Abstract
The study elaborates the picture of the relationships between information and power by examining how informational and expert power appear in the characterizations of cognitive authority presented in the research literature. The study draws on the conceptual analysis of 25 key studies on the above issues. Mainly focusing on Patrick Wilson’s classic notion of cognitive authority, it was examined how informational power and expert power are constitutive of authority of this kind, and how people subject to the influence of cognitive authorities trust or challenge such authorities. The findings indicate that researchers have characterized the features of expert power inherent in cognitive authority by diverse qualifiers such as competence and trustworthiness of information sources considered authoritative. Informational power has mainly been approached in terms of irrefutability of individual arguments and facts offered by cognitive authorities. Both forms of power are persuasive in nature and information seekers can trust or challenge them by drawing on their experiential knowledge in particular. The findings also highlight the need to elaborate the construct of cognitive authority by rethinking its relevance in the networked information environments where the traditional picture of authoritative information sources is eroding.
References
Bar-Tal, Y., K. Stasiuk, and R. Maksymiuk. 2018. “What Makes You Think That You Are a Health Expert? The Effect of Objective Knowledge and Cognitive Structuring on Self-Epistemic Authority.” Advances in Cognitive Psychology 14 (4): 186–91, https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0249-1.Suche in Google Scholar
Barzilai-Nahon, K. 2008. “Toward a Theory of Network Gatekeeping: A Framework for Exploring Information Control.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 (9): 1493–512, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20857.Suche in Google Scholar
Baxter, G., R. Marcella, and A. Walicka. 2019. “Scottish Citizens’ Perceptions of the Credibility of Online Political “Facts” in the “Fake News” Era: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Documentation 75 (5): 1100–23, https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-10-2018-0161.Suche in Google Scholar
Clegg, S. R. 1989. Frameworks of Power. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446279267Suche in Google Scholar
De George, R. T. 1985. The Nature and Limits of Authority. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Suche in Google Scholar
Diamond, J. 1996. Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.10.1075/pbns.40Suche in Google Scholar
Doty, C. 2015. “Social Epistemology and Cognitive Authority in Online Comments about Vaccine Safety.” In iConference 2015 Proceedings, Newport Beach. March 24–27. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/73664 (accessed August 19, 2020).Suche in Google Scholar
Erchul, W. P., and B. H. Raven. 1997. “Social Power in School Consultation: A Contemporary View of French and Raven’s Bases of Power Model.” Journal of School Psychology 35 (2): 137–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4405(97)00002-2.Suche in Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1978. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1. An Introduction. New York: Pantheon Books.Suche in Google Scholar
French, J. R. P., and B. Raven. 1959. “The Bases of Social Power.” In Studies in Social Power, edited by D. Cartwright. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Fritch, J. W., and R. L. Cromwell. 2001. “Evaluating Internet Resources: Identity, Affiliation, and Cognitive Authority in a Networked World.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52 (6): 499–507, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1081.Suche in Google Scholar
Froelich, T. J. 2019. “The Role of Pseudo-cognitive Authorities and Self-deception in the Dissemination of Fake News.” Open Information Science 3 (1): 115–36.10.1515/opis-2019-0009Suche in Google Scholar
Furner, J. 2004. “Conceptual Analysis: A Method for Understanding Information as Evidence, and Evidence as Information.” Archival Science 4 (3–4): 233–65, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02513401.Suche in Google Scholar
Gibson, C., and T. Jacobson. 2018. “Habits of Mind in an Uncertain Information World.” Reference and User Services Quarterly 57 (3): 183–92, https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.57.3.6603.Suche in Google Scholar
Godbold, N. J. 2013. “Tensions in Compliance for Renal Patients – How Renal Discussion Groups Conceive Knowledge and Safe Care.” Health Sociology Review 22 (1): 52–64, https://doi.org/10.5172/hesr.2013.22.1.52.Suche in Google Scholar
