Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘information literacy’ Category

Newspaper folded to highlight the word 'truth'

CC0, Public Domain

So there’s this phrase being bandied about: “post-truth.” As in, we live in a “post-truth era.” Popular use of the phrase is over a decade old, but its recent ascendancy lead The Oxford English Dictionary to name it Word of the Year for 2016; here’s the OED definition: relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. I mean, we’re at the point where Trump supporters racists are literally saying that “there’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore of facts.” Armchair political scientists and ersatz media commentators are having a field day using post-truth politics to explain everything from contemporary political discourse to Brexit to identity politics to the rise of neo-Nazism to the presidential election and everything in between. “We’ve let sentimentality take precedence over facts and look where that got us!” seems to be the rallying cry.

As you’ve probably noticed, librarians are all over post-truth. Librarians are adamant that information literacy can help combat the post-truth world of fake news. School librarians have been singled out as key players in combating post-truth. School Library Journal is advocating for news literacy toolkits. The Annoyed Librarian wrote something or other. And the hot-takes on Twitter are all over the place. “The post-truth era needs information literacy and that means librarians need to step up!” seems to be the rallying cry.

There’s only one problem with that: information literacy has never been about truth.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

by mattbuck, CC-BY-SA 3.0

by mattbuck, CC-BY-SA 3.0

So, I’ve been trying to come up with a research agenda. I mean, I can’t be the “Framework is stupid” guy forever;1 I don’t want to get pigeonholed.

Anyway, it’s Sunday night and I’m thinking that if I’m going to turn my back on whatever the ACRL comes up with, I’ve still got to have a working concept of “information literacy” (or something to that effect.) Well, I’ve had this idea rattling around for over a year and the other day I finally thought I’d pursue it. So I fired up the LISTA database and started searching for something I figured some librarians somewhere had already researched thoroughly: Bayesian interpretations of information literacy.

Nothing. Not a single article. I checked a few of the major journals. Nada. Google Scholar? Just one 2002 article by Carol Gordon (formerly of Rutgers and clearly on to something). I headed over to Twitter and asked where the rest of the research was? Crickets. From what I can tell, no librarians are applying Bayesian theory to information literacy. Shoot, the impression I’m getting is that most information literacy librarians have never even heard of Bayesian inference. So that’s going to be it. My research agenda will be to introduce a Bayesian approach to information literacy.

But what does that even mean? Here’s a brief overview:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Name tag that says 'Hello my name is meta'

by findyoursearch CC BY-SA

 

On my most recent post about the ACRL-Document-That-Must-Not-Be-Named, @valibrarian asked what I thought about metaliteracy. I’ve written so much about threshold concepts in the You-Know-What but I’ve never really tackled that other strange idea. True, I wrote a short “what’s the deal with metaliteracy?” post more than five years ago on the transliteracy blog.

Oh, yeah, transliteracy. I wrote some stuff about that back in the day. Don’t judge.

Anyway, @valibrarian asked:

Excellent thoughts on the current ideas floating in the ethereal digital thinking world on the topic of information literacy. You ponder, “Now, it could be that the frame is just invoking the postmodern ….” in reference to that time of “deconstruction of everything” as part of the quest for meaning. (Glad that is over and we are now in metamodernism which is more hopeful.)

Nomenclature, once again, and choice of phrasing is imperative to understanding, yet continues to be a paradox of ever-changing words. As a former blogger on the Libraries and Transliteracy Project, I am wondering if you embrace the term metaliteracy? I keep colliding with the two terms (metaliteracy and metamodernism) and am working on a paper to defend them as currently useful to identify literacy in global digital participatory culture- where we now live and learn.

To which I responded:

Every presentation I ever gave on transliteracy began with me telling the audience that ‘transliteracy’ was just a silly little buzzword…BUT the issues that motivated people to grab on to that buzzword were (and are) real and substantive. It’s the same way with metaliteracy; I think it’s a largely meaningless buzzword. Honestly, the concept just seems simple and somewhat shallow to me. Literally everything discussed under the aegis of metaliteracy has been studied at great length elsewhere (mass comm, epistemology, psychology, information theory, rhetoric, critical thinking, etc.). Calling it “postmodern” and slapping some Bourdieu and Lyotard quotes on it doesn’t make metaliteracy any more meaningful.

