Análisis comparado de los esquemas de Certificación Forestal

Reckwitz (2002) observes that, in the early- and mid-twentieth century, research interest in practice and in everyday life grew hand in hand. Everyday life usually refers to personal, though not wholly domestic, matters, being something of a catchall denotation for everything except work, schooling, politics, and civic duties. Its practices often are said to comprise the banal, or the simplest, most typical, boring, trivial, unreflected-upon activities (Adler, Adler, & Fontana, 1987; Pink, 2012; Savolainen, 2008a; Sztompka, 2008), though there are exceptions to this characterization— tragedies, magical happenings, and ‘free time’ leisure fulfillment are some (Kari & Hartel, 2007; Sztompka, 2008). Instances of everyday life, and interactions with information therein, can fall anywhere along a subjective spectrum spanning positive to negative. Serious beauty and lifestyle YouTube content, for example, often relates topically to positive, even hedonic, everyday life.

In the ILS field, researchers most often associate everyday life information practices (or ELIPs) with Reijo Savolainen, who defines them by what they exclude: work and full-time study (1995a, 1995b, 2005, 2008a, 2017). Drawing totally firm boundaries between work and non-work is difficult, however; professional and personal issues never neatly separate (Given, 2002; Savolainen, 1995a, 1995b, 2008a; cf. Hektor, 2001; Spink & Cole, 2001). In the mid-1990s, Savolainen (1995a, 1995b) began advocating for more extensive, systematic research into information practices in the context

of everyday life. His initial encouragements focused upon information seeking, and how broad social, cultural, and psychological factors shape source preferences. In 2008, he explicated a more comprehensive model of everyday life information practices, depicted below in Figure 2, which includes information use and information sharing in addition to information seeking.

Figure 2. Everyday life information practices (ELIPs) model, based on Savolainen’s (2008a, p. 65) “Model of everyday information practices.”

Overall, the ELIPs model indicates that everyday life practices in general, and information practices in particular, are composites of actions organized and operational within the broader social world and an individual’s life world context. An individual’s socially and psychologically shaped stock of knowledge orient his or her undertaking of certain everyday projects, and social rules, norms, and teleoaffective goals suggest the value of these projects and ‘proper’ ways of carrying them out. Information seeking, use, and sharing are “tools” that further everyday projects

Table 2. Components of the Everyday Life Information Practices Model

ELIPs Model Components Explanation

life world

Everyday life practices are bounded by and accomplished within the life world, which affects individuals’ perspectives and practices. Two levels of life world are distinguished within the ELIPs model: the transindividual life world encompasses broad socio-spatial, -temporal, -cultural, -economic, -political, and power-based factors that enable and constrain a context for practice (Kalekin- Fishman, 2013; Savolainen, 2008a), and the individual life world consists of personal frames of reference that are gained via an individual’s experiences with various projects (Savolainen, 2008a; Wilson, 1981, 1999a).

actor’s stock of knowledge

Everyday life practices are oriented by individuals’ mainly learned, always- evolving notions of what is appropriate. These influence the everyday projects in which people engage as well as the information practices they perform. social rules

(‘recipes’) and norms

Savolainen (2008a) describes social rules and norms as sets of criteria by which societal affairs are organized. Rules may be explicit or be taken-for-granted, better called “recipes” or commonsense. Recipes are habitualized “products of sharing experience... that lead to common frameworks for seeing the world” (Savolainen, 2008a, p. 27; cf. Schutz & Luckmann, 1973). They closely relate to norms—socially “expected [forms] of behavior and ways to approach the world” (Chatman, 1996, p. 194)—which individuals internalize.

values, goals,

and interests

Values set out contextualized notions of what is desirable and what is to be desired; interests lead people to focus attention on everyday areas that captivate them, given their lived experiences. When individuals perceive that certain actions and tasks are steps toward goals that align with their values and interests, they are motivated and invested in them.

everyday information practices

and their constituent information actions

Everyday (life) information practices are constituted by information actions, and defined as socially and culturally affected, personally preferred tools that further everyday projects (Savolainen, 2008a). In and of themselves, everyday information practices are not meaningful, but they become so by contributing to meaningful projects. According to Savolainen (2008a), there are three “major” (p. 50) interconnected ELIPs: information seeking, use, and sharing. Seeking refers to “the acquisition of various informational (both cognitive and expressive) elements which people employ to orient themselves in daily life or to solve problems not directly connected with the performance of occupational tasks” (Savolainen, 1995a, pp. 266-267, 1995b, p. 317); it may be active, or done by scanning, monitoring, or via another person (McKenzie, 2003a). Use refers to a wielding of information to orient actions and further everyday projects (Savolainen, 2008a); uses made of information can include, for example, getting ideas, pleasure, or connection (Dervin, 1983). Sharing refers to individuals proactively and reactively giving and receiving information in order to affect others’ understandings (Savolainen, 2008a).

projects

Everyday life practices fulfill everyday projects; these projects animate practices. Hektor (2001) defines projects as “like a plan” (p. 74) or set of vague objectives pertaining to some domain. There are two main types of projects: generic ones, which are common to all individuals in a community (e.g., self- care, household care, preparing food, and transportation), and specific ones, which are common only to sub-communities, and may relate either to life transitions and situations (e.g., childrearing) or to special interests (e.g., a hobby). Projects of the former sort are “change” projects, and of the latter sort are “pursuit” projects (Hektor, 2001, pp. 75-76). Projects comprise several different tasks, and may play out in episodes (Hartel, 2006).

contextual factors

Contextual (or situational) factors, such as the urgency of and time available for projects or tasks, affect everyday practices. All information needs, wants, and preferences are situationally and contextually based (Savolainen, 2008b; cf. Agosto & Hughes-Hassell, 2005, 2006).

For the purposes of this dissertation, it is worth mentioning that studies of individuals’ everyday life information seeking and (re)source preferences consistently find that people often turn to informal information sources (that is, ones not accessed via institutional or expert channels and not in print format), and that they especially prefer human sources. Networked (or online) sources are also highly valued, mainly due to their accessibility (Savolainen, 1999; Savolainen & Kari, 2004). Serious beauty and lifestyle YouTubers conceivably benefit from the popularity of both human and online sources, given that they upload videos to a platform that is reminiscent of face-to-face

communication and predicated on an “ideology of authenticity” (Burgess & Green, 2009, pp. 28-29).