Haugaard, M., and S. R. Clegg. 2009. “Introduction: Why Power is the Central Concept of the Social Sciences.” In The Sage Handbook of Power, edited by S. R. Clegg, and M. Haugaard. London: Sage.Suche in Google Scholar
Heizmann, H., and M. R. Olsson. 2015. “Power Matters: The Importance of Foucault’s Power Knowledge as a Conceptual Lens in KM Research and Practice.” Journal of Knowledge Management 19 (4): 756–69, https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-12-2014-0511.Suche in Google Scholar
Hirvonen, N., and L. Palmgren-Neuvonen. 2019. “Cognitive Authorities in the Health Education Classrooms: A Nexus Analysis on Group-based Learning Tasks.” Library & Information Science Research 41 (3), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2019.100964.Suche in Google Scholar
Hirvonen, N., A. Tirroniemi, and T. Kortelainen. 2019. “The Cognitive Authority of User-generated Health Information in an Online Forum for Girls and Young Women.” Journal of Documentation 75 (1): 78–98, https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-05-2018-0083.Suche in Google Scholar
Huvila, I. 2013. “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 (accessed August 19, 2020).Suche in Google Scholar
Introna, L. D. 1999. “Context, Power, Bodies and Information: Exploring the ‘Entangled’ Contexts of Information.” In Exploring the Contexts of Information Behaviour. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, 13–15 August 1998, Sheffield, edited by T. D. Wilson, and D. K. Allen, 13–5. London: Graham Taylor.Suche in Google Scholar
Jessen, J., and A. H. Jörgensen. 2012. “Aggregated Trustworthiness: Redefining Online Credibility through Social Validation.” First Monday 17: 1–2. https://firstmonday.org/article/view/3731/3132 (accessed August 19, 2020), https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i1.3731.Suche in Google Scholar
Jordan, B. 1997. “Authoritative Knowledge and Its Construction.” In Childbirth and Authoritative Knowledge: Cross-cultural Perspectives, edited by R. E. Davis-Floyd, and C. F. Sargent. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520918733-003Suche in Google Scholar
Karlsen, R. 2015. “Followers Are Opinion Leaders: The Role of People in the Flow of Political Communication on and beyond Social Networking Sites.” European Journal of Communication 30 (3): 301–18, https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323115577305.Suche in Google Scholar
Lankes, R. D. 2008. “Credibility on the Internet: Shifting from Authority to Reliability.” Journal of Documentation 64 (5): 667–86, https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810899709.Suche in Google Scholar
Liu, J., Y. Wang, S. Mandal, and C. Shah. 2019. “Exploring the Immediate and Short-term Effects of Peer Advice and Cognitive Authority on Web Search Behavior.” Information Processing & Management 56 (3): 1010–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.02.011.Suche in Google Scholar
Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-02248-9Suche in Google Scholar
Ma, J., and L. Stahl. 2017. “A Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis of Anti-vaccination Information in Facebook.” Library & Information Science Research 39 (4): 303–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.11.005.Suche in Google Scholar
Mansour, A., and H. Francke. 2017. “Credibility Assessments of Everyday Life Information on Facebook: A Sociocultural Investigation of a Group of Mothers.” Information Research 22 (2). http://www.informationr.net/ir/22-2/paper750.html (accessed August 19, 2020).Suche in Google Scholar
McKenzie, P. 2003. “Justifying Cognitive Authority Decisions: Discursive Strategies of Information Seekers.” The Library Quarterly 73 (3): 261–88, https://doi.org/10.1086/603418.Suche in Google Scholar
Metzger, M. J., A. J. Flanagin, and R. B. Medders. 2010. “Social and Heuristic Approaches to Credibility Evaluation Online.” Journal of Communication 60 (3): 413–39, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Mierzecka, A., J. Wasilewski, and M. Kisilowska. 2019. “Cognitive Authority, Emotions and Information Quality Evaluations.” Information Research 26: 4. http://InformationR.net/ir/24-4/colis/colis1910.html (accessed August 19, 2020).Suche in Google Scholar
Mutsheva, A. 2007. “A Theoretical Exploration of Information Behaviour: A Power Perspective.” ASLIB Proceedings 59 (3): 249–63, https://doi.org/10.1108/ap.2007.27659faa.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Neal, D. M., and P. J. McKenzie. 2011. “Putting the Pieces Together: Endometriosis Blogs, Cognitive Authority, and Collaborative Information Behavior.” Journal of the Medical Library Association 99 (2): 127–34, https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.99.2.004.Suche in Google Scholar
Ojennus, P. 2020. “Modelling Advances in Gatekeeping Theory for Academic Libraries.” Journal of Documentation 76 (2): 389–408.10.1108/JD-03-2019-0051Suche in Google Scholar
Olsson, M. 2007. “Power/Knowledge: The Discursive Construction of an Author.” The Library Quarterly 77 (2): 219–40, https://doi.org/10.1086/517845.Suche in Google Scholar
Pereira, R., H. Hornung, and M. C. C. Baranauskas. 2013. “Cognitive Authority Revisited in Web Social Interaction.” In Frameworks of IT Prosumption for Business Development, edited by M. Pankowska. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.10.4018/978-1-4666-4313-0.ch010Suche in Google Scholar
Raven, B. H. 1965. “Social Influence and Power.” In Current Studies in Social Psychology, edited by I. D. Steiner, and F. Martin. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Suche in Google Scholar
Raven, B. H. 2008. “The Bases of Power and the Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 8 (1): 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2008.00159.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Raven, B. H., and A. W. Kruglanski. 1970. “Control and Power.” In The Structure of Conflict, edited by P. G. Swingle. New York: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Raven, B. H., J. Schwarzwald, and M. Koslowsky. 1998. “Conceptualizing and Measuring a Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 (4): 307–32, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01708.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Rieh, S. Y. 2002. “Judgment of Information Quality and Cognitive Authority in the Web.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53 (2): 145–61, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10017.Suche in Google Scholar
Rieh, S. Y. 2017. “Credibility and Cognitive Authority of Information.” In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, 4th ed., edited by J. D. McDonald, and M. Levine-Clark. London: Taylor & Francis.Suche in Google Scholar
Savolainen, R. 2020. “Manifestations of Expert Power in Gatekeeping: A Conceptual Study.” Journal of Documentation 76 (6): 1215–32, https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-01-2020-0010.Suche in Google Scholar
Toledo, D. F., R. Pereira, and E. Oliveira. 2015. “Identifying Cognitive Authority in Social Networks: A Conceptual Framework.” In IHC ’15: Proceedings of the 14th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 409–18. New York: ACM.10.1145/3148456.3148498Suche in Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Suche in Google Scholar
White, H. D. 2019. “Patrick Wilson.” Knowledge Organization 46 (4): 279–307, https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2019-4-279.Suche in Google Scholar
Wilson, P. 1983. Second-hand Knowledge: An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport: Greenwood Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Wilson, P. 1991. “Bibliographic Instruction and Cognitive Authority.” Library Trends 39 (3): 259–70.Suche in Google Scholar
Wilson, P. 1997. “Information Retrieval and Cognitive Authority.” In Knowledge Management Tools, edited by R. L. Ruggles. Newton: Butterworth-Heinemann.10.1016/B978-0-7506-9849-8.50009-5Suche in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Cognitive Authority as an Instance of Informational and Expert Power
- Technological Readiness and Computer Self-efficacy as Predictors of E-learning Adoption by LIS Students in Nigeria
- Information Inequality among Entrepreneurs in Rural China
- Fostering Knowledge Sharing Behavior Among Pakistani Engineering Students: Role of Individual and Classroom Related Factors
- Digital Literacy of EFL Students: An Empirical Study in Vietnamese Universities
- Desired Affordances of Scholarly E-Articles: Views from Scholars Based on Open-Ended Answers
- Dostoevsky and the Word “Jew”: A Quantitative Analysis of F.M. Dostoevsky’s Greatest Novels
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Cognitive Authority as an Instance of Informational and Expert Power
- Technological Readiness and Computer Self-efficacy as Predictors of E-learning Adoption by LIS Students in Nigeria
- Information Inequality among Entrepreneurs in Rural China
- Fostering Knowledge Sharing Behavior Among Pakistani Engineering Students: Role of Individual and Classroom Related Factors
- Digital Literacy of EFL Students: An Empirical Study in Vietnamese Universities
- Desired Affordances of Scholarly E-Articles: Views from Scholars Based on Open-Ended Answers
- Dostoevsky and the Word “Jew”: A Quantitative Analysis of F.M. Dostoevsky’s Greatest Novels