BUT the issues that motivated people to create the buzzword ‘metaliteracy’ are worth looking at. The effects of social media and digital environments on cognition and communication are certainly worth studying and worth considering carefully. I just find the literature in other disciplines more robust and compelling. As to metamodernism, I haven’t heard that one yet. Sounds like post-post modernism.

I guess this is the way scholarship works now: find a popular concept, claim it no longer applies to our “changing world”, slap on a new prefix, and publish the shit out of it for the 2-3 years that people pay attention. Transliteracy, metaliteracy, hyperliteracy, post-literacy, neoliteracy, metamodern, ultramodern, neomodern…which one will be next do you think? Sorry if I seem cynical, I just think we get too hung up on naming and constructing theories and we end up forgetting about the real issues that motivated us in the first place.

And that, dear readers, is what I think of metaliteracy.

 

Read Full Post »

A woman holding a laptop in the library stacks.

by Leo Hidalgo, CC BY-NC

Three down, three to go. Welcome back to another round of “Revisiting the Framework” where I’m going through and looking at how the ACRL Framework changed between the original draft version I reviewed in 2014 and the final, ACRL-approved version. It’s been a week or so since my last post, but I’m smoking some chicken leg quarters and I have some time to write, so here it goes. Here’s where we’re at so far:

So, on to the next one: Research as Inquiry.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

 

I haven’t blogged in over six months, but I’ve been thinking about getting back into it. I’ve got about a half dozen half-written posts on everything from discovery layers to curriculum design to some 6000 words on critical theory in librarianship. Maybe I’ll publish them one day. Maybe not. But I’ve read a few things over the past few days that I just had to comment on.

As you may have heard by now, the ACRL formally rescinded the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Going forward,  the Framework for Information Literacy represents the official stance of the ACRL on information literacy. Now, I really don’t want to keep doing the ACRL Framework versus ACRL Standards debate. Yes, I’ve been critical of the Framework. I was on the task force that made the thing and I saw how the sausage was made. I think it’s based on an underdetermined educational theory and I think the six frames were chosen through a flawed methodology. I could nitpick the thing to death but I won’t (again). Rather, I just want to go on record that the rhetoric surrounding the Framework debate is its largest problem. After the ACRL announcement, the library instructors on Twitter and email lists got pretty worked up, with some praising the decision and others condemning it. And then I saw someone compare the ACRL decision to Brexit as both were “shortsighted” and would diminish the importance of the ACRL and the UK, respectively and…wow. On one hand, a parochial and voluntary association of librarians replaces one toothless policy statement with another toothless policy statement. On the other hand, a racist, anti-immigrant campaign built on lies and misinformation has just destabilized an entire country, if not the world. Yeah. Pretty much the same.

cusack

Granted, that’s only one arguably offensive comparison, but still it is illustrative of just how hyperbolic people can get over the ACRL’s decisions regarding information literacy. What I can’t seem to figure out is why.

As I see it, the arguments in favor of retaining the Standards all seem to center on either historical convenience. (“we don’t want to have to rewrite our lesson plans”) or political convenience (“like it or not, we still have to assess and to consider accreditation”). On the flip side, most of the rhetoric surrounding the Framework is about “empowering” library instructors to do things the Standards wouldn’t “let them do.” Most of the Framework excitement boils down to “oh, I can finally do this” or “now we can teach that” or some other statements about how liberating and refreshing the Framework is compared to the dusty, old Standards. Outside of that, the usual line is simply that the Framework and Standards can’t coexist and the Framework has now been adopted, so that’s that. But, guess what…

You don’t want to rewrite your lesson plans? Then don’t. The ACRL doesn’t send the Pinkertons after non-compliant libraries. So you should be fine.

You’re worried about assessment or accreditation? Here. That’s the AAC&U VALUE rubric for information literacy. It’s basically the same as the Standards except it’s actually usable. And your faculty will have heard of it. You’re welcome.

You think the Framework opens up new and liberating ways to teach; that the Standards were holding you back? Then you haven’t been paying attention. There is literally nothing being proposed under the Framework that wasn’t already being done either under the Standards or in spite of the Standards. You think we weren’t already teaching that authority is contextual? Or that information has value? Those six frames aren’t new discoveries…they’re codifications of existing thoughts and practices; thoughts and practices that developed within the milieu of the information literacy Standards. The simple truth of the matter is that where the Framework is useful, it’s not original (and where it is original, it’s not useful, I would add).

You think both the Framework and Standards are useful and want to use both? Go for it. The whole line about the two being inconsistent is nonsense. One of the lessons of the Framework is that the ACRL is not concerned with consistency and rigor with respect to theory adoption. The Framework adopted only the parts of threshold concept theory that suited it, so you can adopt only the parts of the Framework that suit you. And that includes ignoring the part that says the Framework and Standards are inconsistent. I mean, it’s written into the danged Framework itself: “each library and its partners on campus will need to deploy these frames to best fit their own situation.”

You think that’s all well and good for those with the privilege, but your boss/library/university requires that you use one or the other? Maybe you love the Framework but your mean old department head refuses to leave the Standards. Maybe you’re not ready to leave the Standards but your director heard about the Framework at a conference and thinks it’s the greatest thing ever. If either is the case, and you are receiving pressure from above to conform to one or the other policy, then just conform. It doesn’t matter. You can easily map the same learning objectives to either the Standards or the Framework. Like I said, there’s nothing new in the Framework. If anything, the Framework is so much broader and vague compared to the Standards, that it’s easier to map to it.1 You may feel forced to accept one of these policies, but that doesn’t control how you interpret it.2

chooseyrownadventureinfolitUltimately, I think we need to get away the rhetoric about what these two documents will and will not let us do and realize that the choice is up to us. Instead of focusing on the merits and demerits of each set of standards (yes, the Framework is a set of standards) we ought to be focusing on the merits and demerits of standardization more generally. Emily Drabinski has a very perceptive rundown of the role that standardization plays in librarianship. I only just read it after writing everything above, but she makes some of the same points, albeit much more intelligently. You should read it. All I can add is that we need to remember that the old Standards and the new Framework are just standards. Though they may use language that appears to be describing some fundamental reality about information literacy, they can’t actually do that. Neither amounts to any substantive theory of information literacy. Neither is authoritative. They’re just interpretations. They’re suggestions. They both serve as frameworks through which we learn to speak a common language. Yes, I think the Framework is a deeply flawed document, but at least when I hear someone say that “scholarship is a conversation” I know more or less where they are coming from and we can have a dialogue.3 As a professional community we need these sorts of shared understandings, and that’s what standards and frameworks do for us.

I feel like I’m just repeating what much smarter librarians have already said, so I’ll give it a rest. Give up on the hand-wringing. Use the Framework. Use the Standards. Use them both. Use neither. In the grand scheme of things it really doesn’t matter.

doesntmatter
[1] Recently, a local composition instructor did a deep reading of the Framework with us and said that her entire curriculum could fit under the Framework. Whether that’s because the Framework is too vague or that the Framework is overreaching in its scope is unclear.

[2] And if your director is at the point of dictating how you are supposed to interpret an information literacy document, that’s a management problem, not a Standards/Framework problem.

[3] about what a terrible metaphor that is

Read Full Post »

by vuhung on Flickr. CC-BY 2.0

by vuhung on Flickr. CC-BY 2.0

A few posts back I mentioned Patrick Wilson’s 1983 book Second-Hand Knowledge [link], in which he argues that librarians ought to pay more attention to cognitive authority. I started writing a book review last week but I quickly realized that Wilson’s discussion is actually pretty weak. I mean, for a guy with a PhD in philosophy from Berkeley, it’s surprising how philosophically sloppy and under-researched his arguments are. But, there are a couple of interesting positions he takes and I’d like to quickly outline one that I think might be a bit polarizing.

The general argument of the book goes something like this:

  1. Most of what we believe comes from the testimony of other people (which includes texts, video, etc.)
  2. But, we don’t count all information sources as equally reliable: “some people know what they are talking about, others do not. Those who do are my cognitive authorities.” (p. 13).
  3. Cognitive authorities can be defined in terms of a social relationship in which one person has epistemic influence over another person with respect to some sphere of interest.
  4. There is a “knowledge industry” created in part to regulate cognitive authority. This includes formal institutions like publishers, universities, academic societies, and libraries that help regulate the social relationship of cognitive authority. It also includes informal theoretical systems that determine spheres of interest. These informal systems can be seen in the way intellectual fashions change over time (e.g., New Criticism vs. structuralism vs. post-structuralism vs. deconstructionism…each has its own criteria for authority).
  5. Libraries are a part of the knowledge industry that regulates cognitive authority.
  6. So, librarians should understand cognitive authority and their relationship to it.

It takes a while for Wilson to address libraries and librarians, but in Chapter 6 he turns his attention to the role of the library in the knowledge industry and he reflects on why people use libraries in the first place: they want information. But not just any information. They don’t want misinformation. They want quality information from cognitive authorities. But, given that libraries are literally filled with misinformation, there seems to be a need for some sort of quality control either at the point of collection or the point of access. Ideally, there should be someone to help information seekers determine if they’ve got the best available information. Wilson asks, “can those professionally responsible for information storage and retrieval act as quality controllers?” (p. 171).* In other words, what makes librarians trustworthy sources of information? Well, there are a few options.

First, it would seem to be the case that in order to effectively evaluate information, we ought to be experts on the relevant subject area. So, if a student comes to the reference desk looking for articles on Aztec funerary practices, I need to be an expert on Aztec funerary practices in order to identify which articles are the best. And so it goes for any subject area: a science librarian must be at least as much an authority on scientific matters as a practicing scientist, a medical librarian must be equal in expertise to a medical doctor. Occasionally you’ll even hear librarians (or, more typically their administrators) talk about hiring more PhDs to fill subject librarian lines: “we need experts.”

The only problem is that outside of the field of library science itself it’s impossible for a librarian to have authoritative expertise on anything but a very small aspect of a library collection. We hire ‘science’ librarians and ‘medical’ librarians, not ‘organometallic chemistry’ librarians and ‘cardiology’ librarians. Even a librarian with a PhD in a given field is only going to have expertise in certain areas of that field; the PhD is a mark of specialization, not omniscience. Put simply, librarians can’t be expected to be polymaths.**

However, even if we lack subject-expertise, we may have some other expertise. Maybe, Wilson suggests, librarians are “authorities on authority.” Maybe the librarian is the person who “can be trusted to tell us who else can be trusted” (p.179). We don’t have to be experts in the fields in which we can identify authorities; we just need some way determining who deserves to be taken as having cognitive authority. Sort of a meta-level evaluation of information. This certainly seems a compelling possibility, and it does lend credence to our insistence on spreading the gospel of information literacy. But, Wilson makes an interesting argument on this point. If a librarian isn’t a subject expert, all she can use are “indirect tests” of authority. These include asking

  1. What is the present reputation of the author of this information?  (p. 166)
  2. Who is the publisher? (p. 168)
  3. Is the information intrinsically plausible? (p. 169)

Here, Wilson has crafted the beginnings of what would later develop into information literacy (even looks a little like the CRAP test doesn’t it?). But, Wilson is quick to point out that these indirect tests are something that almost any person can master. If librarians’ judgments about information quality “are based not on expertise in the subject matter concerned but only on external signs and clues, then they are based on the same sorts of things that any other person ignorant of the subject matter would have to use” (p. 181). So, librarians can’t claim some special expertise or credibility when it comes to evaluating information. There are no trade secrets. So, even if we try to elevate information literacy as the locus of our expertise, we fail.

And here we get to the reason I wrote this post: the possibly polarizing position.

If Wilson is right that librarians are not cognitive authorities on anything other than library science itself, then why do information-seekers trust librarians? The answer is not that librarians are specialists. Quite the contrary. Librarians are delegates. It isn’t that librarians are better than average at making decisions about cognitive authority, it’s that they are no worse and so people trust librarians to work on their behalf (p. 186).

Let that sink in for a moment.

Librarians love arguing their roles in their communities. Are we activists? Educators? Gatekeepers? And we love arguing about the lack of rigor in library school programs.*** Maybe we ought to stop beating ourselves up over what intellectual, political, or moral mission makes us different from the communities we serve. Maybe we just are our communities? In a certain sense, this is liberating; we can learn to evade the detachment that characterizes our profession. We can meet our communities as equals, not experts. We can understand the reasons that motivate movements like New Librarianship or critical librarianship. Wilson was on to something.

Then again, what do we lose as delegates? Probably not our professional stature: we’d still be authorities/experts on library science.  But, perhaps our gravity outside of library science? The librarian is a cultural archetype and we are often called-on to weigh-in on non-library issues. Perhaps some of our advocacy? The delegate view would completely invalidate many ALA resolutions as being outside a far narrower conception of our expertise; as Wittgenstein said, “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Perhaps our commitment to intellectual freedom? After all, we’d be responsible for following community opinion, even if that opinion lends itself towards intellectual conservatism. Perhaps our value as an information resource? Wilson certainly didn’t anticipate the Google age. Perhaps whatever professional pride we have left?  It’s hard to say. But it’s worth thinking about. I’ll concede that this post barely scratches the surface and I hope someone else is inspired to investigate.

Summing up: Are librarians authorities on information? Are we experts on information literacy? Wilson’s argument suggests that no, we aren’t. We’re delegates appointed by our communities. I highly recommend reading Wilson’s Second-Hand Knowledge.  Like I said, most of it is shoddy philosophy. But there are a few important insights. Personally, I’m not convinced by Wilson’s librarian-as-delegate argument. I’ve covered the paradox of authority and expertise in the past [one, two, three] and I reached a very different conclusion from Wilson, one in support of librarians as cognitive authorities. But, Wilson’s argument shouldn’t be discounted. Take it on my authority.

 

by adulau on Flickr. CC-BY-SA 2.0

by adulau on Flickr. CC-BY-SA 2.0

* Of course, librarians have a standard response when asked to provide quality control: evaluation requires subject expertise and librarians only have expertise in information handling and librarianship (p. 173). So, librarians have to be neutral, which is a deeply problematic position to take. And impossible to boot.

** Not to say that there aren’t librarians who are expert authorities on certain topics. There certainly are. But, professionally speaking, requiring librarians to be authorities on entire fields or entire collections is like asking for unicorns.

*** Personally, I think that programs that focus more on information science can and often do have intellectually challenging and engaging classes.

Read Full Post »

UPDATE: July 29, 2016. This post reviews the draft version of the ACRL Framework. For a review of the final version of “Information has Value” please visit this link: https://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2016/07/29/revisiting-the-framework-does-information-have-value/

1105081960_290f1aa267_z(1)

Well, we’ve reached the last frame of the draft ACRL information literacy revision: Information has Value. Here’s the full list if you want to go back and read about the others:

  1. Scholarship is a Conversation
  2. Research as Inquiry
  3. Authority is Contextual and Constructed
  4. Format as a Process
  5. Searching as Exploration
  6. Information has Value

This is an especially interesting frame. Not only is it a late addition to the framework (the other five have been around since the first draft in February), but it also may be the most widely accepted and discussed concept in the framework. Just search for the phrase “information has value” and you’ll get thousands of hits from the business world, computer sciences, the medical field, education, libraries, and others. Add the keyword ‘library’ and you’ll still get thousands of hits. This concept is so uncontroversial and commonplace that it’s difficult to pinpoint just how it’s “troublesome” in the sense of being a threshold concept. But it’s not too difficult to show that it’s troublesome in other ways…

Overview

From the draft framework:

Information has Value acknowledges that the creation of information and products derived from information requires a commitment of time, original thought, and resources that need to be respected by those seeking to use these products, or create their own based on the work of others. In addition, information may be valued more or less highly based on its creator, its audience/consumer, or its message.

