Public Engagement With Science Among Religious Minorities: Lessons From COVID-19

"The findings make a strong case for the importance of religious-sensitive science communication."

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and highlighted existing disparities in health care that are linked to structural inequalities. The disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on minorities has also prompted the field of science communication to examine the ways in which access to science-related information and public engagement with science are still inequitably distributed. Drawing on the disproportionate magnitude of COVID-19-related morbidity on Israel's Ultra-Orthodox Jews, this article examines the processes of COVID-19 health decision making among this religious minority.

To provide context, the article begins with a look at education, media, and communication among Haredim (Ultra-Orthodox Jews), who are often referred to as an enclave with strict social and cultural boundaries. The Haredi community has its own educational system that is made up of segregated K-12 schooling for boys and girls, followed by an extensive network of institutions of higher religious study for men. Haredim also have their own sectorial press, which provides Haredi-filtered news so as not to "contaminate" the Haredi home and to protect their right "not to know". In spite of opposition among Haredi leadership, the Haredi community in Israel (and the United States) has witnessed a sharp increase in the number of Haredi news websites, alongside traditional print newspapers. The other influential sector of Haredi-targeted news is radio channels, which are all broadcast by men. No Haredi TV channels exist.

Throughout the second half of March 2020, when the data collection for this study took place, the Israeli media reported daily on the rapid spread of the virus and the measures the Ministry of Health (MoH) was putting forward to monitor and contain the spread of the pandemic in Israel. During this state of emergency, Haredi Jews were reportedly slower to adhere to social distancing guidelines than other groups in Israeli society - a reluctance that has been attributed to various theological, cultural, and political causes. For example, prayer, boys' Torah study houses, and women's ritual immersion in a Mikveh cannot be simply moved to Zoom. As a result, by the end of March 2020, 40% to 60% of all coronavirus patients at 4 major hospitals were Haredi Jews, even though they make only 12% of Israel's population.

In early April 2020, the MoH created a Haredi-targeted campaign to provide Haredim with information about COVID-19 that was presented in Haredi-acceptable religious and cultural frameworks. As Passover approached, the MoH tailored instructions to the Haredi community, and the goverment enforced a 3-day nationwide lockdown in Jewish cities to further contain the spread. On May 4 2020, the government approved a gradual easing of lockdown restrictions; however, at the time of this writing (August 2020), a second wave had materialised in Israel, with a disproportionate effect of infection among Israel's ethnic and religion minorities continuing.

For the study, an online questionnaire was administered to 514 Hebrew-speaking Haredim. The survey gathered educational and demographic background information; it also included an open question about the efficacy of quarantine to assess knowledge about COVID-19, as well as 3 close-ended questions to measure general scientific knowledge. Participants were then asked to read 5 culturally specific COVID-19-related dilemmas that incorporated a potential conflict between health considerations and religious norms. (For example: "Imagine that Passover is next week. Your whole extended family is expected to celebrate the Seder together at your house. Will you still hold the Seder, including with older members of the family despite COVID-19?") Then, respondents were asked to indicate how confident they were with their decisions, the reasoning or rationale for their decisions, and whom they would consult for advice.

The paper details the results by dilemma and then discusses cross-cutting findings, such as the following: Out of the 234 people who referred to sources of authority in their open-ended responses, the most common were: mass media (31.9%), Jewish language and culture (30.8%), MoH (15.4%), religious authorities (4.7%), and personal experience (0.4%). These findings indicate the dual usage of both religious and health- and science-related discourses and authority. The more that respondents reported they would consult with religious authorities, the more their level of conformity with state guidelines decreased. By contrast, the more that respondents reported they would consult academic sources, the more their level of conformity with state guidelines increased. Overall: Conformity with health recommendations and guidelines was mainly justified through health-, medicine-, and science-related rationalisations, whereas disregard of health recommendations was associated with greater reliance on religious justifications.

A closer look suggests that the use of health versus religious justifications was more complex: Compliance with health recommendations for personal decisions (where health and religious norms conflicted) was associated with using more health-related justifications and sources of information than religious ones. However, there was one dilemma in which religious justifications and language dominated: the closing of religious seminaries. Most respondents agreed that the MoH's decision to close all schools and universities was correct (94.9%), but only 23.2% agreed with the decision to close religious seminaries ("from a Haredi perspective the government decision to close all religious seminaries was perceived as shutting down the heart of Jewish life.").

Furthermore, no significant association was found between levels of education and level of science knowledge and levels of conformity to MoH guidelines. This finding coheres with previous research on the relative marginality of science knowledge to everyday decision making.

Overall, these findings suggest the need to develop better science communication models that are aligned and resonate with local/communal understandings. Specifically, from the researchers' perspective:

• Science communicators should incorporate creative strategies to tailor their communications to diverse audiences (e.g., translations should be provided whenever possible, and images should aim to represent minority groups).
• Communication experts should think carefully about the particular medium used to convey messages (e.g., many Ultra-Orthodox Jews do not have access to the internet).
• Messaging should address and respect the particular challenges and disruptions that public health guidelines pose for minority sensibilities and lifestyles (e.g., the guideline that ultra-Orthodox Jews found most challenging was the closure of religious seminaries. This particular challenge (and the tension it invoked) could have been mitigated if public health messaging conveyed and demonstrated that policymakers acknowledge and understand how challenging this is for Haredi Jews - culturally, religiously, and politically).
• Because members of minority groups find it easier to follow guidelines when they are put forward by members of their own communities, communal representatives of minority groups should be engaged in promoting science communication and public health guidelines. Alternatively, public communicators can quote or refer to notable members of minority groups, who can serve as communal role models.
• It is important to acknowledge that each minority group has different needs and sensitivities, which makes it almost impossible for any one individual to provide tailored information to diverse populations. To overcome this challenge, a network of consultants should be created who can be called upon when necessary.

"In conclusion, the case of Haredi Jews' response to COVID-19 may serve as a vivid example of the challenges and limitations of communicating science and public health to diverse populations. Over the last 10 years the science communication literature has been pushing for more inclusive models of communication that pay attention to race, gender, and disability....[I]t is time to build another front to align science communication with local understandings of minority groups."