Folding and Unfolding Information, Trust, and Knowledge.

I haven't been posting much to The Topophilian lately because I've been busy working towards my dissertation deadline. That's right, dissertating. Every day and every night (almost). Below is a sample from my chapter on trusted sources of information. Enjoy! JTS

People typically turn to trusted sources of information when seeking answers to urgent questions as well as for mundane or technical scientific questions. As individuals, we live in an information environment deeply embedded within the day-to-day reality of our physical and social environments. These intersect through written, spoken, nonverbal, and mediated information, facilitating meaning making for abstract concepts and potentially elevating the physical world to the metaphoric plane of symbolic interactionism.

One’s information environment extends from personal to social in a dynamic and heterogeneous assemblage of experience, context, and meaning, constantly folding and unfolding (a la Delueze, 2000) as new information enters to replace or extend what was previously known and felt about the external world.

In the abstract, knowledge exists in multiplicity. There are not only many things to know, but many ways of knowing. Varying levels of knowledge and ignorance exist for both experts and non-experts. To claim to “know” about some issue is essentially to say: “From where I sit, it looks this way.” The influence of knowledge on perceptions of technological or corporeal risks and benefits is socially situated, culturally influenced, moderated by predisposition, processed through existing mental models, and bounded by experience, exposure and attention to information. Trust is similarly affected.

Trust may formulate affectively, pre-consciously, but it can percolate to a level of subjective analysis. Even if we often do not take the time to elaborate on the reasons behind our trust feelings, it is available to us by degrees.

Hardin (2001) points out a few conceptual confusions about trust that should be kept in mind. First, trust is not epistemologically primitive; it is available for subjective analysis. Trust is also not simply a matter of behavior. Rather, it is a function of knowledge or beliefs. Hardin also suggests that trust is neither a one- or two-part relation but can be conceived as a three part relation signifying that, for example, I trust you to do some thing. In other words, it is conditional and relative to context and rarely, if ever, universal or absolute. Second, trust should not be conflated with trustworthiness. Trust often begets trustworthiness, but it is a socially influenced psychological process whereas trustworthiness is a characteristic value judgment placed in a person or institution.

There may be a generalized “social trust” that people develop over time which esteems positive value on others or social institutions but, generally, trust is conceived as being grounded in specific past, present, or future relationships with other actors in the social sphere. Trust in institutions of risk management seems to be an important factor in perception and acceptance of risk as well as a prerequisite for effective risk communication (Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2003).

# # #

Deleuze, G. (2000) Foucault. University of Minnesota Press.

Hardin, R. (2001). Conceptions and explanations of trust. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (Vol. 2, pp. 3–39). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 23(5), 961–972.

The Topophilian Daily: Stories of People, Places, Nature and Culture

Just FYI, dear reader, you can see an aggregated set of highlights culled from my various Twitter streams once a day at The Topophilian Daily.

I follow a combination of people, media organizations, musicians, nonprofits, and governmental agencies via Twitter. This adds up to a more-or-less left-leaning, pro-environmental, activist, and journalistic crowd. Everyday the paper.li automated program selects a large handful of interesting links from people my Twittersphere, including tweets that I send or re-tweet.

If you like "stories of people, places, nature and culture," check it out. Let me know what you think.

Bioenergy, Place, and Communication Power

We covered so much ground at the recent Bioenergy Futures workshop that it is hard to summarize. There were "scribes" attending and note-taking throughout the meeting who will contribute their notes to an eventual white paper summarizing the three-day workshop. I look forward to that. In the meantime, however, I offer a few thoughts... incomplete as they may be.

Sustainable bioenergy (bioE) is a robust topic. What is sustainbility? What is bioenergy? Where does the development of bioE fit within the larger picture of energy consumption worldwide? At what scale is it appropriate to think about bioE as related to other non-fossil-fuel energy (wind, solar, wave, etc.)? These are all questions that came up repeatedly among this diverse group of about 50 participants with backgrounds from sociology and law to physical and natural sciences to university extension and industry.

In some ways, all energy (like all politics) is local. When we flip on the lightswitch at home, we expect that a light comes on. But what about people who have no electricity? There are millions in the world without regular or even any steady supply of electricity. Who speaks for those disenfranchised voices and how do the elements of power play out in the politics of energy production and consumption?  If there seems to be more questions than answers here, you're right. From a roomfull of (mostly) academics, questions were often met with more questions rather than solid answers. But progress was made.

Macro- and micro-scale differences must be taken into account when discussing energy systems, that much is clear. It is difficult to effectively communication about a topic as big as energy across these scales, however. Generally, pick one "level" and stick with it. When the dialogue changes, adjust the assumptions about scale, from local to global. There are many assumptions taken for granted and most conversations would be better served if basic assumptions were laid bare at the outset.

There is the general "public" consisting of many mini-publics. These segments of the population change across cultures and subcultures and, with that change, may come various understandings (and meanings) associated with different language use or context. An ongoing effort to recognize these differences is helpful. Scale and audience are two primary 'agreements' that need to be acknowledged before moving into any in-depth dialogue, no matter what the new technology may be. What I mean by that is know who you're audience is and be specific and transparent about what level or scale is being addressed.

