否具有高学术价值。一位受访者坦言：'说实话，不做这类工作反而更轻松。我本可以有更多时间，或许就能获得那些我申请的职位——因为我能产出更多他们所谓的高价值成果。'这里他们指的是同行评审期刊论文或学术专著。

Yeah. So there were questions around the you know, questions about is it a high status output? So one person said, to be honest, it would be easier not to do this kind of work. I would have had I would have more time, and I would probably have got some of the jobs that I applied for because I would have had more time to do the and they called them high status outputs quote. So what they're talking about there is kind of peer reviewed journal articles or books.

对吧？但大学内部存在一个奇怪的矛盾：虽然这类工作可能被视为非高价值产出——未经同行评审、不可引用等等——但同时校方又要求我们去做，声称这对提升大学声誉至关重要。他们甚至会统计校名在媒体上的曝光频率和平台级别，因为这关乎机构的公众形象，是他们要求的'学术研究社会化传播'的一部分。

Right? But, of course, again, there's a there's a really weird kind of contradiction there in in a university in that, you know, this might be considered not a high status output, not peer reviewed, not referable, whatever a university might want to say. But at the same time, we're being told to do it, and it's really important for the university and the university's reputation to get the university out there. And they often kind of keep track of how many times their name is being mentioned in the media, and by which news outlets and so on. And it's all important for the visibility of the institution, and they want us to do this as part of sharing our research beyond the academy.

可如果它的价值评估标准不同于期刊论文，我们该如何量化？这对申请晋升或新职位的人意味着什么？

But then if it's not being valued in the same way as a journal article, how are we accounting for that? And what does that mean for people who are applying for promotion, for example, or applying for a new job?

矛盾之处在于：这项工作既是强制要求，又被边缘化。我们的研究数据表明，其边缘化方式之一就是女性化标签。比如有位女性学者被同事称为'学术界的碧昂斯'——因其公众参与工作获得的网络关注度。这种看似玩笑的评价本意或许是恭维，但受访者认为这暗示着'文化品位的降格'。

Contradictorily, it is mandatory, but it's also marginalised. Yeah. And one of the ways that came one of the themes that came through in our data in terms of how it was marginalized was feminization. So one female academic's colleague was told that they're the, quote, academic Beyonce because of their followers online as a consequence of their public facing work. And, you know, maybe a throwaway observation like that is meant to be a compliment, but in that context, and it was certainly interpreted that way by the respondent, that it's suggesting a lower cultural register.

对吧？借用流行文化符号来比喻，本身就暗示着这种工作被认为不符合学术身份。另一位女性学者说得更深刻：'我担心自己的公众参与活动显得过于滥交，这会降低我的学术公信力。'这种将过度投入污名化为'滥交'的表述，不仅带有性别偏见，更暗含对女性可见度的道德评判——贝弗·斯凯格斯对此有过精彩论述。

Right? That kind of drawing on a popular figure is suggesting a cultural register that is not seemed did not deemed appropriate to academic work. Right? Another female academic said, and we thought this was incredibly telling, quote, I worry that I may be too promiscuous with my public engagement activities and that this will mean I am taken less seriously. And so we we thought, you know, this is not only gendered, but sexualized language and this this kind of mischaracterization of doing too much and trying too hard as being promiscuous really evokes these ideas of respectability in female visibility, and Bev Skeggs writes brilliantly on that.

但这种认为这样做就是放荡的观念，我们确实觉得这体现了一种荡妇羞辱、指责受害者的逻辑。结合我们从数据中了解到的学者可能遭受的反噬和虐待，这种指责逻辑给人的感觉就是——你自找的，你想要关注。而新自由主义大学的结构，周围没有任何支持体系，更强化了这种‘你自己承担后果’的观念。当声誉受益时皆大欢喜，但一旦出问题，你就孤立无援。

But this idea that it's promiscuous to do this, we really kind of felt like that spoke to a kind of slut shaming, victim blaming logic, where when you combine that with what we know from our data about the backlash and abuse that academics can receive, that fixing blaming logic really feels like, well, you wanted the attention, you've brought this on yourself. And, like, the structure in a neoliberal university where it's, you know, there is no support around you really supports that idea that you you do this yourself. And when the reputation is benefiting, great, but if it goes wrong, you're on your own.

