Advertisement

How Knowing Changes

  • Isto Huvila
Chapter

Abstract

As the contemporary society is changing, knowing and its premises and conditions change together with it. This chapter explores this change and its implications to knowledge making. The main argument is that much of the contemporary experiences of change in information and knowledge practices can be understood from the perspective of how the conditions of (un)naming and (dis)trusting individuals, groups and institutions are changing. Further, it is suggested that the most significant issue may not necessarily be the change of knowing itself but rather the question of what is considered to count as knowing.

Keywords

Knowing Anonymity Naming Trust Distrust Change Conditions Knowledge making Information practices 

References

  1. Agarwal, N. K. (2015). Towards a definition of serendipity in information behaviour. Information Research, 20(3), paper 675. http://www.informationr.net/ir/20-3/paper675.html.
  2. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe half-way. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnard, A. (2000). History and theory in anthropology. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  5. Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180–191.Google Scholar
  6. Becvar, K., & Srinivasan, R. (2009). Indigenous knowledge and culturally responsive methods in information research. The Library Quarterly, 79(4), 421–441.Google Scholar
  7. Bernstein, J. (2011). Shamanic knowledge: The challenge to information science. Advances in the Study of Information and Religion, 1, 128–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blandford, A., & Attfield, S. (2010). Interacting with information. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.Google Scholar
  9. Boltanski, L. (2014). Mysteries and conspiracies: Detective stories, spy novels and the making of modern societies. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  10. Bouwman, M. J., Frishkoff, P. A., & Frishkoff, P. (1987). How do financial analysts make decisions? A process model of the investment screening decision. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyd, A. (2004). Multi-channel information seeking: A fuzzy conceptual model. Aslib Proceedings, 56(2), 81–88.Google Scholar
  12. Case, D. O., & Given, L. M. (2016). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chartier, R. (2016). Sciences et savoirs. Annales, 71(2), 451–464.Google Scholar
  14. Choo, C. W. (1998). Information management for the intelligent organization: The art of scanning the environment (2nd ed.). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Coleman, G. (2014). Hacker, hoaxer, whistleblower, spy: The many faces of anonymous. New York: Verso books.Google Scholar
  16. Cunliffe, A. L. (2001). Managers as practical authors: Reconstructing our understanding of management practice. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dawes, S. (2011). The role of the intellectual in liquid modernity: An interview with Zygmunt Bauman. Theory, Culture & Society, 28(3), 130–148.Google Scholar
  18. de Alwis, G., Majid, S., & Chaudhry, A. S. (2006). Transformation in managers’ information seeking behaviour: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Science, 32(4), 362–377. http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/4/362.
  19. Drake, S. D. (2011). Departure acts: Anonymous authorship in the late twentieth century. Ph.D. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.Google Scholar
  20. Fallis, D., & Whitcomb, D. (2009). Epistemic values and information management. The Information Society, 25(3), 175–189.Google Scholar
  21. Faniel, I., Kansa, E., Whitcher Kansa, S., Barrera-Gomez, J., & Yakel, E. (2013). The challenges of digging data: A study of context in archaeological data reuse. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL ’13) (pp. 295–304). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Frickel, S. (2014). Not here and everywhere: The non-production of scientific knowledge. In D. L. Kleinman & K. Moore (Eds.), Routledge handbook of science, technology and society (pp. 263–276). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Fritze, R. H. (2009). Invented knowledge: False history, fake science and pseudo-religions. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  24. Fry, J., Spezi, V., Probets, S., & Creaser, C. (2015). Towards an understanding of the relationship between disciplinary research cultures and open access repository behaviors. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(11), 2710–2724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuller, S. (2007). The knowledge book key concepts in philosophy, science, and culture. Stocksfield: Acumen. Google Scholar
  26. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Garfinkel, H. (2008). Toward a sociological theory of information. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.Google Scholar
  28. Gregg, M. (2011). Work’s intimacy. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  29. Griffin, R. J. (1999). Anonymity and authorship. New Literary History, 30(4), 877–895.Google Scholar
  30. Hardin, R. (2009). How do you know? The economics of ordinary knowledges. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Highmore, B. (2007). Walls without museums: Anonymous history, collective authorship and the document. Visual Culture in Britain, 8(2), 1–20.Google Scholar
  33. Hindriks, F. (2010). Review of Russell Hardin’s How do you know? The economics of ordinary knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009, 256 pp. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 3(1), 93–97. http://ejpe.org/pdf/3-1-br-2.pdf.
  34. Huvila, I. (2012). Information services and digital literacy: In search of the boundaries of knowing. Oxford: Chandos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huvila, I. (2013a). How a museum knows? Structures, work roles, and infrastructures of information work. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1375–1387.Google Scholar
  36. Huvila, I. (2013b). In web search we trust? Articulation of the cognitive authorities of web searching. Information Research, 18(1). http://informationr.net/ir/18-1/paper567.html.