Bioenergy, as a set of new technologies trying to loosen the death-grip of carbon-based fossil fuels, is still a topic (or set of topics) where public opinion is forming. I mentioned this is the previous post. When uncertainty is high and opinions still forming, normative information can be part of a powerful feedback loop. What do the experts think? How do communities (rural and urban) view project development? How does the energy history of an area (of failure, resistance, and/or success) influence short- and long-term perceptions of risk and/or benefits? Who controls the dialogue and how much public participation is expected or desired? New energy developments need to take these questions into account in order to avoid what seem like common pitfalls.

One metaphor for sustainability is a three-legged stool consisting of social, environmental, and economic concerns. These are the "Three P's" of People, Planet and Profits that must be included in any sustainable outcome. When mass media frames come into being, such as the "food vs. fuel" dichotomy of the corn ethanol debate, conversations get oversimiplified into either-or dualities. This is not productive. The food vs. fuel 'thing' is an adequate question to raise but an oversimplification where other potential parts of the conversation get left out.

It takes a village to generate success. The value of group gatherings such as the Bioenergy Futures workshop is that the multiple strands of conversation included topics that were much different (given the different professional lenses avaiable) than the conversation that would have happened if it were "just" social scientists or "just" economists or "just" natural scientists, etc.. As mentioned above, the multiple conversations will be synthesized into an informative white paper (meaning, more-or-less, an academic paper but one not published in a peer-reviewed journal). It will be interesting to see how these ideas develop and bear fruit in the coming year.

Questions/comments on my scattershot recap?  Leave a comment... let the dialogue continue.

A Place for Bioenergy 2

Wow. Where to begin. I've been participating in a "bioenergy workshop" at Michigan State and it's been a heady mix of physical/natural/social science. One thing that's clear to me is that risk/benefit perceptions surrounding advances in bioenergy (and energy in general) depend largely on place-based assumptions. Who do those risks/benefits affect, how do they play out (in the past, present, future) and why? There is a lot to unpack there. I know we (at this workshop) are not solving any grand problems. But we are moving dialogue forward, among this group anyway (an influential group at that).

Public opinion on bioE is still developing, which makes it ripe for study and influence both. As public awareness of bioE issues grow, risk perceptions change - even though actual risks remain relatively static. This makes it an area of technological innovation where social influence can be somewhat easily used; where media messages can have strong impacts; and where public, deliberative participation is all but essential for long-term sustainability.
Since I am typing this on an iPad which is not as convenient as a regular keyboard I'm going to keep this short. If you are on Twitter you can search #SMEP to see  how I have followed discussions throughout the day. More to come when I get back to a real keyboard. Until then, simply consider how much energy you use. It is largely invisible and embodied in the products we buy and the fuels we use but it is there, driving our First World lifestyles at the (often considerable) cost to others around the globe. Keep it in mind and conserve as if someone's life depended on it. Because it probably does.

A Place for Bioenergy 1

Later this week I'll be participating in an academic workshop focused on sustainable bioenergy futures. Hosted by Michigan State University, the "Bioenergy Futures: Technical Feasibility Meets Social Sustainability” workshop is sponsored by the Sustainable Michigan Endowment Project and will feature a wide range of scholars from across North America. I appreciate that my department at UW recently posted a highlight on my involvement. Thanks, LSC!

Over the course of the workshop, from 11.29 through 12.01, I will be acting as a panelist on the "Norms, Communication, and Participation" panel led by David Secko. I plan on doing more listening and learning than anything else but it will be a great opportunity to take in so many points-of-view on this grand topic. As part of the program I will also be able to present some of my preliminary dissertation research findings. Yes, it will see the light of day! Whoa!  I'll post a mini-version of the poster here on The Topophilian sometime soon.

As the workshop progresses I will do my best to update or at least share some simple thoughts on how I see "place" as having a part in the developing realm of bioenergy in the US (and beyond). As usual, feel free to comment or share questions/thoughts and to follow me on twitter (@JTspartz) where I will be doing some degree of "live tweeting" the event (though not so much as to be a distraction...).

People of Places in the Twittersphere: Who are you?

As an avid Twitter user I am on the look out for like-minded folks "out there." Using HootSuite.com as a way to manage the various streams of Twitter activity (lists including media, politics, environmental comm, various people I follow, and a list I call "people of places") has been effective for segmenting the nonstop flow of information.

Unfortunately, my list of People of Places is a little thin. Other than the fact that I think most of us are people of places, there are few who ring true as overt persons of place, so to speak. Though I've had little in the way of ongoing engagement on this blog, I welcome it. Indeed, dear reader, this would be an excellent time to start letting me know what you think.

My short list of people of places includes a few that stretch my (rather loose) conception of what or who people of places means. But it includes only nine entities! This, compared to the 66 members of my "Intelligentsia" list, is, as suggested, a bit thin. Again, I am open to suggestions!

