Everyday information behavior during the “new normal” of the Covid-19 pandemic: approaching the notions of experiential and local knowledge
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2022-0056 |
| Published date | 01 June 2022 |
| Date | 01 June 2022 |
| Pages | 160-182 |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
| Author | Michela Montesi |
Everyday information behavior
during the “new normal”of the
Covid-19 pandemic: approaching
the notions of experiential and
local knowledge
Michela Montesi
Department of Library and Information Science,
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this research is to understand everyday information behavior (IB) during the Covid-
19 pandemic at the “new normal”stage, focusing on the notions of experiential knowledge (EK), i.e. knowledge
acquired by first-hand experience or in personal interactions, and local knowledge (LK) as perception of local
environment.
Design/methodology/approach –Seventeen interviews were carried out in February–May 2021, in a
district of the city of Madrid (Spain). Interview transcripts were analyzed according to grounded theory, to
identify major and complementary themes of EK and LK.
Findings –Participants’stories show that EK cooperated with information originating from government,
scientific authorities and mainstream media, in patterns of convergence and divergence. While convergence
produces “thick knowledge”(knowledge perceived as solid, real and multidimensional), divergence leads to
uncertainty and collaboration, but it also supports a critical stance on authorities’information. In addition,
participants’perceptions of LK emphasizeits human component. LK and EK are exchanged both explicitlyand
tacitly.
Originality/value –The paper presents the first approach to understanding EK and LK and their function
during the health crisis, characterizing them as alternative information systems and as topics deserving major
attention in research on IB and crisis management.
Keywords Informationbehavior, Experiential knowledge, Local knowledge, Covid-19 pandemic, Uncertainty,
Noise, Multimodality
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The Covid-19 pandemic has allowed to study information behavior (IB) in everyday life and
people information practices during a health crisis (Pan et al., 2020). At the beginning of the
crisis, the intense communication activity on social media and the increased search activity
on the Internet have provided researchers with massive datasets, allowing them to discover
topics of concern for people in different parts of the world (Zhao et al., 2020;Shen et al., 2020),
describe the spread of disinformation (Singh et al., 2020) and establish connections between
web activity and other events, such as daily cases in specific regions (Husnayain et al., 2020).
In the first months of the pandemic, several surveys conducted about preferred information
sources showed an increase in information use and consumption, especially in public
broadcasting, newspapers and information from authorities (Dreisiebner et al., 2021), and the
connections between information use and preventive behaviors (Liu, 2020;Granderath et al.,
2020). According to a review of Human Information Behavior (HIB) research carried out until
March 2021 (Montesi, 2021), everyday IB during the first year of the crisis has allowed to
measure the efficacy and scope of information campaigns by governments and authorities,
but it has also raised questions about less studied phenomena, such as experiential
JD
79,1
160
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0022-0418.htm
Received 4 March 2022
Revised 11 May 2022
Accepted 16 May 2022
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 79 No. 1, 2023
pp. 160-182
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-03-2022-0056
knowledge (EK) and local knowledge (LK). Indeed, during the crisis, information needs have
been described as local, related to specific areas, produced by daily-life situations and
originating in social, family and professional roles (Ke et al., 2021). On the other hand, EK
exchanged on social media has allowed to discover symptoms of Covid-19, such as anosmia,
before formal evidence has been available (Sarker et al., 2020), while at the beginning of the
crisis, it has made up for the unavailability of healthcare services (Zhao et al., 2020). Similarly,
in medical care, the need to take immediate action on scant evidence has revived case histories
from the bottom of the evidence pyramid, revaluing experience (Atkinson et al., 2021). In a
complementary way, some studies have underlined the protective nature of the information
obtained from other people, especially in comparison with the dramatism of media (Tandoc
and Lee, 2020;Chivers et al., 2020).
The available evidence points to an evolving IB which has been changing at different
pandemic stages, with more information needs in correspondence with the outbreak and a
progressive reduction of such needs, produced often by information saturation and emotional
burnout (Tang and Zou, 2021;Lloyd and Hicks, 2021). The present work aims to build on
previous research on IB during the Covid-19 pandemic, by analyzing IB in the stage of the
“new normal,”with a special focus on EK and LK. Methodologically, it aims at
complementing previous large-scale and big-data research by providing a detailed account
of experiences in a specific location, similarly to (Pine et al., 2021). However, while Pine et al.
(2021) look specifically at risk-perception in everyday IB, this research delves instead into EK
and LK in the context of everyday IB during the Covid-19 pandemic.
1.1 Literature review
The concepts of EK and LK are really interconnected and sometimes used as synonyms for
one another (Fazey et al., 2006). However, they will be treated separately in what follows,
because, despite their interrelations, they are often discussed within different bodies of
research. The notion of EK is addressed specifically in the framework of health and disease,
where it is at the forefront of research informing new models of patients’integration in the
management of complex health-related problems (Pineo et al., 2021). The concept of LK, on the
other hand, appears often in the literature on adaptation to climate change, where it is also
known as traditional, implicit or indigenous knowledge (Naess, 2013;Nakanishi and Black,
2018). Both make up alternative knowledge systems to scientific knowledge, contributing to
the formulation of strategies to deal with and understand disease, as well as the processes of
adaptation to local environments affected by climate change, or other situations
characterized by uncertainty (Fazey et al., 2006). In information research, the two concepts
are often used to label information which is not provided or obtained through formally
structured and normative information sources, but it is rather described as embodied,
situated and originating from people’s experiences and social practices (Genuis, 2012;
Rubenstein, 2015;Lloyd and Wilkinson, 2016). A terminological clarification is needed
because, while some sources speak of LK or EK, others use rather local information (Van
Klyton et al., 2020;Lee and Butler, 2019;Oh and Butler, 2019) and experiential information
(Savolainen, 2021), raising the question of whether we should make a difference between one
and the other. In this paper, LK and local information, on the one hand, and EK and
experiential information, on the other, are used interchangeably, drawing on Frick
e’s (2009,
2019) understanding of information as “weak knowledge,”i.e. “true-beliefs”and “true-
(community-accepted)-statements”not justified as strong knowledge. Fazey et al. (2020)
contend that current knowledge systems, which they understand as “the practices, routines,
structures, mindsets, values and cultures affecting what and how knowledge is produced and
used, and by whom”(p. 5) should be more inclusive, egalitarian and diverse. While EK is
accepted only when it does not depart from conventional ways of thinking (Blume, 2017), and
Experiential
and local
knowledge
161
To continue reading
Request your trial