<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2 20190208//EN" "http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.2/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="ru" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="issn">2408-9338</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Research result. Sociology and Management</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2408-9338</issn></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.18413/2408-9338-2021-7-3-1-3</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">2534</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>SOCIOLOGY OF MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>&lt;strong&gt;T&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt;he position of religious communities during the coronavirus pandemic and the reflection on the public opinion in Macedonia&lt;/strong&gt;</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>&lt;strong&gt;T&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;strong&gt;he position of religious communities during the coronavirus pandemic and the reflection on the public opinion in Macedonia&lt;/strong&gt;</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Blazhevski</surname><given-names>Ivan</given-names></name><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Blazhevski</surname><given-names>Ivan</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>ivan.blazevski@isppi.ukim.edu</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1" /></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Cacanoska</surname><given-names>Ruzhica</given-names></name><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Cacanoska</surname><given-names>Ruzhica</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>ruzica-c@hotmail.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1" /></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Gjorgjeski</surname><given-names>Gjoko</given-names></name><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Gjorgjeski</surname><given-names>Gjoko</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>gjgjoko@gmail.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1" /></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><institution>Institute for Sociological, Political and Juridical Research, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje Partizanski odredi bb, Skopje, 1000, The Republic of Macedonia</institution></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><year>2021</year></pub-date><volume>7</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>0</fpage><lpage>0</lpage><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="/media/sociology/2021/3/152-163_KOmnr7C.pdf" /><abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>The COVID-19 pandemic affected religion and faith in different ways. The interaction between religious traditions, religious freedom and responsibilities in public health is complex, intertwining the cultural and legal dimensions of social reality. Introduction of numerous restrictive measures for prevention and protection against the spread of coronavirus, in many cases, were contrary to the religious practices of religious communities. The views of the religious communities regarding these measures at the beginning of the pandemic were also reflected in the views of the believers, whose behavior had a kind of response in public opinion. The purpose of this paper is to outline and compare the position of religious communities in Macedonian society at the beginning of the pandemic and their views in late 2020 and early 2021. It also provides an overview and comparison of the public reactions which arose from the position of religious communities regarding restrictive measures and the practice of religious services. To meet the objectives, this paper is divided into two parts, where the first part presents the activities and initiatives of religious communities, while the second part shows the reflections from the activities of religious communities on public opinion. In doing so, both views are based on a qualitative analysis, which in the first part analyzes the reports from religious communities, as well as other public sources, while the second part is a thematic analysis of Twitter Platform. The comparison between the position of the religious communities at the beginning of the pandemic and during the holidays at the end of the year indicates that their position is unchanged, and they clearly support the measures for prevention and protection from the coronavirus. However, the public interest in religious practices has drastically decreased at the end of the year compared to the beginning of the pandemic, although the impatience towards the clergy and believers who attend religious services is identical in both compared periods.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The COVID-19 pandemic affected religion and faith in different ways. The interaction between religious traditions, religious freedom and responsibilities in public health is complex, intertwining the cultural and legal dimensions of social reality. Introduction of numerous restrictive measures for prevention and protection against the spread of coronavirus, in many cases, were contrary to the religious practices of religious communities. The views of the religious communities regarding these measures at the beginning of the pandemic were also reflected in the views of the believers, whose behavior had a kind of response in public opinion. The purpose of this paper is to outline and compare the position of religious communities in Macedonian society at the beginning of the pandemic and their views in