Information-making-related information needs and the credibility of information

Author:

Huvila Isto,

Abstract

Introduction. Even if trust in the process of how information is made has been acknowledged as a key aspect of the credibility of information, there is little earlier research on how and if people use or want information on information making when doing credibility assessments. Method. Swedish archaeology administrators were interviewed (n=10). Analysis. Interview transcripts were analysed using close reading and an approach based on the constant comparative method. Information needs relating to work processes, methods and technologies, context and situation and non-needs (i.e. lack of need) of information on information making were identified similarly to two types of reputational and four types of non-reputational cues of how information was made. Results. Experienced information needs about information making and preferences for reputational and non-reputational cues in credibility assessments were related to individuals’ epistemic distance to the context where information making took place, and if the interviewees positioned themselves as insiders or outsiders in that particular context. Conclusion. To understand the dynamics and interaction of credibility criteria, it can be useful to look at how and what they are used to justify and what are people’s underpinning epistemic beliefs, instead of merely pointing to the differences in beliefs and enumerating situation-specific credibility criteria. People’s flexibility in switching between reputational and non-reputational cues, and positioning themselves as insiders and outsiders, could be seen as an opportunity rather than as a sign of their inferior informational competences.

Publisher

University of Borås, Borås, Sweden

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. A fieldwork manual as a regulatory device: Instructing, prescribing and describing documentation work;Journal of Information Science;2023-10-19

2. Thousands of examining eyes: credibility, authority and validity in biodiversity citizen science data production;Aslib Journal of Information Management;2022-03-21

3. Information needs on research data creation;Information Research: an international electronic journal;2022

4. Theory usage in empirical research in ISIC conference papers (1996-2020);Information Research: an international electronic journal;2022

5. Making and taking information;Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology;2021-10-18

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3