Cultivating Epistemic and Argumentative Resilience to Reduce Vaccine Hesitancy

This chapter examines approaches to cultivating epistemic and argumentative resilience as means to address vaccine hesitancy, with a focus on COVID-19 vaccinations in the United States. Moving beyond logistical conceptualizations of resilience in vaccine distribution, the analysis proposes a communication-centered framework emphasizing discernment and adaptive engagement with vaccine-related claims. Three community-based methods are evaluated for their potential to build resilience: deliberative polling, street epistemology, and deep canvassing. While these approaches have shown promise in addressing other polarized issues, their efficacy for vaccine hesitancy remains largely untested. The chapter critically assesses the strengths and limitations of each method, considering factors such as scalability, modality constraints, and potential for manipulation. Recommendations emphasize the importance of fostering ongoing, respectful discussions about vaccination and treating vaccine positions as continually negotiated claims rather than polarized commitments. This analysis contributes to the evolving discourse on vaccine hesitancy by proposing novel applications of community-engaged communication strategies. It calls for systematic research to empirically evaluate these methods’ impact on vaccine attitudes and uptake, while acknowledging the complexities involved in cultivating resilience to misinformation and building trust in vaccines.