Trust – in geography

Withers, Charles

doi:10.1177/0309132516688078

Cited by 25 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Austerity is increasingly associated with a lack of trust in professional experts and institutions (Withers 2017). Community-based organisations that are resourcechallengedby responding to marginalisation and service cuts while their own resources are reduced due to austerityare seeking ever more collaborative opportunities (Clayton, Donovan, and Merchant 2015).…”

Section: Discussion: Building Trust and Responding To Distrustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relevant for co-design is how sociological literature frames trust as enabling people to commit and engage creatively while generating risk and vulnerability (Barbalet 2009;Giddens 1994;Luhmann 1979;Mollering 2013). While trust is often considered vital for beneficial societal relations and action, understanding distrust in institutions associated with access to material resources (Arnstein 1969;Botsman 2017;Clayton, Donovan, and Merchant 2015;Withers 2017) and within community-based and participatory research may also be useful to enable critical reflection and material sensitivity in design (Akama and Ivanka 2010;Light and Akama 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Socio-materiality of trust: co-design with a resource limited community organisation

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust is an essential if often implicit aspect of co-design particularly when working in community-based, political and sensitive settings. Current co-design literature, however, remains fairly limited focusing on interactions between people as primary agents of trust. Drawing on research conducted with a poverty alleviation charity based in the UK, we illustrate how trust and distrust can also be mediated through material resources used in the codesign process. The paper highlights the significance of materials in negotiating the interdependencies of trust, in how distrust can be leveraged and trust can be supported through sensitive sociomaterial exchange conducted with resource limited community organisations.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Building Trust and Responding To Distrustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socio-materiality of trust: co-design with a resource limited community organisation

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instruments depend for their efficacy on users’ interpretation of the results, often in relation to a graduated scale as surrogates for particular phenomena (temperature scales in thermometry, for example: Chang, ). Instruments confer credibility and invoke trust in the explorer‐author's resultant truth claims (Shapin, ; Withers, ).…”

Section: Instruments At Work – Toward An Instrument Epistemologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Geography and “thing knowledge”: Instrument epistemology, failure, and narratives of 19th‐century exploration

Withers

2019

Trans Inst British Geog

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper examines the relationships between instrument epistemology, failure, and textual authority with reference to the place of scientific instruments in published narratives of 19th-century exploration. The paper draws on Baird's work on instrument epistemology and "semantic ascent" and Gooday's work on failure and on the morality of measurement. Its empirical focus comes from examination of RGS manuscript AP 52, a list of instruments provided by the RGS for 31 explorers in the period c.1877 to c.1883. Instruments are shown to (do) work in the field, even as explorers admitted to failure, in the devices and in themselves. Narrative accounts, often compiled elsewhere, obscure the contingent nature of instruments' use. The findings have implications for assessing the agency of instruments in exploration, instrument epistemology, and narrative inscription, and for understanding failure in geographical work. K E Y W O R D S exploration, failure, instrument epistemology, instruments, publication, thing knowledge | INTRODUCTIONThat the history of science and increasingly the history of modern culture is indeed a history of instruments and their intelligentand sometimes not so intelligentuse should be well known. We need to take notice. (Baird, 2004, p. xv) This paper examines the place of scientific instruments in published narratives of 19th-century exploration and the relationships between instrument epistemology, failure, and textual authority. Studies of the relationship between exploration and authorship identify several stages between the act of exploration and the production of printed narratives about it. These involved in-the-field note taking and in-situ alteration; later redaction elsewhere; post-exploration appeals to memory when in-situ writing proved inadequate; and the role of editors and publishers in revising the content, even the chronology of exploration, to suit perceived audience demand (Bouguet et al.

show abstract

“…Whilst the bases of trustworthiness are historically and contextually variable, the recognition of trustworthy and authoritative people is a necessary component in achieving shared agreement among specialists and creating scientific knowledge. Shapin's () study of 17th century English science is the key reference upon which a vast literature about the role of interpersonal trust in different sciences has been built: mathematics (Steingart, ); physics (Collins, ; Knorr Cetina, ; Reyes‐Galindo, ); geography (Withers, ); military technology and computing (MacKenzie, ; MacKenzie & Pottinger, ); aviation (Downer, ); civil engineering (Porter, ); metrology (Gooday, ; Timmermans, ); and climate science (Heymann, ; Ramírez‐i‐Ollé, ).…”

Section: Social Order As Cognitive Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust, scepticism, and social order: A contribution from the sociology of scientific knowledge

Ramírez-i-Ollé

2018

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), which studies the organisation and content of science, has made two original contributions to the understanding of social order at large. First, SSK scholars regard social order as a problem of establishing “cognitive order” and knowledge. A wealth of case studies has demonstrated that interpersonal trust is necessary to achieve agreement and shared perception among particular collectives of specialists. Second, SSK scholars insist that all types of cognitive order and knowledge, whether “scientific” or “lay,” are the result of socially organised scepticism being parasitic upon existing trust and background expectations (an argument that I call “the Parasitic View of Scepticism”). Sociologists with an interest in today's so‐called “knowledge” and “information” societies, and more specifically, in the social distribution and political uses of doubt and unknowns (including “post‐truth”), would benefit from adopting the Parasitic View of Scepticism and investigating the corrosive and generative consequences of scepticism on the trust relations and the cognitive/social order upon which it is based, in line with insights from the emerging fields of agnotology and the sociology of ignorance.

show abstract

Trust – in geography

Cited by 25 publications

References 78 publications

Socio-materiality of trust: co-design with a resource limited community organisation

Socio-materiality of trust: co-design with a resource limited community organisation

Geography and “thing knowledge”: Instrument epistemology, failure, and narratives of 19th‐century exploration

Trust, scepticism, and social order: A contribution from the sociology of scientific knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About