Last semester I did an independent study on the intersection of social epistemology. I blogged my reading at http://socialepistemology.wordpress.com. If “social epistemology” sounds like an illness, or something confusing, don’t worry. It’s really just about the social nature of knowledge. We, in libraries, deal with this all the time. When we purchase books, we are thinking about our community and making decisions based on these social factors. When we arrange books, we’re arranging them by a system that was made up by people (and therefore, social). Social epistemology is a field in its own right, but it was born in library and information science. Thinkers Jesse Shera and Margaret Egan proposed the term as a core principle of LIS in the 50s.
Just over the holidays, I received two comments on the blog. It looks like one was from another MLS student, and one was from a doctoral student. Both were interested in the theoretical underpinnings of library and information science. They alluded to some great thinkers in LIS and in social epistemology: Jesse Shera, Margaret Egan, Don Fallis, Steve Fuller, Alvin Goldman, Jeff Vails, Raymond McInnis and a lit review by Zandonade. They also, rightly, point to the journals Social Epistemology and Episteme.
In my program, as mentioned in the comments, it seems like there is largely a focus on practice, and that there is a rift between theory and practice. As someone with a BA in philosophy, I am very interested in the “big picture†theoretical underpinnings of what we do. This is why I made my own class to explore some of these issues. But, I realize I’m not alone. Jason and Pilar are clearly interested in these issues, and I’m guessing there are more.
For those who are interested in the theoretical underpinnings, what shortcomings do you see? What areas need to be developed?
I, for one, am interested in exploring the social nature of knowledge on the web.
I am also really interested in the implications of social epistemology for information literacy.
If this is something that interests you, drop me a line, or post a comment. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Related posts:
Comments 14
Hello Lauren!
If you are interested in “the social nature of knowledge on the web” I would recommend the articles of Nancy Van House about the sharing of knowledge in network communities and the implications for the design of digital libraries.
I am very interested also in the area of IL, I think that there is no so much literature about the relation between SE and IL. If you know some sources on the subject I will be very grateful to know.
Regards, PM
Posted 09 Jan 2007 at 9:16 pm ¶Thanks for sharing! I’ll be sure to look up Nancy Van House’s work! It sounds excellent.
I haven’t found a lot on SE and IL, but I’ve found some. I have a list of articles I’d like to find on another computer. I’ll see if I can get it tomorrow to share with you.
Posted 10 Jan 2007 at 12:17 am ¶My list had less information than I remembered, but it looks like it would be worth looking into E. Whitmire.
Epistemological beliefs & the information-seeking behavior of undergraduates in
Library and Information Science Research 25(2003)
The Relationship between Undergraduates’ epistemological beliefs, reflective judgment, and other information-seeking behavior
Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 6:53 pm ¶Information Processing and Management 40(2004)
Thank you very much Lauren! I will read the articles you recommended.
About your questions:
“For those who are interested in the theoretical underpinnings, what shortcomings do you see? What areas need to be developed?”
I find that they are difficult to answer, but very interesting. I think the area of feminist epistemology in social epistemology related to LIS has been not explored until now.
I will think more on your questions and write some responses in other messages.
Regards, PM
Posted 13 Jan 2007 at 3:13 pm ¶Thanks! I’ll try to think and post more on this topic, too!
Posted 16 Jan 2007 at 11:40 pm ¶I have read the two articles of Ethelene Whitmire. I think it would be interesting to add the social aspect to her analysis. She is centered on individual performance but she doesn’t mention the possible influences of social aspects in these mental processes or information-seeking actions.
Posted 18 Jan 2007 at 10:31 am ¶What do you think?
I certainly am interested in seeing what social aspects could be included. Is there any research you’re aware of in this sphere?
Posted 14 Feb 2007 at 11:49 pm ¶You can read first Patrick Wilson’s “Bibliographic Instruction and cognitive authority” in Library Trends, v.39, no.3, 1991, 259-270. And then, the more recent work of Soo Young Rieh. Check her homepage at: http://www.si.umich.edu/rieh/
Posted 25 Mar 2007 at 11:22 am ¶Thanks! I’ll check that out!!
Posted 31 Mar 2007 at 9:57 pm ¶Lauren,
I have just read your paper about “Social Epistemology in Library and Information Science”.
Of course, I have comments on it.
I find it very interesting mostly from the point of view of the context and actual applications of social epistemology in library practice.
I don`t agree, however, on the relationships you established between sociology and social epistemology. Shera explained the difference between those fields of inquiry in “Sociological Foundations of Librarianship” (1970, New York: Asia Publishing House).
Usually, philosophy is considered -methodologically speaking- conceptual and normative; and sociology, empirical and descriptive (I think the best explanation of that idea is in: Resnik, D. 1996. Social epistemology and the ethics of research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 27(4), 565-586). Fuller is a sociologist of science who claims that social epistemology must be normative. So, I think the most sociological approach to social epistemology is that of the construtivist views. Normative research seek to evaluate practices (Goldman) or organizations (Fuller) for recommending the best ways to acquire knowledge. Descriptive ones, in turn, analize and explain the ways knowledge is socially constructed (see for example Tuominen & Savolainen).
I think we as librarians could follow any of these three options, as Fallis (following mostly Goldman), Zandonade (in agreement with Fuller) and Van House (agreeing mostly with constructivist theories) have done.
I hope it can be useful to you. Sorry if it is a too long comment.
Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 2:21 pm ¶Thank you for your comment, of course it is not too long. I really appreciate your input! This paper was done as an independent study, with minimal guidance, and I was doing it mostly as an exploration so that I could have a basic understanding of these ideas. Your points are well taken, and I appreciate the insights you suggest.
Posted 15 Apr 2007 at 2:34 pm ¶I’m reading your paper entitled “Social Epistemology in LIS”. It is an interesting and useful paper for the readers of both disciplines. For my research purpose, I would like to use your paper as a reference. Would you please provide me the bibliographical details of your paper? I would highly appreciate your cooperation.
Posted 27 May 2008 at 1:34 am ¶Thanks Md.Roknuzzaman! Sure, you can use it as a reference. What bibliographical details are you looking for? I submitted it as part of a graduate program, so I suspect you could treat it as a white paper…
Posted 27 May 2008 at 4:45 pm ¶Okay, Lauren.
I appreciate your sharp response!
Thanking you.
Posted 28 May 2008 at 12:06 am ¶Post a Comment