Table of Contents



Cognitive Authority [認知權威]

另一個相關概念是傳播學中的媒體可信性(media credibility)1)2)。

由Patrick Wilson在《二手知識：了解認知權威(Second-hand Knowledge: An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority)(1983)》一書中提出。書中主張人們建構自己的知識的方式有兩種： 基於其親身體驗的第一手知識，以及由他人處得知的第二手知識。人們藉由既有概念，詮釋與理解自己所遇到的世界，藉此學得第一手知識。人們也從他人處學到在直接經驗之外的知識，並且得以跨越個人狹小的生活經驗世界。人們對世界的想法多數是來自於他人的二手知識，但人們並未輕信他人所說的所有事情，只會將那些「知道自己在說什麼」的人，視為可採信的認知權威。

Wilson(1983) 認為認知權威不只存在個人中。認知權威的資訊來源，可能是我們所認識的特定個人，或是某種社會角色(如，專家、學者、主播)，或某種資訊管道（出版商、特定新聞媒體）、資訊產品(如，特定百科全書)或產生資訊的設備（測量儀器）。

就進一步的認識論而言，認知權威並非只是外在可信的資訊來源，也包含了影響人們認識與詮釋的既有知識架構。即便是一手知識，也可能受到認知權威的影響。

權威性與資訊品質或正確性並不必然一致。具有認知權威的資訊來源，並無法保證所提供的資訊都是正確且無誤的。

認知權威的領域有效性。我們也無法找到一個普適、放諸時間空間皆為適用的認知權威標準。

權威只在該社群的範圍中具有合法性。即使我們能夠找到關於問題的權威資訊來源，他們往往不如預期般地對問題有確定的答案，並且權威性並無法保證答案的品質。「權威」只讓我們知道該資訊來源具有該學術社群認定的資格，而並不是該來源所提供的資訊都是正確無誤的。
“Perhaps we [library and information professionals] should learn to be more critical of the very concept of authority. Authority is legitimate only within the boundaries of the community (subject or otherwise) in which it is based. Many questions pertain to areas claimed by competing disciplines, and some to areas beyond the bounds of recognized disciplinary communities. Even when we are able to locate authoritative sources with answer to questions, they tend to be less certain than they look, and greater authority is no guarantee of quality. Authority tells us only that the creators of the source have qualifications and institutional affiliations that match the expectations of a given disciplinary community, not that the source is infallible, or even that its disciplinary community it the best to pursue the information sought” (Pierce, 1991, p. 31).

認知權威的建立: McKenzie

資訊科學研究

近來資訊科學研究，重新關心起認知權威的議題。一個研究方向是，關心人們如何應用認知權威評估資訊的可信度，並建立起評估資訊品質的模型，以處理資訊時代更大量的資訊評估與過濾工作。如 Rieh (2000, 2002, 2003) 關於網路內容品質與可信度的研究。另一個研究方向是，關心認知權威的本質，以及人們如何建構起認知權威。如 McKenzie (2003)3) 研究中顯示，認知權威並不來自於對與正確性的評估，而是來自於日常生活事實的建構。

in Rieh's research, Information quality is almost equal the cognitive authority. 4)

圖書館事業

圖書館事業的應用: 哪些是應該提供給讀者的，具有權威性的資訊資源?

Note

References

<html> <table style=“font-size:10pt;text-align:left;”> <tr><th></html>LIS<html></th></tr> <tr><td></html>information_behavior <html></td></tr> <tr><td></html>collaborative information behavior<html></td></tr> <tr><th> Information behavior theories </th></tr> <tr><td></html> affective_load, anomalous_state_of_knowledge, archival_intelligence, social_cognition, berrypicking, big6_skills for Information Literacy, browsing, cognitive_authority, cognitive_work_analysis, collective_action_dilemma, communicative_action, communities_of_practice, cultural_models_of_hall_and_hofstede, diffusion_theory, The domain_analytic_approach to Scholars Information Practices, ecological_model_of_human_information_behavior, elicitation_as_micro_level_information_seeking, everyday_life_information_seeking, face_threat, flow_theory, general_model_of_the_information_seeking_of_professionals, information_acquiring-and-sharing, information_activities_in_work_tasks, information_encountering, information_grounds, information_horizons, information_intents, information_interchange, information_poverty, information_seeking_behavior_model, information_seeking_model, information_search_process, information_use_environments, institutional_ethnography, integrative_framework_for_information_seeking_and_interactive_information_retrieval, interpretative_repertoires, The imposed_query, library_anxiety, life_in_the_round, monitoring and blunting, motivational_factors_for_interface_design, network_gatekeeping, nonlinear_information_seeking, optimal_foraging, organizational_sense_making_and_information_use, The pain_hypothesis, perspectives_on_the_tasks in which Information Behaviors are Embedded, phenomenography, practice_of_everyday_life, principle_of_least_effort, professions_and_occupational_identities, question-negotiation, radical_change, reader_response_theory, rounding_and_dissonant_grounds, sense-making, serious_leisure, small-world_network, social_capital, social_constructionist_viewpoint_on_information_practices, social_positioning, socio-cognitive_theory, strength_of_weak_ties, symbolic_violence, transtheoretical_model of the health behavior change, value_sensitive_design, web_information_behaviors_of_organizational_workers, willingness_to_return, women_knowing, work_task_information_seeking_and_retrieval_processes, www_information_seeking, Vygotsky's zpd <html></td></tr></table></html>

.

1)
Fogg, B.J. & Tseng, H. (1999). The elements of computer credibility. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit 1999, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. May 15 - 20, 1999.(pp. 80-87). New York, NY: ACM Press. Retrieved 11 April, 2007 from http://captology.stanford.edu/pdf/p80-fogg.pdf
2)
Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D.R., & McCann, R.M. (2003). Credibility for the 21st century: integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Communication Yearbook, 27, 293-335.
3)
McKenzie, P. J. (2003). Justifying cognitive authority decisions: Discursive strategies of information seekers. The Library Quarterly, 261-288.
4)
“Information quality was defined as a user criterion which has to do with excellence or in some cases truthfulness in labeling”. And, cognitive authority was understood as something “that a user would recognize as proper because the information therein is thought to be credible and worthy of belief” (Rieh 2002: 146).