Knowing and Ignoring: The Utility of Information

  • Fabien MedveckyEmail author
  • Joan Leach


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.


Value of knowledge Value of ignorance Relevance of knowledge 


  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16(1), 3–9.Google Scholar
  2. 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. Scholar
  3. Atwood, M. (2006). The handmaid’s tale. Everyman’s Library Classics.Google Scholar
  4. Audi, R. (2010). Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Boisot, M., & Canals, A. (2004). Data, information and knowledge: Have we got it right? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(1), 43–67. Scholar
  6. Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. R. (2005). Roles, politics, and ethics in action research design. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(6), 533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gross, M. (2007). The unknown in process: Dynamic connections of ignorance, non-knowledge and related concepts. Current Sociology, 55(5), 742–759. Scholar
  8. Locke, T., Alcorn, N., & O’Neill, J. (2013). Ethical issues in collaborative action research. Educational Action Research, 21(1), 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McGoey, L. (2012). The logic of strategic ignorance. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(3), 533–576. Scholar
  10. Nisbet, M. C., & Markowitz, E. (2016). Science communication research: Bridging theory and practice. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  11. Pritchard, D., Carter, J. A., & Turri, J. (2018). The value of knowledge. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. From
  12. 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. Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stocking, S. H., & Holstein, L. W. (1993). Constructing and reconstructing scientific ignorance: Ignorance claims in science and journalism. Knowledge, 15(2), 186–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Strachey, L. (2003). Eminent victorians. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Taussig, M. T. (1999). Defacement: Public secrecy and the labor of the negative. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Wallace, D. P. (2007). Knowledge management: Historical and cross-disciplinary themes. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  18. Williams, N. (2003). Top scientists back human cloning ban. Current Biology, 13(20), R785–R786. Scholar
  19. World Univeristy Ranking. (2011). Citation averages, 2000–2010, by fields and years. From

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.The Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations