A practice theoretical exploration of information sharing and trust in a dispersed community of design scholars

Introduction. This paper presents an exploration of information sharing and trust in a geographically dispersed network of design scholars. Method. The study used a practice theory approach to identify aspects of trust in relation to information sharing. The empirical material consists of 15 in-depth interviews with design scholars from four Nordic countries and field notes from workplace visits. Analysis. The interview transcripts and field notes were categorised in accordance with three themes derived in synergy from practice theory and the empirical material. Results. A number of strategies for assessing and creating trust in relation to information sharing were identified. Depending on the dimension of practice in analytical focus, different aspects of trust emerge. Conclusions. Trust issues connected to information sharing appear in relation to the information to be shared, the people involved, the tools used for sharing, and the place where information sharing occurs. The practice-theoretical perspective has proven effective in order to identify and capture the elusive phenomenon of trust in connection to information sharing. A practice theoretical exploration of information sharing and trust in a dispersed community of design scholars http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-4/paper595.html[1/5/2014 4:38:59 PM] Introduction Information sharing activities are difficult to clearly demarcate from other activities, such as writing, reading, and the seeking and use of information. There is an abundance of studies of information seeking in various groups and contexts (e.g., Case 2007). There are also several studies of collaborative information seeking in academe (e.g., Foster 2006). Regarding contributions that primarily focus on information sharing in scholarly work practices there is, however, a relative dearth of research. During the last decade a mere handful of papers that solely focuses on this theme have been published (e.g., Talja 2002; Haeussler et al. 2010; Pilerot and Limberg 2011; Tabak and Willson 2012). It is often claimed that progress in research depends on researchers' willingness to share information. Merton (1942/1973: 270-277) for example, portrays the results of scientific production as a 'common heritage' which should be accessible for all participants in the research community; whether that is the case is a question that can be related to the issue of trust (Shapin 1994). This paper deals with information sharing in relation to trust in a geographically dispersed network of design scholars. On a general level, scholarly work (Palmer and Cragin 2008) can be described as a collective enterprise that aims to develop credible knowledge and novel insights about the world. Empiricallyand theoretically-based explorations of certain facets and aspects of the world is at the core of the activities carried out within a research community. The creation of legitimate knowledge presupposes information to be shared between the members of the community. Through formal and informal communication; for instance in the shape of dissemination of scholarly literature and participation in conferences, through workplace meetings and corridor talk, researchers obtain and furnish others with information which they deem necessary for their work. Research thus constitutes a practice in which: [d]ifferent members of a community hold knowledge that individuals may need to draw upon in order to perform practical actions: to maneuver in the material world, to confirm the status of their knowledge, to make new knowledge. Even to be sceptical about existing items of knowledge (Shapin 1994: 7). Seventy years ago (1942) Robert Merton presented his highly influential account of the norms underpinning research work. The conception of the researcher as an altruistic knowledge seeker concerned with 'benefit to humanity' (Merton 1942/1973: 270-77) has since then been disputed. Ian Mitroff (1974) put forth a set of 'counternorms' in which he claims that researchers are expected by their colleagues 'to achieve the self-interest they have in work-satisfaction and in prestige through serving their special communities of interest' (Mitroff 1974: 592). A practice theoretical exploration of information sharing and trust in a dispersed community of design scholars http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-4/paper595.html[1/5/2014 4:38:59 PM] No matter what set of norms we take to be reasonable, both Merton's and Mitroff's contributions clearly indicate that research work is a social practice infused with moral issues. Since researchers must assent to, or question, their peers' assertions about the world, communicated for instance by means of shared documents and oral statements, members of a research community are morally bound to each other. As stated by Cronin: 'The conventions for evaluating research may have changed in the last few centuries, but trust, a manifestation of the "normative ghost in the scientific machine",... remain central to the conduct of science in general' (Cronin 2003: 12). For information sharing to take place, people in a research community need to trust each other. However, as Shapin (1994: 16) points out, 'the role of trust and authority in the constitution and maintenance of systems of valued knowledge has been practically invisible'. The theoretical point of departure for this study is rooted in practice theory (e.g., Schatzki 2002; Kemmis 2011). A practice theoretical approach to the study of information sharing entails a focus not only on the site where activities take place but also on the nexus of the stuff and people involved, and their doings and sayings (Schatzki 2002). This paper introduces the idea of investigating trust in relation to information sharing in accordance with the practice theoretical notions of cultural-discursive, social, and material-economical dimensions of practice, identified by Kemmis (2011), an idea that corresponds with previous studies of information sharing in academia. It has, for example, been suggested that 'for future research it would be of value, but also a challenge, to try to elaborate on an integrative theoretical basis for a potential framework for the study of the many aspects of information sharing activities; a framework that would include people, places, and information' (Pilerot 2012, cf. Talja 2002). Thus, the study aims at a theoretical contribution through the introduction of practice theory into the field of information sharing research. The purpose is to identify and elucidate trust in relation to information sharing within a complex and heterogeneous community of design scholars. The objectives will be met by exploring the following research questions, with regard to the three dimensions of practice: i. Where do trust issues emerge in relation to information sharing in this complex and heterogeneous network? ii. What are the scholars' strategies for assessing and creating trust? iii. How can practice theory contribute to elucidate information sharing? The paper will add to the literature on information sharing and trust by presenting a study which is located in a multifaceted environment inhabited by a geographically dispersed network of design scholars, the Nordcode network. The research questions will be explored through a close study of empirical material primarily consisting of transcripts from interviews with scholars within an organized network in the field of communicative design research. A practice theoretical exploration of information sharing and trust in a dispersed community of design scholars http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-4/paper595.html[1/5/2014 4:38:59 PM] The subsequent section contains a brief account of the field of design research and a presentation of the research network under study. This is followed by a literature review on trust in general and in information science in particular. Before the results are presented, the theoretical perspective and the applied method are explained. The article ends by discussing the theoretical contribution, the empirical findings, and by contrasting the findings with previous literature. The discussion is rounded off by a conclusion.