Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Knowing Changes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Research Outside The Academy

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

  • Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe half-way. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, A. (2000). History and theory in anthropology. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Becvar, K., & Srinivasan, R. (2009). Indigenous knowledge and culturally responsive methods in information research. The Library Quarterly, 79(4), 421–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, J. (2011). Shamanic knowledge: The challenge to information science. Advances in the Study of Information and Religion, 1, 128–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blandford, A., & Attfield, S. (2010). Interacting with information. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L. (2014). Mysteries and conspiracies: Detective stories, spy novels and the making of modern societies. Oxford: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, A. (2004). Multi-channel information seeking: A fuzzy conceptual model. Aslib Proceedings, 56(2), 81–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, D. O., & Given, L. M. (2016). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. Bingley: Emerald.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chartier, R. (2016). Sciences et savoirs. Annales, 71(2), 451–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Coleman, G. (2014). Hacker, hoaxer, whistleblower, spy: The many faces of anonymous. New York: Verso books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunliffe, A. L. (2001). Managers as practical authors: Reconstructing our understanding of management practice. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Drake, S. D. (2011). Departure acts: Anonymous authorship in the late twentieth century. Ph.D. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallis, D., & Whitcomb, D. (2009). Epistemic values and information management. The Information Society, 25(3), 175–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Fritze, R. H. (2009). Invented knowledge: False history, fake science and pseudo-religions. London: Reaktion Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2007). The knowledge book key concepts in philosophy, science, and culture. Stocksfield: Acumen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (2008). Toward a sociological theory of information. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, M. (2011). Work’s intimacy. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, R. J. (1999). Anonymity and authorship. New Literary History, 30(4), 877–895.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. (2009). How do you know? The economics of ordinary knowledges. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highmore, B. (2007). Walls without museums: Anonymous history, collective authorship and the document. Visual Culture in Britain, 8(2), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Huvila, I. (2012). Information services and digital literacy: In search of the boundaries of knowing. Oxford: Chandos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Huvila, I. (2015). The unbearable lightness of participating? Revisiting the discourses of ‘participation’ in archival literature. Journal of Documentation, 71(2), 358–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Huvila, I. (2017a). Archaeology of no names? The social productivity of anonymity in the archaeological information process. ephemera, 17(2), 351–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Konrad, M. (2005). Nameless relations: Anonymity, Melanesia and reproductive gift exchange between British ova donors and recipients. New York: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornblith, H. (2004). Knowledge and its place in nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leppälä, S. (2011). Review of Russell Hardin, How do you know? The economics of ordinary knowledge. The Review of Austrian Economics, 24, 77–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, A. (2002). Trust and information: The role of trust in the social epistemology of information science. Social Epistemology, 16(1), 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGranahan, C. (2017). An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage. American Ethnologist, 44(2), 243–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Morgan, C., & Eve, S. (2012). DIY and digital archaeology: What are you doing to participate? World Archaeology, 44(4), 521–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum, H. (1999). The meaning of anonymity in an information age. The Information Society, 15(2), 141–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H. (2016). The cunning of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pirolli, P. (2007). Information foraging theory: Adaptive interaction with information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, T. C. (2011). Authority and the production of knowledge in archaeology. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. V., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2014). Entanglements in practice: Performing anonymity through social media. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 873–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shneiderman, B. (2008). Science 2.0. Science, 319, 1349–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities constructing life through language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo, S. (2011). An introduction to science and technology studies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snicket, L. (2001). The Vile village. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spink, A. (2010). Information behavior: An evolutionary instinct. Berlin and New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spinuzzi, C. (2015). All edge: Inside the new workplace networks. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of ALM, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Isto Huvila

Authors
  1. Isto Huvila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isto Huvila .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of ALM, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Lisa Börjesson

  2. Department of ALM, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Isto Huvila

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Huvila, I. (2019). How Knowing Changes. In: Börjesson, L., Huvila, I. (eds) Research Outside The Academy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94177-6_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94177-6_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94176-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94177-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation