This blog post serves as an exploratory and developmental process for my PhD. Its focus is on the academic literature I engage with, presented in a blog format, against the backdrop of professional contexts. A blogging approach enables exploration of the ties between research and practice, supporting reflexivity.
Licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY-4.0), except for any content quoted from third-party sources or where otherwise noted. Quoted material remains under the copyright of its respective owners.
As I wrap up PhD interviews for the year and return to some more thesis writing, apparently, all it takes is mention of concepts like ‘open participation’ and ‘relational governance’ for my face to light up. So, earlier in the year, when my thesis touched on some institutional theory readings, I was in my happy place.
Some of my existing writing on institutional legitimacy, symbolic capital, and collaboration, in the context of knowledge production, had led to conversations about ‘weak institutions.’ It was suggested that the idea of ‘weak institutions’ might have relevance to the ‘strength of weak ties.’ The ‘strength of weak ties’ hypothesis emphasises that casual acquaintances (weak associations or ties) in our social networks strengthen the transmission of novel information and opportunities.
The ‘strength of weak ties’ struck me as relevant to the role of academic libraries in facilitating knowledge access (and its diffusion) for scholarly communities.
So, I set out to do some more exploratory work. (Fair warning, reader, this post is on the conceptually dense side!)
Strength in ‘institutional weakness’
I found myself reading ‘A Matter of Trust: The Organisational Design of the Museo de la Libertad y la Democracia, Panama‘ by Sánchez Laws. It focused on cultural institutions, not libraries specifically – though this wasn’t a surprise to me. 1 On a first read, the definition of ‘weak institutions’ caught my attention. I’d seen institutional weakness defined as institutions that lack the capacity to function and lack the authority to enforce compliance. 2 In the chapter by Sánchez Laws, however, the focus was on trust in ‘weaker’ institutions in post-conflict and low-trust communities.
Drawing on Hardin’s perspectives, in Trust and Trustworthiness (2002), 3 where weak institutions and leaders may be used to rebuild trust when strong institutions and leaders have been the problem, Sánchez Laws describes museums as being both ‘weaker’ and influential types of institutions. As such, they may contribute to building community trust and identity.
‘Thick’ institutional trust
In the writing on trust, I was drawn to consider the different types of trust around institutions and communities. This included symbolic and expectation-driven elements (thin trust) and more connected and interpersonal elements (thick trust). 4 Some of the symbolic aspects of thin trust would be more closely tied to characteristics of soft power, with institutions focusing on influence and attraction. Yet, Sánchez Laws also touches on the necessity of thick (communal) trust-building exercises in the particulars of her case study. These are more relational and participatory. In higher education contexts, this aligns more closely with the characteristics of knowledge diplomacy, which focuses on reciprocity and collaboration.
It’s here, in examining institutional trust – particularly ‘thick’ trust – that I find relevance in concepts like ‘open participation’ and ‘relational governance.’ The characteristics associated with these concepts are relevant to knowledge diplomacy, as each touches on dialogue and collaboration-based processes.
Knowledge diplomacy includes a focus on non-state actors, such as groups, organisations, and institutions. If we shift our focus to open knowledge specifically, these other actors represent the meso level. The meso level is one where more attention is needed to understand community objectives and cultural motivations for open scholarship.
Such community and cultural dynamics are where ‘thicker’ types of trust come into play. These dynamics of thick trust also bring us full circle back to the ‘strength of weak ties’ hypothesis, as we look to the role of communities and knowledge diffusion in them.
Community knowledge brokers
Libraries (like many cultural institutions) are community-oriented. More specifically, they’re also considered community builders, as third places that contribute to strengthening social ties. Such a community-centred view positions libraries as facilitators of knowledge creation in communities. Here, libraries are relational and focused on connection and expanding knowledge exchange.
For academic libraries, exploring facilitation in knowledge networks connects with research community conversations about advancing more networked and collaborative digital scholarship. These conversations matter for how we approach knowledge access, as well as knowledge diffusion. Keuchenius et al. (2021) use the ‘strength of weak ties’ idea itself as a case study for how knowledge diffuses in scientific communities. Their research discusses how some scholars become community leaders or brokers of knowledge, translating research across scholarly networks and cultures in ways that transform the original ideas. I found this conclusion particularly compelling (and relevant to my own work):
“Like a chameleon adopting the colors of its surroundings, the notion of weak ties takes on different guises, advanced by the interests and perspectives of the scholars redeploying and building on it” (Keuchenius et al., 2021).
That is, the idea continues to transform as it’s adopted across different local contexts to make a specific point.
And trust is again relevant here. Levin and Cross (2004) discuss how ‘weak ties’ and trust interact with the facilitation of knowledge exchange. This interaction isn’t surprising, given that trust is an enabler of cooperation for mutual benefit, 5 and is also relevant to collaborative approaches for knowledge production and exchange (which is important for open knowledge diplomacy).
Thus, with conversations about university libraries as knowledge or access brokers, understanding the relational characteristics (such as trust) in knowledge production processes is increasingly relevant.
When discussing access, we should consider trust, particularly where libraries act as facilitators or intermediaries. 6 These conversations and processes require bridging ‘thick’ trust norms (particularised community connectedness) and ‘thin’ trust norms (generalised social expectations) in library work. 7
Trust as relational knowledge work
And the ‘thick’ trust norms in library and knowledge work are inherently relational. They’re about connections, with and within communities. In academic networks, some scholars represent community leaders or brokers in knowledge diffusion networks. Similarly, libraries fulfil leadership and facilitative functions in knowledge processes and communities.
As relational work, this means recognising how processes, power structures, and community ‘norms of trust’ create particular conditions for knowledge outcomes.
Engaging with concepts like ‘weak’ institutions and ‘weak’ ties (here, bridged by trust) has prompted more exploration and analysis across knowledge production, scholarly communication, and libraries.
While recognising that these concepts may take on different ‘guises’ across various fields, going forward, some questions I have include how libraries: (1) reproduce the benefits of thicker and relational versions of trust (genuinely) when operating in thin trust systems, (2) facilitate knowledge diffusion while balancing any tensions between strong ties/thick trust and weak ties/thin trust, and (3) operate as brokers “within the structural holes between communities… .” 8
These questions position libraries as part of a larger knowledge system. This is, however, a system where access, openness, and diffusion are also shared responsibilities across scholarly actors and communities.
And so, as I chatted with one of my team about repository-based access this week, I’m reminded that it’s not in isolation that libraries enable knowledge access, openness, and diffusion. It’s through participatory and relational processes that libraries can act and lead in these spaces.
- I’m used to the concepts I study being under-researched in libraries. Reports such as “Belong, Trust, Connect: Policy opportunities for social cohesion through arts and culture” and various research literature do address concepts like trust and social cohesion, including in libraries. In the international relations sphere, however, research has focused on other cultural institutions, such as museums and archives (and the concept of museum diplomacy). ↩︎
- See also: Insignificance, non-compliance, and instability are three forms of institutional weakness identified by Brinks et al. (2019). ↩︎
- The Institute for Social Capital provides a resource on trust/trustworthiness and social capital that addresses ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ distinctions, though there can be some variations in broader literature, depending on the discipline. ↩︎
- Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and Trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- I’ve previously presented on the idea of access as care in professional contexts. Care ties into discussions on institutional trust and the degree of ‘thickness.’ ↩︎
- Sánchez Laws (2014) describes the need to bridge two types of trust literature – the “calculated relationship” type and the “ideas of care” type. ↩︎
- Keuchenius et al. (2021). ↩︎