On the list so far are the outdoor sports and recreation magazine Outside (@outsidemagazine); a regional advocacy group from Madison, WI (@ThriveHere); a group offering the Rainbow Bridge from a Native perspective (@Native_TRB); author and co-founder of the Children & Nature Network, Richard Louv (@RichLouv); a group focusing on nature deficit disorder (@naturedeficit); a group operating out of a barn in Yorkshire (@SenseOfPlaceUK); a place protector from Virginia, USA (@MFinnemore); and a regional booster group focusing on Wisconsin tourism (@TravelWI).

Who else is out there in the world of social media focuses on Sense of Place?  This could be from an academic perspective or simply as an informal personal interest. I welcome input from all quarters.

The Topophilian Daily

I've been experimenting with a new way to aggregate my Twitter feed. What the hell am I talking about?  It's Paper.li and it affords "publication" of links, stories, and pictures of those I follow on Twitter.

For those who are not on Twitter, you can get a sense of my "information network" from that stream. See below for some of today's headlines. Paper.li updates daily and allows you to subscribe to various sources, including The Topophilian Daily!

I follow mostly media and science/environment feeds on Twitter along with a not-so-random sampling of humorists, journalists, musicians, and smarty-pants academics, philosphers, and public intellectuals. 

You can join the fun on Twitter (see @JTspartz, for example) or subscribe to The Topophilian Daily!  Thanks for checking it out. Please let me know what you think.

Where You're At Is Where You've Been

Place-identity was a brought up in the previous post and I'd like to expand on it here. As with identity in any context, it is a 'heterogeneous assemblage' of layers and flows. That is to say, the external 'one' that others see has multiple internal and subconscious influences and interactions going on. From cradle to grave, it is a process of change. In terms of the social-psychology of 'place,' it is often thought of, along with place-dependence, as a building block of place-attachment. The concept of place-identity represents the importance of physical surroundings in the ongoing construction of one's conscious (and unconscious) sense of self.

Research on place-identity suggests that our relationships with the environment are more complex than simply living in it. Proshansky, way back in 1978, suggested that place-identity adds an element of meaning and purpose to life by characterizing places as sources of personal identification and affiliation. 

It has also been suggested that all aspects of one's identity, more or less, have place-related associations. One can think of 'place' as both social placement and in spatial geographic terms. As such, one’s social or personal identity grows through exposure to particular facets of a geographic area as well as the personal and social interactions occurring there.

The landscape of the external world, at least in part, is also reflected in the ever-changing neural landscape of the brain. French neuroscientist Catherine Malabou, in her 2008 book What Should We Do with Our Brain?, suggests that identity is dialectical in nature. This is to say, it has an element of 'plasticity' and is constantly 'becoming' through experience in the world and communication with others. 

I'm certainly no neuroscientist, but it makes sense to think of the formation and (re)formation of neural networks as informing the mind’s development through conceptions of self and sociocultural relations with the external world. As a philosopher at the cutting edge of critical social theory, Malabou suggests the brain and, by extension, the mind, with its inherent and multiplicitous senses of self, are caught in tensions between constancy and creation. This affective sturm-und-drang at the edges of semantic availability are social construction in process. We are our synapses, Malabou suggests, and consciousness is nothing less than how the owner of “the movie-in-the-brain” emerges within the epic self-produced biopic of Life.

To look at it in another way; in our increasingly networked and 'virtual' society it may seem that we shrink into individualistic tele-cocoons with an influx of information increasingly sculpted to fit our preconceived beliefs and values. These cocoons might not be the solipsistic trappings of a leading role in the movie-in-the-brain, the droll romantic comedy of self, but the confluence of external yet highly personalized media networks. Castells, in his 2009 book Communication Power, suggests just this. People, according to Castells, do not necessarily “withdraw into the isolation of virtual reality.” Instead, by using the modern wealth of communication networks, people selectively expand their sociability. Further, suggests Castells - a communications professor at UCLA, constructing a world in terms of projects and dispositions, people also modify that world according to the ongoing social, yet often highly mediated and sometimes virtual, construction of personal interests and values. In this way, identity development through such symbolic interaction occurs across many planes, in places both very real and hyper-mediated, from the immediate and embodied to the distanced and virtual by virtue of the Network Society.

Identity formation occurs between people as much as within the self and it is the result of contact with different people and places over time. Language then becomes the “force that binds people to places,” as Yi-Fu Tuan has written. Similar to Cantrill & Senecah’s development of the 'sense of self-in-place' construct; Dixon & Durrheim suggest that it is through language that “everyday experiences of self-in-place form and mutate” and it is through language that “places themselves are imaginatively constituted” in ways that have repercussions for ‘who we are’ and/or ‘who we claim to be.’ Relocating place-identity from the “vault of the mind” and plunging it back into “the flux of human dialogue;” researchers Dixon & Durrheim suggest a discursive approach to studying place-identity. In this way, identity is something people create together through communication. In this sense it is a social construction rooted in connection with places and other beings associated with those places. Such identification can also become motivational when attempting to prod individuals toward environmentally protective behaviors in as much as when one identifies with a place, he or she is more likely to act in protective ways to help preserve that place.