Article Preview
TopIntroduction
The constructivist discourse in knowledge management (KM) contends that knowledge is always in a state of flux. Enmeshed within a given social context, knowledge not only shapes but also is being shaped by the ongoing interactions among individuals (Holford, 2018; Jackson & Webster, 2007; Jakubik, 2011).
When there are disagreements with the status quo, the amorphous nature of knowledge becomes most apparent. In the quest for the truth, individuals engage in what is known as justification where they argue their positions, assess the merits of others’ views, refine their thinking, and eventually settle on the newly created knowledge (Annis, 1978, 1986; Bankowski, 1981). The cycle repeats whenever fresh evidence and insights emerge to challenge what had been accepted. Justification is thus an iterative process of the social construction of knowledge based on reasons and available evidence relative to an issue within a given context (Annis, 1986; Peters et al., 2010).
Justification is also at play in the event of a rumor outbreak on the Internet when users operate in the absence of facts and struggle to free themselves from the uncomfortable state of doubts (Annis, 1986). The iterative process of offering, evaluating, interpreting and seeking information occurs against the backdrop of shifting ground sentiments and speculations (Fung et al., 2016; Oh et al., 2013; Wood, 2018). The cacophony of voices that arise from mass participation reflects the sense of anxiety along with the need to cope with uncertainty. As a rumor makes its way on social media, justification is presented in the forms of claims and counter-claims. Eventually, when the truth comes to light through fact-checking—the mechanism of verifying a claim objectively (Brandtzaeg et al., 2018; Mena, 2019), the rumor becomes accepted or is quelled.
On social media, rumors are prevalently shared along with truthful content. As the form of unsubstantiated information, rumors could potentially wreak more chaos to the already fragile situation. This is why factors driving rumor mongering have been a well-trodden research area (Oh et al., 2013; Starbird et al., 2016; Zubiaga et al., 2016). However, the dynamics of information sharing in a rumor outbreak, starting from the point in time when a rumor first emerges on social media until it is officially debunked through fact-checking, has yet to be widely explored. Given that online rumors spread faster and wider than offline rumors, the former is more prone to exposure than the latter. For this reason, online rumors offer greater scope for arguments, counter-arguments, fact-checking and justification. Scholarly understanding is limited in terms of how users argue their positions, assess the merits of others’ views, refine their thinking, and eventually settle on the newly created knowledge in the quest for the truth.
Prior works on knowledge epistemology and argumentation scheme (Goldman, 2009; Mucchi-Faina & Cicoletti, 2006; Walton et al., 2008) have identified five types of justification, namely, descriptive argumentation, presumptive argumentation, evidentialism, truth skepticism, and epistemological skepticism. Descriptive argumentation involves making assertions. Presumptive argumentation relies on inferences while evidentialism uses evidence to buttress a position. Truth skepticism reasons by asking questions while epistemological skepticism does so by criticizing the plausibility of a particular line of reasoning.