我们还发现——这是个反复出现的主题——大学更关心声誉管理而非员工福祉。受访者告诉我们，当这些糟糕情况发生时，大学的反应始终是‘如何保护机构利益’而非‘如何保护研究者个人’。这些甚至包括我们听到的最骇人听闻的虐待案例。

We also found that, and this was a kind of repeated theme, that universities were more interested in reputational management than taking care of their staff. So people who were telling us that, you know, when these kind of bad things happen to us, the universities And we're saying the university is this kind of mythical thing as well. And it's hard to kind of say what that is, but what they were saying the the response to them was very much kind of how well, how can we protect the institution in this situation? Not how can we protect the individual researcher. And these were some of, even some of our kind of most horrendous stories that we heard about abuse.

他们说感觉大学更在乎自身利益而非保障他们的安全。一位研究参与协调员谈到其机构时说：‘他们不想看到负面报道。这不是成文规定，甚至从未明说，但众所周知他们会用‘天鹅绒手套’处理某些事’。

They were saying they felt their university was much more interested in themselves than in kind of in looking after them and in making sure they were okay. So one of the research engagement facilitators said, they were talking about their institution and they said, well, they don't want bad press. That's not a written thing. It's it's it's not even verbal. It's just a known thing that they will handle handle certain things with kid gloves.

他们只想要光鲜正面的宣传报道，绝不愿机构形象受损，因为那会影响招生等等。我们毕竟是生意。所有公开内容都服务于营销、学生招募这些被灌输为大学首要任务的事务——却以牺牲员工安全为代价。而所谓‘光鲜正面’的报道，又带着女性化的粉饰色彩，这就是大学的兴趣所在。

They want really nice, fluffy, good interest pieces, and we don't want bad things to be reflected on us in a as an institution because that reduces recruitment, etcetera. We are a business. So that idea that everything that gets put out in the public eye is about marketing, is about student recruitment, and is about all of these things that were kind of hammered into us that are the most important thing within universities at the expense of staff safety. And of course, the idea of kind of fluffy good interest pieces again is like kind of feminised language around, you know, fluffy pink things that we might see. And that's what universities are interested in.

有些人告诉我们，大学对可能引发争议的课题异常谨慎，毫无兴趣。这导致某些研究被边缘化，研究者感觉得不到支持，只因不符合学校想推广的品牌形象。还有人正遭受严重虐待时，校方却忙着把这些经历转化为‘影响力案例研究’——再次以员工身心健康为代价。

So there were some people who told us, you know, they were the university was very careful around topics that they saw to be potentially difficult or challenging, and that they weren't very interested in that. And that was sidelining some some types of research who felt like the the kind of university was not supporting them with that because it didn't fit the brand that the university wanted to push. There were some people who, you know, told us the university, you know, they were experiencing all this horrendous abuse and their university was kind of actively looking for ways to make that work for them, in impact case studies and things, for example. Again, at the expense of the employees' health and safety that was not being looked after.

没错。在继续之前，我必须说那段引述太惊人了——‘这不是成文规定，甚至从未明说，但众所周知’。

Exactly. I I think just before you move on, I think that that quote is wild. They say, you know, it's not a written thing. It's not even verbal. It's just known.

‘我们毕竟是生意’——这句话赤裸裸揭示了要求我们内化的新自由主义逻辑。本该讨论员工福祉的场合，却充斥着这种论调。当声誉和资本之外的风险与伤害发生时，就回到了受访者那些生活被彻底摧毁的例子。

We are a business. I mean, that's so making explicit the neoliberal logic that's that we're operating under and that's being required to be internalised, and for that to be part of a conversation that should be about employee well-being, you know, when the the risk and the detriment, aside from reputation or capital, taking us back to those examples that our respondents gave us of, you know, just the total demolition of their lives.

是的。我在兰卡斯特的可爱同事安妮·克罗宁写了这篇文章，她称之为PR大学中的声誉资本。所以你看，大学某种程度上越来越依赖这个。他们只想要一个好形象。我该如何在这个我们似乎都必须不断对照的、狭窄的竞争对手名单中显得出众？

Yeah. And Anne Cronin, who's my lovely colleague at Lancaster, has written this piece about she calls it reputational capital in the PR university. So how, you know, universities are kind of increasingly traded on this. They just want a good image. And how do I look against, you know, this kind of narrow list of competitors that we all seem to hold, that we have to constantly hold ourselves up against?

我们如何在这种情况下展现最佳状态？如何挽救局面而非照顾员工？我们的观点是，除非大学开始重视公众参与工作，并将其视为一种劳动，否则目前它被视为一种业余爱好，或是额外做的事情，或是晚上抽空做的。直到大学开始认真将其视为工作，他们才能对由此产生的伤害负责。因为我们无法通过《健康与安全法案》等途径追究责任，因为它不被视为发生在机构内部。

How can we make ourselves look best in this situation? How can we save this rather than taking care of employees? And our argument is, you know, until until universities start valuing public engagement work and until they see it as work and see it as a type of labour, our argument is at the moment, it's seen as kind of a hobby on the side or it's something that you do extra or it's something that, you know, you do in the evenings or whatever that might be. Until the university start taking that seriously as a type of work, then they can't be held accountable for the harms arising from it. Because we can't hold them accountable through the Health and Safety Act, for example, because it's not seen as happening inside the institution.

它被视为发生在外部。这些界限非常复杂且不断被跨越。

It's seen as happening outside of the And it's kind of really complicated boundaries that are constantly being transgressed.

我们已经讨论了对个人的影响及其核心的不平等问题，也谈到了可见性的劳动政治。当然，这不仅影响学者，还包括任何被鼓励将公开形象作为工作一部分的人。但最后我们或许应该尽可能广泛地思考对社会的更广泛影响。我们提出的一个关键问题是，某些声音因参与成本过高而被排除在公共辩论之外。

We've talked about the impact on individuals and the inequality at the heart of that. We've talked about the labor politics of visibility. And, of course, that doesn't just affect academics, but anyone who's encouraged to have a public profile as part of their job. But we should probably finish by thinking as broadly as possible about the wider ramifications for society. Now one of those key issues that we raise is that certain voices are kept out of public debate because the cost of participation is too high.

正如我们在那些不平等分布的可见性风险中指出的，这针对的是在种族主义、性别歧视、恐同、恐跨、能力歧视、肥胖恐惧、仇外社会中本已边缘化的群体。可能还有更多我遗漏的。但没错，这是一个加剧现有不平等、限制公共辩论多样性的EDI（平等、多元与包容）问题。我们不希望形成单一文化。另一个更广泛的影响是，在错误信息泛滥的背景下，学者分享同行评议的研究本可以纠正这种现象。

And, you know, as we've pointed out in those unequally distributed risks of visibility, that is targeting people who are already marginalized in racist, sexist, queerphobic, transphobic, ableist, fatphobic, xenophobic societies. There's probably more that I have missed there. But, yeah, so this is this is an EDI issue that is compounding existing inequalities and limiting the diversity of voices in public debate, you know, and we do not want a monoculture in that way. And, you know, another key kind of wider ramification is that we're in a context of rising misinformation. Academics sharing peer reviewed research could be a corrective to that.

对吧？他们分享的是经过测试、验证、同行评议且可复现的数据。这些本应是可信赖的声音，但如果被排除在辩论之外，就无法纠正错误信息。当然，我认为这不是偶然，而是这种仇恨和滥用如何被动员、如何运作的有意为之的部分。我们思考哪些声音因身份特征被排除，以及哪些话题和学科容易遭受攻击。

Right? They're they're sharing data that has been tested and proven and peer reviewed and shown to be replicable. You know, these are credible, should be trusted voices, and they cannot be a corrective to misinformation if they're being kept out of the debate. And I think, of course, this is not chance. This is a deliberate part of how this hate, how this abuse is mobilized, how it functions to you know, and we think about which voices are kept out in identity terms and also in terms of which topics and which disciplines are subject to attack.

高尔平和弗农写了一篇关于后真相政治作为话语暴力的精彩文章。他们很好地讨论了关于‘何为专业知识’的辩论如何以特别性别化、性化和种族化的方式削弱学术专业的合法性。

Galpin and Vernon wrote a great article on post truth politics as discursive violence. And they talk really well about how debates about what expertise is works to delegitimize academic expertise in ways that are particularly gendered or sexualized and racialized.

既然我们已经写了这么多内容，我想还有一系列其他值得深思的有趣现象。就在2025年8月1日——也就是我们录制前不久，英国出台了新法规，明确规定'大学必须积极倡导学术自由，确保校园成为能够进行激烈讨论的场所，学生、教职工或校外人士表达合法观点时不必担心受到审查'。这关乎言论自由。众所周知，当前英国围绕言论自由、抗议活动等议题存在大量争论，而这项法规正是其中的关键部分，它影响着特定群体能否参与公共辩论并在公共话语中发声。

And since we've written all this, there's kind of, you know, there's there's a host of other things I think that have come in that are really interesting to reflect on. So on the 08/01/2025, so not long before we're recording this, new laws came into force in The UK, which said that, quote, universities must must must actively promote academic freedom, ensuring campuses are places where robust discussion can take place without fear of censorship of students, staff, or external speakers expressing lawful opinions. And so that's around free speech. And, of course, we know there are loads of debates around free speech and protests and things going on in The UK at the moment. And this is towards kind of a a key part of this and how it affects particular voices being able to contribute to public debate and being visible in public discourse.

根据我们的研究和日常观察，某些特定领域的研究正成为攻击目标——比如女性主义研究、跨性别议题研究、气候危机研究、极右翼研究、殖民主义及殖民历史研究。这些热点议题在《每日邮报》《每日电讯报》等媒体以及Twitter/X等平台上反复遭受攻击，导致相关研究者屡遭噤声，最终在这些议题周围形成了讨论真空。

And given that we know from our research and and from looking around us as well, that there are particular kinds of research that are targeted. So feminist research, particularly research on trans issues, research on the climate crisis, on the far right, on colonialism and colonial histories. You know, there were these kind of particular hot topics that are particularly targeted in the media. So like Daily Mail or The Telegraph, for example, but also on places like Twitter or X that are repeatedly targeted where the same people are kind of being silenced again and again, that is creating this kind of vacuum of conversation around these issues.

确实。需要强调的是，我们面对的不仅是带引号的'网络喷子'，也不仅是社交媒体上持异议的匿名用户。某些类型的新闻报道与这种现象形成了共生关系，它们共同针对这些议题。

Exactly. And it's worth us saying that what we're dealing with here is not just individual, you know, quote marks around it, trolls. It's not just anonymous individuals who are taking issue. It's not just in social media. There's also a kind of symbiotic relationship with certain types of journalism that targets these issues.

我们多位受访者——包括我们正在培训的早期职业研究员（稍后会详细介绍）——都提到媒体上出现了一系列关于'巨额资助浪费纳税人钱'的抨击报道。这些由记者撰写的新闻稿件将某些研究污名化为毫无价值，而社交媒体上的愤怒情绪又反过来滋养了这种点击量导向的新闻模式——我们的亲身经历表明，这种影响是双向的：对我们研究的抵制浪潮最初并非源自社交媒体。

So a number of our respondents have, and also we've been doing some training, which we'll tell you more about, but ECRs that we've been training as well, have told us about a series of hit pieces about big funders wasting taxpayer money. This is it hit pieces in the press, in in the news, by journalists. And, you know, this again targets certain types of research that they deem to be pointless. And the kind of social outrage feeds this kind of journalism in like, social media outrage, I should say, feeds this kind of journalism in the kind of clickbait model, but also other direction as well, as as was our experience. You know, our the backlash to our research did not begin in social media.

一切始于《星期日泰晤士报》的报道，随后被全球媒体转载，最终在新闻机构的评论区或社交媒体渠道发酵。这种双向feed循环表明，问题不仅在于社交媒体个体用户，新闻业本身也深陷其中。我们为此创造了一个术语'研究转译风险'——虽然念起来像绕口令，但确实揭示了我们的研究如何被转译利用，进而助推我们反对的民粹主义、种族主义或脱欧议程。

It started when the Sunday Times wrote about it, and that was then remediated, republished around the world, and then, you know, in the responses below the line or in the kind of social media channels of those news organizations. So, yeah, it's kind of feeding in both directions, but it's not just individuals on social media. Journalism itself is heavily implicated. We came up with a phrase for that, the the risks of re the risks of research remediation. Saying it out loud feels like a tongue twister, but, you know, we found that our research was being remediated in ways which furthered populist or racist or Brexity agendas that we don't agree with.

这构成了超越研究者身心健康的额外风险——你的研究成果可能在你无法掌控的情况下被用于支持某些立场。

That's another further risk beyond the own researcher well-being, is then what your research gets aligned with or used for beyond your control.

这些攻击边界还在不断变化。需要说明的是，我们的访谈和调查是在最近巴勒斯坦相关新闻爆发前完成的。但据多方反映，参与相关研究或具有巴勒斯坦身份的研究者正通过新闻报道成为攻击目标。自我们研究完成以来，新闻界还发生了许多其他事件。因此我认为，对于进入不同领域的研究者而言，判断何时何议题会成为舆论焦点，本身就是一个持续变化的挑战。

And these boundaries are constantly shifting and changing. You know, we should say that we completed these interviews and the survey before kind of the latest news about Palestine, for example. And we know anecdotally that that is, you know, researchers who were kind of involved in that or researchers who identify as Palestinian or whatever that might be, themselves are being targeted in through this kind of news stories. There's various other things that have happened in the news since we did this research. So the kind of the boundaries of what's been targeted are shifting and changing as well, I think that is kind of a new challenge, I guess, for researchers coming into different spaces, that what, you know, when and what will become a hot topic, I think is constantly up for debate.

我们在这里谈了很多，关于这一切确实有很多令人沮丧的地方。我是说，当前大学整体状况本身就够让人沮丧了，但值得强调的是，这种局面并非不可避免，大学本可以有所不同。我们可以将关怀机制融入大学组织架构中，为所有相关教职员工提供充分资源支持，不论他们来自哪个领域。通过建立这些组织结构，我们能够识别风险并保护相关人员。我们已经开始构想这种体系可能呈现的模样。

We've said a lot here, there is a lot to be down about, about all of this. I And mean, there's a lot to be down about generally about the state of universities at the moment, but it is, you know, it's worth saying, I think, that this, you know, this isn't this isn't inevitable, and the university could be different. And we you know, there is ways that we can build care into university structures and organisational structures, and it could resource this work to support all the staff involved in this wherever they might be coming from properly. So it could kind of recognise these risks and protect the people doing it through putting these organisational structures in place. And we've started to think about what that might look like.

大家可以浏览我们的'数字仇恨文化'网站，那里记录了我们如何将这些理念付诸实践的初步探索。当然我们也非常期待听到各位可能提出的其他建议。

You can have a look at our website, Cultures of Digital Hate, where we've started to think about how we might put some of that into practise. And I'm sure there's lots of other suggestions that people might have that we'd love to hear.

劳拉提到了关怀机制。我们发现——虽然今天没准备具体数据——但关于关怀的现状是：虽然人们表示确实没从校方获得支持，但他们从非正式渠道获得了关怀。这种关怀存在于缝隙中，体现在私下交流和我们彼此扶持的方式里。它不应该是唯一的安全网，但确实是当下支撑人们度过难关的力量。

And Laura talks about care. One of the things that we found, I haven't actually pulled up the percentage data point for us today but one of the things about care is that people reported that they were yes, they weren't getting it from their universities, but they were getting it from informal spaces. That care is there and it lives in the gaps. It's there in the back channels and the way that we care for each other in these moments, it shouldn't be the only safety net, but it's there and it's what is getting people through at the moment.

但这不应该是唯一的安全网。机构同样负有责任。当然情况更加复杂了——最近有人告诉我们，他们根本不信任学校能处理好这类问题。比如最近与几位研究跨性别议题的学者交流时，他们明确表示'完全不想让学校插手这件事'。

But that shouldn't be the only safety net. Institutions have a responsibility as well. Of course, this is made even more complicated. We've had people recently tell us that they actually wouldn't trust their university to handle some of this. So we had a conversation recently with some people who were doing research on trans issues, for example, and they said, well, I wouldn't want my institution anywhere near this.

考虑到当前围绕这些议题的机构政治氛围，我认为校方介入反而会恶化事态，其政治影响将极其棘手。所以对他们个人而言，机构支持并非解决方案，反而可能让问题变得更糟。

Because of the kind of the institutional politics around these issues at the moment, I think they would it will be made worse. And I think the kind of the the political implications of that would be incredibly difficult. So actually, institutional support isn't the answer for for me. They were talking about themselves personally, because that could make these issues worse.

另外我认为，遭受这种反弹往往伴随着羞耻感。正如我们解释的，在新自由主义大学体系下，人们正在孤立无援地经历这些。所以如果听众中有类似经历的人，请明白：问题不在你，而是你身处一个本就不为保护你而设计的体系。若听众中有人掌握着校方权力（无论正式或非正式），请务必认真对待数字仇恨的风险。当有人向你求助时，请正视他们遭受的伤害，让我们在讨论影响力、公众参与和知识交流时，保持对风险及其不平等分布的关键认知。

And, I mean, I suppose another thing is that there is shame attached to experiencing this kind of backlash, and it's, you know, in that neoliberal university structure, as we explained, you know, people are experiencing it unsupported. And so if any of the listeners are recognizing their own experience, you know, you're not the problem. You're just living in a structure that wasn't designed to protect you. Or if the listeners are actually someone a little bit more in a position of power within the university, whether that's formal or informal, worth saying, please take seriously the risk of digital hate. And when people come to you, take seriously the harms that they're experiencing and kind of let's bring some criticality and awareness of the risks and their unequal distribution to the conversations that we're having about impact and engagement and knowledge exchange.

因为缺乏安全保障的可见度不是影响力，只是风险，而且这种风险并未被平等分担。

Because visibility without safety isn't impact, it's just risk, and it's not being shared equally.

是的，关心他人的能力以及拒绝做这些事情，都是在这种结构中生存的策略和方法。优先照顾和保护自己、家人或任何可能卷入这些问题的人是完全可以的。你不必将自己的创伤奉献给像裁判这样的东西，也不必让创伤被量化为大学评估指标的一部分。如果公开会让你生病或对生活产生负面影响，你也不必保持可见。

Yeah, and the ability to care for others and refuse to do these things are, you know, strategies and ways to survive these kinds of structures. And it's okay to prioritise caring and protecting for yourself and, you know, for your family or whatever that may whoever might be implicated in some of these issues. And you don't owe your trauma to things like the ref. You don't owe your trauma to be quantified as part of these university metrics. And you don't have to be visible if it's making you ill or affecting your life negatively.

我认为我们承受着很大压力去维持那些形象，我认为当这种情况对这么多人造成如此恶劣影响时，我们需要从中抽身。

I think there's a lot of pressure on us to kind of maintain those profiles, and and I think we need to step away from some of that when it's, you know, it's affecting so many people so badly.

是的。我们刚才简单提到一直在为AHRQ博士培训项目（即博士培训合作伙伴关系）的博士生提供相关培训。对于任何听众，如果你有其他想法或想与我们合作解决今天提出的这些问题，或者有良好实践案例，欢迎联系我们。我们总是很高兴能与更多致力于改善数字仇恨滋生的文化环境的人合作交流。

Yeah. Now we mentioned very briefly that we've been delivering training on this for AHRQ DTPs, that's doctoral training partnerships, so for doctoral students. But, yeah, for anyone listening that has any other ideas or would like to collaborate with us on other ways to combat these issues that we've raised today, or if you've got examples of good practice, you can get in touch with us. We are always thrilled to collaborate and hear from more people who are interested in improving these cultures within which digital hate is thriving.

我想就到这里吧。非常感谢大家的收听。谢谢。本节目由'生存社会制作'呈现。

I think that's it. Thank you so much for listening. Thank you. Thank you for listening. This episode has been brought to you by Surviving Society Productions.

请通过点赞、评论和订阅支持我们的工作。在Instagram、Blue Sky和Patreon上关注我们。

To support our work, like, review and subscribe. Follow us on Instagram, Blue Sky and Patreon.