Experts understand that this value designates information as intellectual property, and therefore, recognizes three important dimensions of value. First, information can act as a commodity, and as such, creators can use their work for financial, reputational, social, or civic gains. These motivations may determine how information sources are shared whether given freely, offered for sale, or leased for temporary access. Information users have responsibilities as both consumers and creators of information based on the work of others. Academic and legal practices such as proper attribution of sources and complying with copyright are a result.

Second, as intellectual property, information sources are affected by economic, sociological, and political influences. The means of production may privilege some voices over others. Some search systems may privilege some sources over others due to economic incentive. Experts understand the consequences of selecting appropriate research methods (such as applying the correct statistical analysis to data), the limitations of publishing practices (such as scholarly journals’ lack of interest in publishing negative research results), and the boundaries to accessing the information ecosystem (such as populations without internet access or obstacles created by paywalls).

Finally, experts recognize that their online activity and information they contribute to online sites can be used for economic gain by the sites themselves. Such uses may include personal information harvested from social media sites or advertisements placed on “free” web tools or apps. One’s online presence is monitored, tracked and, ultimately, monetized.

Following the committee’s logic, we can pull out three descriptive components of this frame:

  1. Information sometimes behaves as a commodity.
  2. The flow of information is affected by economic, social, and political influences.
  3. Web services can use the information you provide for their own economic gain.

And, further, we can pull out two prescriptive responsibilities:

  1. Respect the labor of information creators by adhering to proper source attribution.
  2. Respect the commodification of information by complying with copyright.

Interestingly, these two prescriptive components are tied to the first descriptive element: information as commodity. There are no corresponding prescriptive elements to the second and third descriptive elements. I mean, sure we can make inferences. Perhaps experts stand against economic, social , and political influences on information creation? Perhaps we should work to make information more accessible? Perhaps we should be careful about what information we share online? Or, maybe just describing the current state of affairs in the information ecosystem is enough. But, if that’s the case, why are there those two prescriptive claims regarding intellectual property rights?

Elsewhere, Jacob Berg has argued that this frame conceals a morally suspect take on intellectual property. Copyright law is broken, he argues, yet here we have the ACRL advocating that experts on information literacy should comply with a system “that every information professional should know is broken, at odds with the common good and encouraging innovation.” That being said, I’m not sure it’s as dire as Berg argues. The ACRL could just be describing economic reality: copyright exists; be careful.

Regarding the claim that information is affected by social forces, I’m first struck by how odd the ACRL’s first example is. Experts understand the consequence of selecting the correct statistical analysis? What does that have to do with economic, political, or social influences? Is there some post-colonial version of ANOVA that I haven’t heard of? A t-test that resists neoliberalism? Don’t get me wrong, understanding statistical methods is important for successful research, but I don’t see the link to economic/social/political influence. I might also add that if the common criticisms of LIS research are any indication librarians are decidedly not experts on quantitative methods.

Moving on, it’s absolutely true that journals handle negative results far differently from so-called significant findings. Likewise, accessibility is clearly affected by social and economic forces. But, at least from a social justice perspective, there is the opportunity here for the ACRL to take a more substantial position on racism, heteronormativity, sexism, and similar systemic oppressions. I wish they would have and overall I feel the second claim is part of the way towards a valuable insight, but there is a lot left unpacked and unsaid.

Finally, I’m glad the ACRL is promoting more responsible digital stewardship of personal information. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell.

1490449135_3d67147ad2_z

 

Knowledge Practices (Abilities)

Learners who are developing their information literate abilities:

Give credit to the original ideas of others through proper attribution and citation.
This is the closest the ACRL gets to discussing plagiarism.

Recognize the meaning of intellectual property in the United States.
I’m not comfortable with the U.S.-centric bias here, but I suppose if the ACRL is only meant to govern U.S. academic libraries then that’s the way it has to be.

