People, Information and Knowledge: An Introduction

---

Welcome to People, Information and Knowledge: A Reflective Journal.

This online journal aims to develop an understanding of Information and Knowledge in a very broad context (economic, psychological, political, metaphysical, social, etc).

The Journal will frequently refer to readings and tutorials I'll be attending for my Information and Knowledge Management course that I'm currently studying and will be an assessable component of one of my subjects; People, Information and Knowledge.

The Journal will have a general focus around the field of information science: an interdisciplinary field primarily concerned with the analysis, collection, classification, manipulation, storage, retrieval and dissemination of information.

The first session of my People, Information and knowledge subject, Professor Michael Olsson challenged some of the more traditional and mainstream conceptions of what constitutes information and knowledge.

Some initial ideas were presented in the lecture that caught my interest.

Firstly, the idea that knowledge is not solely a cognitive process that resides within our brains. As far as I can understand, because thought is ingrained in language, and the development of language as a system is dependent on wider socioeconomic and political factors, it cannot be said that knowledge is solely contained in the realm of thought or at least that it cannot be separated from knowledge and information. This is an idea I find very attractive, however it is also a controvertial one as it flies in the face of this man:
 

Rene Decartes' "Cogito ergo sum" is a phrase that characterises Rationalism over Aristotelian notions of empiricism. That is, the idea that the world can only be known through reasoning and not through sensory experience. Rene Descartes and the consequent rise of Rationalism is responsible for much of the scientific revolution and Western Thought that followed in the past few centuries. To challenge this basic idea is to challenge the pillars upon which much of Western Civilization rests on today.

This challenging idea - as I understand it - is that context plays a large part in determining meaning and hence shaping knowledge. This raises a further question which is probably worth revisiting when I'm better equipped to deal with it: What exactly is the relationship between meaning and knowledge?

We also covered the way that a person’s multiple social roles and identities influences the way they engage with information. This raises important questions about ethnocentrism in our educational institutions – we discussed IQ tests for example, and how socio-political factors had a role in influencing the outcome of what individuals scored.

Professor Olsson also raised the very important point that it is always important to question the assumptions behind which a given context (or system) is based on. In the formation of a social system (whether it be a whole language or a simple IQ test), the creators operate on a set of assumptions that their pre-existing perspectives are correct - these assumptions serve to treat people within the system in a patronising way. This raises a whole lot of questions about power relations and hegemony when considering the way information and knowledge functions, which will hopefully be addressed in later lessons. It would be particularly interesting to explore the role that ideology has, and the way it relates to those who create systems within their respective socioeconomic contexts. 

The more difficult concept to grasp for me at the moment is the idea that information is about the relationship between a person and an object and is to be seen as a process as opposed to a thing. Given a certain context, the relationship between a person and a subject forms meaning - I am assuming that it is essentially about the negotiation that occurs to formulate meaning between:

a) The Person
b) the Subject
c) the overarching system in which this process is occuring

We were given some words to define as a task in the last class. What I’d like to do is define these terms in a very simplistic and traditional way with the conscious intention to have my ignorant conceptions of these terms now contrast sharply with my conceptions of them after I've been exposed to the entirety of Professor Olsson's subject. Also, there are things we say we believe, and the things we practice, and I'm hoping that a quick and uninhibited definition of these terms may help reveal any assumptions I might have about what these terms mean.

Data: The Raw input that one receives from outside themselves.

Information: A classified and formalised form of data

Knowledge: A designated meaning assigned to information that has become accepted.

Power: the capability to realise a desire or purpose

Information Need: A person's purpose to attain a specific component of information.

Information Use:  A person who interacts with a given component of information.

Information Poverty: A person who is unable to attain a specific component of information based on their information need.

Information Professional: A person who deals in the business of satisfying the information needs of a client or user.

What is particularly exciting about this subject is that I see an excellent opportunity to integrate themes which I have been very interested about before beginning this course. I have an interest to develop a strong connection between the themes of Ideology, Systems/Networks and Information Security/Privacy and my initial impression is that this course and reflective journal will be an excellent opportunity to achieve such an aim.