  37. Huvila, I. (2013c). “Library users come to a library to find books”: The structuration of the library as a soft information system. Journal of Documentation, 69(5), 715–735.Google Scholar
  38. Huvila, I. (2015). The unbearable lightness of participating? Revisiting the discourses of ‘participation’ in archival literature. Journal of Documentation, 71(2), 358–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huvila, I. (2016). Change and stability in archives, libraries and museums: Mapping professional experiences in Sweden. Information Research, 21(1). http://www.informationr.net/ir/21-1/memo/memo5.html.
  40. Huvila, I. (2017a). Archaeology of no names? The social productivity of anonymity in the archaeological information process. ephemera, 17(2), 351–376.Google Scholar
  41. Huvila, I. (2017b). Distrust, mistrust, untrust and information practices. Information Research, 22(1), paper isic1617. http://www.informationr.net/ir/22-1/isic/isic1617.html.
  42. Ingold, T. (1993). Tool-use, sociality and intelligence. In K. R. Gibson & T. Ingold (Eds.), Tools, language and cognition in human evolution (pp. 429–445). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Ingold, T. (2016, December 9). Thoughts on movement, growth an an anthropologically-sensitive Is/Organization studies. In Keynote at IFIP WG8.2 Working Conference, Dublin.Google Scholar
  45. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Julien, H. (2005). Women’s ways of knowing. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & E. F. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 387–391). Medford, NJ: Information Today.Google Scholar
  47. Kallinikos, J., Ekbia, H., & Nardi, B. (2015). Regimes of information and the paradox of embeddedness: An introduction. The Information Society, 31(2), 101–105.Google Scholar
  48. Kelton, K., Fleischmann, K. R., & Wallace, W. A. (2008). Trust in digital information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 363–374.Google Scholar
  49. Konrad, M. (2005). Nameless relations: Anonymity, Melanesia and reproductive gift exchange between British ova donors and recipients. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  50. Kornblith, H. (2004). Knowledge and its place in nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Korsgaard, M. A., Picot, A., Wigand, R. T., Welpe, I. M., & Assmann, J. J. (2010). Cooperation, coordination, and trust in virtual teams: Insights from virtual games. Online worlds: Convergence of the real and the virtual (pp. 253–264). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Law, J. (1998). After metanarrative: On knowing in tension. In R. Chia (Ed.), Into the realm of organisation: Essays for Roberts Cooper (pp. 88–108). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Leppälä, S. (2011). Review of Russell Hardin, How do you know? The economics of ordinary knowledge. The Review of Austrian Economics, 24, 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.Google Scholar
  57. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  58. McDowell, A. (2002). Trust and information: The role of trust in the social epistemology of information science. Social Epistemology, 16(1), 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McGranahan, C. (2017). An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage. American Ethnologist, 44(2), 243–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meyers, E. M., Fisher, K. E., & Marcoux, E. (2009). Making sense of an information world: The everyday-life information behavior of preteens. The Library Quarterly, 79(3), 301–341.Google Scholar
  61. Morgan, C., & Eve, S. (2012). DIY and digital archaeology: What are you doing to participate? World Archaeology, 44(4), 521–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nissenbaum, H. (1999). The meaning of anonymity in an information age. The Information Society, 15(2), 141–144.Google Scholar
  63. Nowotny, H. (2016). The cunning of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  64. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. T., & Scott, P. B. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  65. Pilerot, O., & Limberg, L. (2011). Information sharing as a means to reach collective understanding: A study of design scholars information practices. Journal of Documentation, 67(2), 312–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pinto, M. F. (2017). To know or better not to: Agnotology and the social construction of ignorance in commercially driven research. Science & Technology Studies, 30(2), 53–72.Google Scholar
  67. Pirolli, P. (2007). Information foraging theory: Adaptive interaction with information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pruitt, T. C. (2011). Authority and the production of knowledge in archaeology. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  69. Scott, S. V., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2014). Entanglements in practice: Performing anonymity through social media. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 873–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shneiderman, B. (2008). Science 2.0. Science, 319, 1349–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities constructing life through language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  72. Sismondo, S. (2011). An introduction to science and technology studies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  73. Snicket, L. (2001). The Vile village. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  74. Spink, A. (2010). Information behavior: An evolutionary instinct. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Spinuzzi, C. (2015). All edge: Inside the new workplace networks. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Teich, E., Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., Fankhauser, P., Kermes, H., & Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. (2015). The linguistic construal of disciplinarity: A data-mining approach using register features. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(7), 1668–1678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ALMUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations