Abstract
As explained in the opening of this book, science communication is often premised on the idea that knowledge and knowing are inherently good. But knowledge is a messy field. This chapter begins by distinguishing between knowledge, knowing, information and informing. Making the point that information is the currency of science communication, the chapter then considers what makes the information communicated valuable and worthwhile to the audience. Specifically, the relevance of the information to the audience and its usability (broadly understood) are considered. The chapter then offers a mirror discussion on the place (and value) of ignoring and ignorance in science communication.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsBibliography
Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16(1), 3–9.
Arnold, J. R., Karamitsos, T., Shirodaria, C., & Banning, A. P. (2009). Should patients undergoing PCI still be consented for emergency bypass? International Journal of Cardiology, 132(3), 447–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2007.08.097.
Atwood, M. (2006). The handmaid’s tale. Everyman’s Library Classics.
Audi, R. (2010). Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. London: Routledge.
Boisot, M., & Canals, A. (2004). Data, information and knowledge: Have we got it right? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(1), 43–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-003-0181-9.
Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. R. (2005). Roles, politics, and ethics in action research design. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(6), 533–546.
Gross, M. (2007). The unknown in process: Dynamic connections of ignorance, non-knowledge and related concepts. Current Sociology, 55(5), 742–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392107079928.
Locke, T., Alcorn, N., & O’Neill, J. (2013). Ethical issues in collaborative action research. Educational Action Research, 21(1), 107–123.
McGoey, L. (2012). The logic of strategic ignorance. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(3), 533–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2012.01424.x.
Nisbet, M. C., & Markowitz, E. (2016). Science communication research: Bridging theory and practice. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Pritchard, D., Carter, J. A., & Turri, J. (2018). The value of knowledge. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-value/.
Rogers, P. R., & Bamford, C. E. (2002). Information planning process and strategic orientation: The importance of fit in high-performing organizations. Journal of Business Research, 55(3), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00136-3.
Scholtz, V. (2002). Managing knowledge in a knowledge business. In E. Coakes, D. Willis, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Knowledge management in the sociotechnical world: The Graffiti continues (pp. 43–51). London: Springer, London.
Stocking, S. H., & Holstein, L. W. (1993). Constructing and reconstructing scientific ignorance: Ignorance claims in science and journalism. Knowledge, 15(2), 186–210.
Strachey, L. (2003). Eminent victorians. New York: Oxford University Press.
Taussig, M. T. (1999). Defacement: Public secrecy and the labor of the negative. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Wallace, D. P. (2007). Knowledge management: Historical and cross-disciplinary themes. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.
Williams, N. (2003). Top scientists back human cloning ban. Current Biology, 13(20), R785–R786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2003.09.041.
World Univeristy Ranking. (2011). Citation averages, 2000–2010, by fields and years. From http://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/citation-averages-2000-2010-by-fields-and-years/415643.article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Medvecky, F., Leach, J. (2019). Knowing and Ignoring: The Utility of Information. In: An Ethics of Science Communication. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32116-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32116-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32115-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32116-1
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)