late 2020 and early 2021. It also provides an overview and comparison of the public reactions which arose from the position of religious communities regarding restrictive measures and the practice of religious services. To meet the objectives, this paper is divided into two parts, where the first part presents the activities and initiatives of religious communities, while the second part shows the reflections from the activities of religious communities on public opinion. In doing so, both views are based on a qualitative analysis, which in the first part analyzes the reports from religious communities, as well as other public sources, while the second part is a thematic analysis of Twitter Platform. The comparison between the position of the religious communities at the beginning of the pandemic and during the holidays at the end of the year indicates that their position is unchanged, and they clearly support the measures for prevention and protection from the coronavirus. However, the public interest in religious practices has drastically decreased at the end of the year compared to the beginning of the pandemic, although the impatience towards the clergy and believers who attend religious services is identical in both compared periods.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>religious communities</kwd><kwd>COVID 19</kwd><kwd>restrictive measures</kwd><kwd>public opinion</kwd><kwd>Twitter</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>religious communities</kwd><kwd>COVID 19</kwd><kwd>restrictive measures</kwd><kwd>public opinion</kwd><kwd>Twitter</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><title>Список литературы</title><ref id="B1"><mixed-citation>Boyatzis, R.&amp;nbsp;E. (1998), Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code Development, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><mixed-citation>Braun, V. &amp;amp; Clarke, V. (2006), &amp;ldquo;Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology&amp;rdquo;, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><mixed-citation>Bruns, A. &amp;amp; Moe, H. (2014), &amp;ldquo;Structural Layers of Communication on Twitter&amp;rdquo;, in Weller, K. (ed.) Twitter and Society, Peter Lang Publishing, New York, USA.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><mixed-citation>Bryman, A. (2012), Social Research Methods&amp;rsquo;, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><mixed-citation>Chew, C. and Eysenbach, G. (2010), &amp;ldquo;Pandemics in the Age of Twitter: Content Analysis of Tweets during the 2009 H1N1 Outbreak&amp;rdquo;, Plos ONE, 5 (11).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><mixed-citation>Dann, S. (2015), &amp;ldquo;Twitter Data Acquisition and Analysis: Methodology and Best Practice&amp;rdquo;, in Burhalter, J. &amp;amp; Wood, N. (eds.) Maximizing Commerce and Marketing Strategies through Micro-Blogging, Business Science Reference.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><mixed-citation>Eysenbach, G. &amp;amp; Till, J.&amp;nbsp;E. (2001), &amp;ldquo;Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities&amp;rdquo;, British Medical Journal, 323 (7321), available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC59687/ (Accessed 27 February 2021).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><mixed-citation>Franzke et al., &amp;ldquo;Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0&amp;rdquo;, available at: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf (Accessed 02 June 2020).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><mixed-citation>Gjorgjevski, Gj. and Blazhevski, I. (2021), &amp;ldquo;The Religious Aspect of the Macedonian Society in the Condition of the Crisis Caused by Covid 19&amp;rdquo;, Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe, 41 (1).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><mixed-citation>Newman, W.&amp;nbsp;L. (2014), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Pearson New International Edition, Seventh Edition, Pearson Education Limited.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><mixed-citation>&amp;ldquo;Number of social network users worldwide from 2017 to 2025&amp;rdquo;, Statista [website], available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/ (Accessed 10 March 2021).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><mixed-citation>Rufai, S.&amp;nbsp;R. &amp;amp; Bunce, C. (2020), &amp;ldquo;World leaders&amp;rsquo; usage of Twitter in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a content analysis&amp;rdquo;, Journal of Public Health, 42 (3).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><mixed-citation>Strauss, A. &amp;amp; Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of qualitative research, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Newbury Park.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><mixed-citation>Thomas, D. (2006), &amp;ldquo;A General Inductive Approach for Qualitative Data Analysis&amp;rdquo;, American Journal of Evaluation, 27 (2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><mixed-citation>Twitter + Developers [website], available at: https://developer.twitter.com/en/developer-terms/policy (Accessed 27 February 2021).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><mixed-citation>Twitter Quarterly Results: 2020 Fourth Quarter, available at: https://investor.twitterinc.com/financial-information/quarterly-results/default.aspx (Accessed 05 March 2021).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><mixed-citation>Twitter terms of service [website], available at: https://twitter.com/en/tos, (Accessed 27 February 2021).</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>