skip to main content
10.1145/544220.544270acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesjcdlConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Trust and epistemic communities in biodiversity data sharing

Published:14 July 2002Publication History

ABSTRACT

Trust is a key element of knowledge work: what we know depends largely on others. This paper discusses the concepts of communities of practice and epistemic cultures, and their implication for design of digital libraries that support data sharing, with particular reference to practices of trust and credibility. It uses an empirical study of a biodiversity digital library of data from a variety of sources to illustrate implications digital library design and operation. It concludes that diversity and uncomfortable boundary areas typify, not only digital library user groups, but the design and operation of digital libraries.

References

  1. Alexander, J., Tate, M. Web Wisdom: How to Evaluate and Create Information Quality on the Web. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, 1999 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bishop, A. P., Buttenfield, B., Van House, N. A. (eds.). Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2001 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bowker, G. C. Biodiversity datadiversity. Social Studies of Science 30, 5 (2000) 643--683Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Burbules, N. C. Paradoxes of the web: the ethical dimensions of credibility. Library Trends 49, 3 (2001) 441--453Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Davenport, E., Cronin, B. The citation network as a prototype for representing trust in virtual environments. In Cronin B., Atkins H. B. (eds.). The Web of Knowledge: a Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield. Information Today Inc. & The American Society for Information Science: Medford, NJ, 2000Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Donath, J. Being real: questions of tele-identity. In Goldberg K. (ed.). The Robot in the Garden: Telerobotics and Telepistemology in the Age of the Internet. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2000 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Fogg, B. J. and others. What makes web sites credible? a report on a large quantitative study, in CHI 2001 (Seattle, WA, 2001), ACM, 61--68 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Fritch, J. W. and Cromwell, R. L. Evaluating internet resources: identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52, 6 (2001) 499--507 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Fukuyama, F. Trust: the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press Paperbacks: New York, 1995Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuller, S. Social Epistemology. Indiana University Press: Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN, 1988Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Gambetta, D. Can we trust trust? In Gambetta D. (ed.). Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relationships. Basil Blackwell: New York, NY, 1988Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gambetta, D. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relationships. Basil Blackwell: New York, NY, 1988Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldman, A. I. Knowledge in a Social World. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1999Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Goldman, A. I. Social epistemology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . 2001. 10-19-2001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin, C. Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96, 3 (1994) 606--634Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Greenspan, S., Goldberg, D., Weimer, D., and Basso, A. Interpersonal trust and common ground in electronically mediated communication, in CSCW '00 (Philadelphia, PA, 2000), ACM, 251--260 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Hess, D. Science Studies: an Advanced Introduction. New York University Press: New York, 1997Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jensen, C., Farnhman, S. D., Drucker, S. M., and Kollock, P. The effect of communication modality on cooperation in online environments, in CHI 2000 (The Hague, Amsterdam, 2000), ACM, 470--477 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Jones, K. Trust. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2000. 7-18-2001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Knorr Cetina, K. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1999Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lane, C. Introduction: theories and issues in the study of trust. In Lane C., Bachman R. (eds.). Trust Within and Between Organizations: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Applications. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1998Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Latour, B. Drawing things together. In Lynch M., Woolgar S. (eds.). Representation in Scientific Practice. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1990Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Latour, B., Woolgar, S. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1991Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Lave, J. The practice of learning. In Chaiklin, Seth, Lave J. (ed.). Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1983Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Lave, J. Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics, and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1988Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Lave, J., Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Particiption. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 1991Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Luhmann, N. Risk: a Sociological Theory. Aldine de Gruyter: New York, 1994Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Lynch, C. A. When documents deceive: trust and provenance as new factors for information retrieval into tangled web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52, 1 (2001) 12--17 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Lynch, M., Woolgar, S. (eds.). Representation in Scientific Practice. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1990Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Maier, D., Landis, E., Cushing, J., Frondorf, A., Silberschatz, A., and Schnase, J. L. Research Directions in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Informatics: Report of a NSF, USGS, NASA Workshop on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Informatics. Greenbelt, MD, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 2001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. McDonald, D. W. and Ackerman, M. S. Expertise recommender: a flexible recommendation system and architecture, in CSCW '00 (Philadelphia, PA, 2000), ACM, 231--240 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Olson, G. M. and Olson, J. S. Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction 15 (2000) 139--178 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Olson, J. S. and Olson, G. M. i2i trust in e-commerce. CACM 43, 12 (2000) 41-44 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Putnam, R. D. Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster: New York, 2000 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Rieh, S. Y. and Belkin, N. J. Understanding judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the WWW, in American Society for Information Science and Technology Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Oct. 24-29, 1998, 1998), Information Today, Inc, 279--289Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Schiff, L., Van House, N. A., and Butler, M. Understanding complex information environments: a social analysis of watershed planning, in Digital Libraries '97: Proceedings of the ACM Digital Libraries Conference (Philadelphia, PA, 1997), ACM Press, 161--186 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Schneider, F. B. ed. Trust in Cyberspace. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1999 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Seligman, A. B. The Problem of Trust. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1997Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Shapin, S. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, 1994Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Shneiderman, B. Designing trust into online experiences. CACM 43 (2000) 57--59 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Star, S. L. The structure of ill-structured solutions: boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In Gasser, L., Huhns, M. (eds.). Distributed Artificial Intelligence, 2. Pitman Publishing: 1989 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Star, S. L. and Griesmer, J. R. Institutional ecology, "translations," and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19 (1989) 387--420Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Suchman, L. Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 2 (1994) 21--39Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Sztompka, P. Trust: a Sociological Theory. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 1999Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Uslaner, E. M. Trust, Civic Engagement, and the Internet. 2000.http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/vf_pew_internet_trust_paper.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Van House, N. User needs assessment and evaluation for the UC Berkeley electronic environmental library project, in Digital Libraries '95: The Second International Conference on the Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (San Antonio, TX, 1995)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Van House, N. A. Digital libraries and practices of trust: networked biodiversity information. Social Epistemology, in press (2002)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Van House, N. A. Digital libraries and collaborative knowledge construction. In Bishop A. P., Buttenfield, B., Van House, N. A. (eds.). Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2002Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Van House, N., Butler, M., and Schiff, L. Cooperative knowledge work and practices of trust: sharing environmental planning data sets, in CSCW '98: The ACM Conference On Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Seattle, WA, 1998), 335--343 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Vann, K. and Bowker, G. C. Instrumentalizing the truth of practice. Social Epistemology 15, 3 (2001) 247--262Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Wenger, E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press: New York, 1998Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Wilson, P. Second-Hand Knowledge: an Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, 1983Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Trust and epistemic communities in biodiversity data sharing

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        JCDL '02: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries
        July 2002
        448 pages
        ISBN:1581135130
        DOI:10.1145/544220

        Copyright © 2002 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 14 July 2002

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        JCDL '02 Paper Acceptance Rate69of240submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate415of1,482submissions,28%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader