Justification for knowing in a digitalised landscape
An empirical exploration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v6i3.33247Keywords:
epistemic beliefs, justification, knowledge, internet, epistemic injustice, testimonial injustice, social mediaAbstract
Epistemic beliefs are described as the way individuals regard the nature of knowledge and knowing. The nature of knowledge can be explored as dimensions describing the certainty and the structure of knowledge, whereas the nature of knowing can be explored as dimensions describing the source of knowledge and the justification for knowing. Recent research suggests justification for knowing as consisting of three strategies for justifying knowing: 1) justification by authority, 2) justification by multiple sources, and 3) personal justification.
Knowledge is considered to originate from various sources, where testimony is regarded as the most important. Many online interactions are about conveying information to others and thus, testimonial in nature. The information we receive in various testimonies requires justification using the appropriate justification method. Therefore, source of testimony is central when justifying knowing.
In a pilot study among first-year students we explored how the source of testimony and the type of information affect the choice of justification method. The use of justification methods was measured using the Internet-Specific Epistemic Justification Inventory (ISEJ). The results indicate that the source of testimony has a stronger impact than type of information on the choice of justification method.
References
Alasuutari, P. (2018). Authority as epistemic capital. Journal of Political Power, 11(2), 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2018.1468151
Andersson, C. (2017). “Google is not fun”: An investigation of how Swedish teenagers frame online searching. Journal of Documentation, 73(6), 1244–1260. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2017-0048
Biddix, J. P., Chung, C. J., & Park, H. W. (2011). Convenience or credibility? A study of college student online research behaviors. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.01.003
Bråten, I., Brandmo, C., & Kammerer, Y. (2019). A Validation Study of the Internet-Specific Epistemic Justification Inventory with Norwegian Preservice Teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(4), 877–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118769438
Bråten, I., Gil, L., Strømsø, H. I., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2009). Personal epistemology across cultures: Exploring Norwegian and Spanish university students’ epistemic beliefs about climate change. Social Psychology of Education, 12(4), 529–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-009-9097-z
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2005). The Relationship between Internet-Specific Epistemological Beliefs and Learning within Internet Technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 141–171. https://doi.org/10.2190/E763-X0LN-6NMF-CB86
Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Stahl, E. (2008). Knowledge and Epistemological Beliefs: An Intimate but Complicate Relationship. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, Knowledge and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies across Diverse Cultures (1–20, pp. 423–441). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6596-5_20
Carifio, J., & Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and Urban Legends about Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and their Antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2007.106.116
Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the Dimensions of Epistemic Cognition: Arguments From Philosophy and Psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
Dahlgren, P. (2018). Media, Knowledge and Trust: The Deepening Epistemic Crisis of Democracy. Javnost - The Public, 25(1–2), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1418819
Davis, E. (2016). Typecasts, Tokens, and Spokespersons: A Case for Credibility Excess as Testimonial Injustice. Hypatia, 31(3), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12251
DeBacker, T. K., Crowson, H. M., Beesley, A. D., Thoma, S. J., & Hestevold, N. L. (2008). The Challenge of Measuring Epistemic Beliefs: An Analysis of Three Self-Report Instruments. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(3), 281–312. https://doi.org/10.3200/jexe.76.3.281-314
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education (Salem, Mass.), 85(5), 554–567. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1023
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies. In F. C. Feucht & L. D. Bendixen (Eds.), Personal Epistemology in the Classroom: Theory, Research, and Implications for Practice (pp. 409–434). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511691904.013
European Parliament. (2021). European Parliament Youth Survey 2021. European Parliament, Directorate-General for Communication. https://doi.org/10.2861/60428
Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Epistemic beliefs and comprehension in the context of reading multiple documents: Examining the role of conflict. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.001
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
Fricker, M. (2017). Evolving Concepts of Epistemic Injustice. In I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (pp. 53–60). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315212043
GDPR, Pub. L. No. 2016/679, General Data Protection Regulation (2016). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj
Gelfert, A. (2014). A Critical Introduction to Testimony. Bloomsbury Academic; Bloomsbury Collections. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472594082
Grossnickle Peterson, E., Alexander, P. A., & List, A. (2017). The argument for epistemic competence. In A. Bernholt, H. Gruber, & B. Moschner (Eds.), Wissen und Lernen. Wie epistemische Überzeugungen Schule, Universität und Arbeitswelt beeinflussen [Knowing and learning. The influence of epistemic beliefs on schools, universities and working life] (pp. 255–270). Waxmann Verlag. https://search.ebscohost.com/
Hämäläinen, E. K., Kiili, C., Räikkönen, E., & Marttunen, M. (2021). Students’ abilities to evaluate the credibility of online texts: The role of internet‐specific epistemic justifications. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1409–1422. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12580
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The Development of Epistemological Theories: Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing and Their Relation to Learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170620
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
Kidd, I. J., Medina, J., & Pohlhaus, G. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315212043
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lackey, J. (2006). Introduction. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The Epistemology of Testimony (pp. 1–21). Oxford University Press, Inc. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
LimeSurvey GmbH. (2020). LimeSurvey (3.22) [Computer software]. https://www.limesurvey.org/
MacKenzie, A., Rose, J., & Bhatt, I. (2021). Dupery by Design: The Epistemology of Deceit in a Postdigital Era. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(3), 693–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00114-7
Medina, J. (2011). The Relevance of Credibility Excess in a Proportional View of Epistemic Injustice: Differential Epistemic Authority and the Social Imaginary. Social Epistemology, 25(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2010.534568
Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-Generality and Domain-Specificity in Personal Epistemology Research: Philosophical and Empirical Reflections in the Development of a Theoretical Framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9003-6
Muis, K. R., Trevors, G., Duffy, M., Ranellucci, J., & Foy, M. J. (2016). Testing the TIDE: Examining the Nature of Students’ Epistemic Beliefs Using a Multiple Methods Approach. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(2), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1048843
OED Online. (2022). ‘post-truth, adj.’. In Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/58609044
OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT. https://chat.openai.com/
Origgi, G., & Ciranna, S. (2017). Epistemic injustice—The case of digital environments. In I. J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice (pp. 303–312). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315212043
PING Helsinki. (2019, May). Miten somevaikuttaja vaikuttaa? Somevaikuttajien luotettavuus ja vaikuttavuus yleisöjen näkökulmasta [What is the influence of social media influencers? The reliability and effectiveness from the audience’s point of view]. https://pinghelsinki.fi/informaatiovaikuttaminen-merkittava-ongelma/
Pollesello, P., & Papp, Z. (2023). Integrating an artificial intelligence chatbot in scientific communication: Do’s and don’ts. European Science Editing, 49(e112023). https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e112023
Robb, M. B. (2020). Teens and the News: The Influencers, Celebrities, and Platforms They Say Matter Most, 2020. Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/teens-and-the-news-the-influencers-celebrities-and-platforms-they-say-matter-most-2020
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of Beliefs About the Nature of Knowledge on Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498
Schraw, G. (2013). Conceptual Integration and Measurement of Epistemological and Ontological Beliefs in Educational Research. ISRN Education, Journal Article, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/327680
Simon, J. (2010). The entanglement of trust and knowledge on the Web. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9243-5
Sinatra, G., & Hofer, B. (2021). Science Denial: Why It Happens and What to Do about It. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190944681.001.0001
SPSS. (2021). SPSS 27.0 (27.0.0) [Computer software]. SPSS Inc., IBM Corporation.
Steup, M., & Neta, R. (2020). Epistemology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/epistemology/
Ståhl, T., Sormunen, E., & Mäkinen, M. (2021). Epistemic beliefs and internet reliance – is algorithmic authority part of the picture? Information and Learning Sciences, 122(11/12), 726–748. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-01-2021-0004
Strømsø, H. I., & Kammerer, Y. (2016). Epistemic Cognition and Reading for Understanding in the Internet Age. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of Epistemic Cognition (pp. 230–246). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795225
Sundin, O., Haider, J., Andersson, C., Carlsson, H., & Kjellberg, S. (2017). The search-ification of everyday life and the mundane-ification of search. Journal of Documentation, 73(2), 224–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-06-2016-0081
Tollefsen, D. P. (2009). Wikipedia and the Epistemology of Testimony. Episteme, 6(1), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.3366/E1742360008000518
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947), 224–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Tore Ståhl
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
