50th Anniversary of Information Literacy Panel Discussion

Continued Reflections

Photo by Mahbod Akhzami on Unsplash

A Celebration and Some New Directions

Many readers of this substack listened to the Celebration of the 50^th Anniversary of Information Literacy Panel Discussion on April 29, hosted by the Ohio State University Libraries.  Discussion forums are now either scheduled or will be scheduled soon, and announced on various ALA or other listservs,  on various aspects of information literacy as concept, on appropriate teaching methods, on recruiting and training the next generation of instruction librarians, and on the impact of artificial intelligence on information literacy (see links below).*

As one of the participants in the 50^th Anniversary Panel, I have reflected in recent weeks on continuing questions about information literacy as a learning agenda for both public schools, in higher education, and in workplaces.   These questions always return to definitional issues and the larger challenges for acceptance of the concept among those most involved with educating students.  Enthusiasm for the “the cause” cannot substitute for better thinking about the agenda, despite some excellent research carried out over years from across the world that considers information literacy from multiple theoretical and research-based perspectives.  (Kuhlthau; Head; Bruce; Lloyd; Maybee & Lupton; Johnson & Webber; Julien) Each of the theories and models developed offers some especially compelling account of this type of learning.   In addition, we have also created a community of researchers and practitioners who speak our language and work within a certain range of assumptions about information literacy and the related “literacies”: primary source literacy, data literacy, media literacy, news literacy, technology literacy, and numerous others. 

We also have too easily, perhaps, spun out a family of “literacies” that supposedly march together in our own “intersectional” way, without considering other complexities that impinge on our ability to advance information literacy as a more widely accepted set of habits of mind and practices in navigating the worlds of scholarly discourse, media narratives, professional discussions, and citizenship responsibilities.   We also need more empirically grounded, multi-institutional, multi-year research projects about the reach of information literacy, and its impact on learning, especially with the persistence of familiar single-instruction sessions and baseline teaching with databases and other tools and resources that change frequently and that do not reach into the work environments of employees and citizens.  In short, we need to search for better answers to some persistent and also some new questions about this form of learning.  

A Landmark Article

In reflecting on several decades of teaching and thinking about information literacy, and the teaching role of libraries, I summoned up one article from almost thirty years ago that I believe elevated the discussion in a way that suggests potential ways forward. “Information Literacy as a Liberal Art: Enlightenment Proposals for a New Curriculum,” by Jeremy Shapiro and Shelley Hughes, and which appeared in Educom Review, approaches the subject in an integrative, encompassing way.  Departing from the then-emerging conception of information literacy as a practical “skills” bundle relating to computer or technology literacy, they proposed a new, expansive conception of information literacy that included:

• tool literacy: understanding and using software and networks; understanding algorithms and affordances of various tools for identifying and managing information

• resource literacy: understanding the “form, format, location, and access methods” of information sources, and the classification systems organizing them (the literacy with which most librarians readily identify)

• socio-structural literacy: knowing the social processes involved in originating and producing information; the producers and peer groups involved; the peer review process; the protocols for sharing information in a social context

• research literacy: the ability to use more advanced discipline-based tools such as citation softwares, quantitative and qualitative analysis tools; and the limitations of such tools

• publishing literacy: the ability to seek out publishing opportunities and position one’s writing within the appropriate venue in the information ecosystem and to understand appropriate professional writing within those venues

• emerging technology literacy:  the capacity to adapt to continuously changing information technologies that mediate or publish information, and to learn strategies that transcend particular technologies, and   

• critical literacy: the ability to develop a “critical” or critique mindset about the historical, sociopolitical, philosophical and, and cultural impacts of information technologies that influence how information is created, distributed, published, and used in society.  This habit of mind involving “critique” examines the human impacts and policy choices relating to information technology. 

Their very comprehensive scheme, though with overlaps among the various “literacies” described, imagined a wide range of abilities and habits of mind across sources, experts, institutions, technologies, policies, scholarly communication, and considerations of culture, politics, and societal structures.  They even included artificial intelligence briefly as a potential future force impinging on the practices of teaching librarians. 

No doubt their positioning information literacy as dependent on the best of Enlightenment thought, and drawing on such Enlightenment figures as Condorcet, will cause skepticism, since Enlightenment epistemology is now often questioned in what we call our supposedly “post-truth” era.   But their richer conception of information literacy as integrative inquiry across the information ecosystem speaks to many challenges that have opened up in the past three decades.   If information literacy can be reimagined as a new “liberal art” that includes all of the domains identified by Shapiro and Hughes, but with better curricular integration, a firmer conceptual foundation, and a wider reach into partnerships, those championing “the cause” may find greater opportunities for success. Even more important, in a time of distrust in experts, institutions, enormous affective polarization, and loss of shared democratic norms and faith in epistemic institutions such as libraries, universities, cultural institutions, and community organizations, a revitalized conception of information literacy matters.  With a renewed conceptual foundation, not so much about “information” itself, but with new considerations of epistemic quality, academic integrity, critical inquiry, and civic participation, information literacy can become a liberal art that supports learning in multiple disciplines, professional venues, and community organizations.    

New Directions

These interrelated questions of epistemology, academic quality, sound inquiry, and civic-mindedness, suggest that a revitalized information literacy will depend upon these agendas:

• Restoring trust in reliable sources, experts, institutions, and media organizations, and expecting accountability from them in turn, will be an essential element in moving beyond the “my facts versus your facts” mindset that has seized the discourse in recent years and made dialogue, debate, and informed discussion hugely challenging

• Building partnerships with campus and community organizations also dedicated to restoring trust and improving civic debate and dialogue (examples include citizenship and civic dialogue centers on numerous campuses, and the grassroots campus community initiatives started on campuses by the Heterodox Academy)

• Participating beyond librarianship in new initiatives dedicated to improving quality of research (examples include the Center for Open Science and its Open Science Framework, the Adversarial Collaboration Initiative, the Information Quality Lab, and community organizations devoted to sound versions of citizen science)

• Forming new campus opportunities for viewpoint-diverse discussions and debates that would support pluralistic thinking about scholarship and inquiry (Northeastern Illinois University Libraries’ Viewpoint Diversity panels); Library-organized events and progressive/conservative polarization (youtube.com)

• Supporting new research institutes dedicated to investigating information literacy in multiple venues, disciplines, and context (Institute for Information Literacy at Purdue; the ongoing work of Project Information Literacy)

• Developing new research agendas (related to the research institutes) that connect interdisciplinary research in different bodies of research (cognitive science, communication theory) with practitioner knowledge (Scholarship of Teaching and Learning/SoTL/DBER (Discipline-Based Educational Research) investigations

• Grounding discussions of information literacy more firmly in other disciplines such as philosophy and cognitive psychology, particularly in debates about contested terms such as “misinformation” and “critical thinking” and popularized ideas about “do your own research” (DYOR)

• Identifying the key impacts of artificial intelligence on information literacy practices through proof-of-concept pilot programs

• Creating student-led initiatives for informed citizenship that tap into such projects as Bridge USA; or elevate new methods in reducing polarization through research-based interventions such as Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge, that require an expanded repertoire of information literacy abilities 

Most of all, the possibilities for a renewed information literacy depend on transcending library-centric and “library-sponsored” information literacy.  This learning agenda may have begun in academic libraries, under different names, over five decades ago, but it now faces a pivotal moment.  The Shapiro/Hughes landmark article calls again to an elevated vision of integrative learning for the profession as a whole—a new series of “thresholds” for librarians.   The grassroots movement within the field is now, more than ever, not only about the library itself, or its finite set of information sources.  As Patricia Breivik, one of the original leaders in the movement, said, “information literacy is fundamentally a learning issue, not a library issue.” (Brower and Hollister).   

We face a collective learning issue within libraries, but also new collaborative opportunities beyond libraries and with colleagues on our campuses and in our communities, in renewing information literacy as integrative inquiry into lifelong learning.   The 50^th Anniversary Panel Discussion and the follow-up Discussion Forums create those opportunities for further inquiry.  

Craig Gibson is Professional Development Coordinator in the Ohio State University Libraries and Co-Moderator of HxLibraries  

Sources

Brower, Stewart, and Hollister, Christopher. “An Interview with Patricia Senn Breivik.”  Communications in Information Literacy, (2007) 1 (1), 3-5. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2007.1.1.2

Bruce, Christine.   The Seven Faces of Information Literacy.  Adelaide: AUSLIB Press, 1997. 

Head, Alison; Fister, Barbara; Geofrey, Steven; and MacMillan, Margy.  The Project Information Literacy Retrospective: Insights from More than a Decade of Information Literacy Research, 2008-2022 (October 12, 2022).  Project Information Literacy Institute, https://projectinfolit.org/publications/retrospective. 

Kuhlthau, Carol.  Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services.   Denver, CO:  Libraries Unlimited, 2003.

Julien, Heidi; Latham, Don; Gross, Melissa (eds).  The Information Literacy Framework: Case Studies of Successful Implementation.  Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2020. 

Lloyd, Annemaree. Information Literacy Landscapes: Information Literacy in Education, Workplace, and Everyday Contexts. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2010.

Maybee, Clarence; Bruce, Christine; Lupton, Mandy; and Pang, Ming Fai. “Informed Learning Design: Teaching and Learning Through Engagement with Information.” Higher Education Research and Development (November 2018), 38:93, pp. 1-15.

Shapiro, Jeremy, and Hughes, Shelley. “Information Literacy as a Liberal Art: Enlightenment Proposals for a New Curriculum.” Educom Review (March/April 1996), 31:3, pp. 1-4.

Webber, Sheila, and Johnston, Bill.    "Transforming Information Literacy for Higher Education in the 21st Century: A Lifelong Learning Approach", In Developing People’s Information Capabilities: Fostering Information Literacy in Educational, Workplace and Community Contexts (Library and Information Science, Vol. 8), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1876-0562(2013)0000008006

************************************************************************************************************

*Discussion Forums on the Future of Information Literacy.  All are free and open; registration links included.

Preparing Future Librarians for Instruction and Advocacy: A Panel Discussion

June 18, 2024

1:00 pm (Eastern)

To register: https://osu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_jvzuGrP1TVCTAnYp6Y6WtQ

AI Literacy and Information Literacy: Considerations for the Future 

June 25, 2024 

2:00 pm (Eastern) 

To register: https://osu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_8l0UfpApTAGo4Zm5FP_CvQ  

Teaching Information Literacy: Considering Current and Future Approaches and Models

July 9, 2024 

1:00 pm (Eastern) 

To register: https://osu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_rtdI73pqShu1EAzwYTHY7w  

---

To promote viewpoint diversity, Heterodoxy in the Stacks invites constructive dissent and disagreement in the form of guest posts. While articles published on Heterodoxy in the Stacks are not peer- or editorially-reviewed, all posts and comments must model the HxA Way. Content is attributed to the individual contributor(s).

To submit an article for Heterodoxy in the Stacks, submit the Heterodoxy in the Stacks Guest Submission form in the format of a Microsoft Word document, PDF,  or a Google Doc. Unless otherwise requested, posts will include the author’s name and the commenting feature will be on. We understand that sharing diverse viewpoints can be risky, both professionally and personally, so anonymous and pseudonymous posts are allowed.

Thank you for joining the conversation!