认知权威作为信息权力和专家权力的一个实例

IF 0.8 4区 管理学 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies Pub Date : 2021-08-19 DOI:10.1515/libri-2020-0128
Reijo Savolainen
{"title":"认知权威作为信息权力和专家权力的一个实例","authors":"Reijo Savolainen","doi":"10.1515/libri-2020-0128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":45618,"journal":{"name":"Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies","volume":"72 1","pages":"1 - 12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive Authority as an Instance of Informational and Expert Power\",\"authors\":\"Reijo Savolainen\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/libri-2020-0128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45618,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies\",\"volume\":\"72 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2020-0128\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2020-0128","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要本研究通过考察信息权力和专家权力如何出现在研究文献中对认知权威的描述中,阐述了信息与权力之间的关系。该研究借鉴了对上述问题的25项关键研究的概念分析。主要围绕帕特里克·威尔逊的经典认知权威概念,研究了信息权力和专家权力如何构成这种权威,以及受认知权威影响的人们如何信任或挑战这种权威。研究结果表明,研究者通过不同的限定条件,如权威信息源的能力和可信度,来表征认知权威所固有的专家权力特征。信息权力主要是根据认知权威提供的个人论点和事实的不可辩驳性来研究的。这两种形式的权力本质上都是有说服力的,信息寻求者可以信任或挑战他们,特别是通过利用他们的经验知识。研究结果还强调,有必要通过重新思考其在网络信息环境中的相关性来阐述认知权威的结构,在网络信息环境中,权威信息源的传统形象正在受到侵蚀。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cognitive Authority as an Instance of Informational and Expert Power
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Libri, International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, investigates the functions of libraries and information services from both a historical and present-day perspective and analyses the role of information in cultural, organizational, national and international developments. The periodical reports on current trends in librarianship worldwide and describes the transformation of libraries and information services resulting from the introduction of new information technologies and working methods. Background information and the latest research findings in librarianship and information science are made accessible to experts and a broader public. Articles are in English and conform to the highest academic standards.
期刊最新文献
Who Seeks and Shares Fact-Checking Information? Within the Context of COVID-19 in South Korea Elucidating the Adoption of Electronic Information Resources: A Case Study of Kuwait University Library Judaica Librarianship: Back to the Future What’s the News About Bad News? A Review of Bad News Games as a Tool to Teach Media Literacy Effect of Information Literacy on Academic Performance of Business Students in Pakistan
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1