Should financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) be taught as part of information literacy? A Communications in Information Literacy2018 paper by Heather B. Perry argues that understanding conflicts of interest is an integral part of information literacy. Perry states that although the 2016 election brought concerns about “fake news” to the forefront, “the problem of financial conflict of interest (FCOI) is less well recognized but more pervasive.”She believes that the impact of FCOI on scientific research has led to “serious problems” with wide-ranging impact on scientific and social policies.
According to Perry, library and information sciences literature has not explored the issue of FCOI and librarians have not been provided with guidance on discussing disclosure statements with users. She argues that understanding how funding sources affect research could be seen as a “threshold concept.” She writes:
Recognizing FCOI enables the reader to view research in a new light with a critically skeptical stance. A critically skeptical reader recognizes that research funded by a company or industry front group needs to be examined critically in light of the potential influence of the funder, while focusing on the strength of the methodology and results… While the lay reader may be unable to assemble all the facts, or perhaps understand all the evidence in the same way as a scientist in the discipline, the reader should approach the research critically and evaluate the information in light of their needs. The critically skeptical reader should recognize when they need more information to fully understand the information.
Perry further explains how the elements of ALA’s 2016 Framework for Information Literacy do not explicitly mention FCOI but are flexible enough to incorporate the concept.
Source: Perry, H. B. (2018). Understanding Financial Conflict of Interest: Implications for Information Literacy Instruction. Communications in Information Literacy, 12 (2), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2018.12.2.10
Top image: Cartoon Guy Showing The Money.svg / Wikimedia Commons
Teaching skepticism as an initial approach to nearly all information today is becoming a survival skill. I see no more important educational goal today - it is more important than "information" itself. Conflicts of interest are not necessarily disproof of claims, but it is essential to understand where they exist. Transparency is everything - especially with data. I was reading an article about peer review recently that said that most peer reviewers never actually look at the underlying data of papers they review, which is where most of the fraud and mistakes lie. A study in which peer reviewers formally requested data supporting papers under review found that a majority - more than 50% - couldn't or wouldn't provide it and many retracted their papers upon such challenge. And this highlights another kind of "conflict of interest": that of the authors need to publish or perish, independent of their funding sources. This is apparently especially profound in China, where highly prized teaching positions at colleges are won by publication volume. Another prominent example is the scandal currently on-going at Stanford where the president of the college (or is it medical school?) has become embroiled in a data fabrication scandal. It looks like much of his career has been built on faked data. This conflict wasn't in the interests of his grant sponsers; it was in the interest of his career.
The ALA itself, being organized as it is, gets donations from donors it does not have to publicize, some of them sizable. Some conservative news outlets have speculated that scapegoat bogeymen like George Soros or Bill Gates have contributed large sums of money to the Association (https://newspunch.com/america-187-george-soros/). I once emailed the IFRT and the bloggers group that putting the speculation to rest by publishing the names of the top 5 or 10 individual donors to the ALA in a blog entry would be interesting, if some of the donors might agree. The idea was met with silence, which I understand. If rich, powerful people who are the subject of wide-ranging and sinister conspiracy theories are giving money to your professional organization, neither the donor nor the organization want that known, probably. But I think it's pertinent. Why has the ALA taken the harder, faster sociopolitical/philosophical turn it has since 2010 or so? In the opinion of just about any fair-minded and moderate person, financial conflicts of interest are very important, whether it be who publishes the newsletters...or who sets the educational standards for an entire profession.
The above sounded like a worthwhile and needed initiative but Soros is a questionable figure IMO: It is this person who has bankrolled the perpetration of the greatest suppression of free speech in American history who will guide "high school students, with public libraries as their 'newsroom,' [on] how to distinguish facts from opinions; how to check the source and validity of news and information and how to identify propaganda and misinformation."
Interesting, I have always mentioned funding, and sponsorship as part of Information literacy. That's about as detailed as you can get in a first year one-shot.
Teaching skepticism as an initial approach to nearly all information today is becoming a survival skill. I see no more important educational goal today - it is more important than "information" itself. Conflicts of interest are not necessarily disproof of claims, but it is essential to understand where they exist. Transparency is everything - especially with data. I was reading an article about peer review recently that said that most peer reviewers never actually look at the underlying data of papers they review, which is where most of the fraud and mistakes lie. A study in which peer reviewers formally requested data supporting papers under review found that a majority - more than 50% - couldn't or wouldn't provide it and many retracted their papers upon such challenge. And this highlights another kind of "conflict of interest": that of the authors need to publish or perish, independent of their funding sources. This is apparently especially profound in China, where highly prized teaching positions at colleges are won by publication volume. Another prominent example is the scandal currently on-going at Stanford where the president of the college (or is it medical school?) has become embroiled in a data fabrication scandal. It looks like much of his career has been built on faked data. This conflict wasn't in the interests of his grant sponsers; it was in the interest of his career.
Great point about the underlying data-- perhaps another skill that needs to be taught! I agree regarding skepticism.
The ALA itself, being organized as it is, gets donations from donors it does not have to publicize, some of them sizable. Some conservative news outlets have speculated that scapegoat bogeymen like George Soros or Bill Gates have contributed large sums of money to the Association (https://newspunch.com/america-187-george-soros/). I once emailed the IFRT and the bloggers group that putting the speculation to rest by publishing the names of the top 5 or 10 individual donors to the ALA in a blog entry would be interesting, if some of the donors might agree. The idea was met with silence, which I understand. If rich, powerful people who are the subject of wide-ranging and sinister conspiracy theories are giving money to your professional organization, neither the donor nor the organization want that known, probably. But I think it's pertinent. Why has the ALA taken the harder, faster sociopolitical/philosophical turn it has since 2010 or so? In the opinion of just about any fair-minded and moderate person, financial conflicts of interest are very important, whether it be who publishes the newsletters...or who sets the educational standards for an entire profession.
Here was a 2008 donation publicized by ALA for a privacy initiative: https://www.ala.org/news/news/pressreleases2008/may2008/soros
Here is a 2012 piece that is unfavorable as to an Open Society initiative, it looks like ALA publicized it but the link is no longer valid: https://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2012/02/ala-enables-soros-to-indoctrinate.html
The above sounded like a worthwhile and needed initiative but Soros is a questionable figure IMO: It is this person who has bankrolled the perpetration of the greatest suppression of free speech in American history who will guide "high school students, with public libraries as their 'newsroom,' [on] how to distinguish facts from opinions; how to check the source and validity of news and information and how to identify propaganda and misinformation."
"Libraries can
empower users to make effective use of the information they access. Providing information
literacy (IL) instruction has been an important mission of the library profession. Thomas
Jefferson (1789) explained the essential nature of a well-educated populace, saying:
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;...
whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set
them to rights." Librarians and information literacy instruction should provide an
important role in creating a well-informed populace." https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1205077.pdf
Interesting, I have always mentioned funding, and sponsorship as part of Information literacy. That's about as detailed as you can get in a first year one-shot.
That's great that you incorporate it-- thanks for letting me know.