Understand that intellectual property is a social construct that varies by culture.
Hm. While intellectual property is certainly a social construct, the degree of variations between cultures might be contestable, if the near universal support for treaties like Berne, UCC, WIPO, and others is to be believed (WIPO has 187 member states). Perhaps the moral significance attached to intellectual property varies between cultures, but that’s not what this knowledge practice says. I suppose you could make the claim that United Nations special agencies like WIPO represent the vestiges of Western imperialist/colonial hegemony, but even postcolonial studies have been drifting away from focusing on the lingering effects of past colonialism and instead focusing on the impact of contemporary capitalism….Basically what I’m trying to say is that the relationship between intellectual property and culture is far more complicated than this knowledge practice suggests.

Articulate the purpose and distinguishing characteristics of copyright, open access, and public domain.
Define some terms? Okay. But then what?

Know how to find open access materials.
Okay.

Differentiate between the production of original information and remixing or re-purposing open resources.
Okay.

Manage their online presences responsibly.
Okay.

Decide where their information, as knowledge creator, should be published.
Get rid of that silly “as a knowledge creator” clause. It’s trite and meaningless.

Dispositions

Learners who are developing their information literate abilities:

Respect the original ideas of others and the academic tradition of citation and attribution.
I’m worried about the conjunction. I see nothing wrong with respecting the original ideas of others. But respecting the “academic tradition of citation and attribution?” There’s an equivocation here between respect qua holding something or someone in high esteem and respect qua deference to authority. I don’t respect APA style in the same way I respect a person’s intellectual output. Break this disposition into two parts for clarity.

Value the creative skills needed to produce information.
“Creative skills needed“? Is it implied somewhere in this frame that all information production is preceded by a creative act? Like we should value the “creativity” of the weather report? I think there are other valuable skills beyond the creative.

See themselves as contributors to the information market place rather than only consumers of it.
What if they don’t buy into the commodification of information? What if they want to subvert the “information market place”?

Recognize issues of access or lack of access to information sources.
I might add that, more importantly, they should recognize privilege. I’m sure lots of students know that some people can’t access information. The real insight is in having students recognize their own information privilege (or lack thereof).

Understand that some individuals or groups of individuals may not be represented within the information ecosystem.
Hm. Which groups might those be? I know that there are serious issues of under-representation and marginalization facing certain social groups. But complete non-representation? Maybe an undiscovered village in the Amazon? I’d change this disposition to focus instead on the systemic marginalization and under-representation of certain voices. Non-representation suggests lack of awareness. Marginalization suggests intent. The latter is the more salient moral problem.

Overview

This frame has a lot of potential and it does hint at some subversive tendencies (at least by librarian standards). But I can’t shake the feeling that this is a missed opportunity for the ACRL to make a bolder statement about social justice. I understand there are probably political concerns that prevent the framework from taking a truly radical position. But that just goes reinforces one of the messages of “Information has Value”: even this framework is beholden to a particular social, economic, and political outlook. Which, when you think about it, sort of undermines any pretext of universality for the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy. In the document meant to guide academic libraries across the country we have the admission that the document itself can only be understood in it’s social and political context.

And so, like Ouroboros, the Framework ends by consuming itself; as information it’s value is a function of commodification, social/economic/political influences, and digital stewardship. What’s the economic value to the ACRL of putting out a brand new framework? How do the committee members writing this framework benefit? Has the document properly attributed it’s sources, or is the list of “suggested readings” at the end count? Does it matter that the introduction to the Framework only cites it’s own task force members? What’s the social and economic context of the Delphi Study that provides us with these threshold concepts? What privileges played into the construction of the framework? Which voices were not represented? Does it matter that the ACRL won’t tell us?

If this frame is taken at face-value then these questions matter and, in the absence of answers or explanations, the value of the Framework itself can be called into question. That being said, I still think the task force that put this document together should be commended for their hard work. The framework is a step in the right direction and though I doubt my nitpicking will be given much consideration, I am optimistic that the next draft–and there has to be one–will lead to more answers than questions.

R101-framework

Read Full Post »

UPDATE: 17 August 2016. This post reviews the draft Framework. For a review of the final frame, “Searching is Strategic Exploration” please visit this link: https://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/revisiting-the-framework-is-searching-strategic-explanation/

Kazimierz_Nowak_in_jungle_2

So, I’ve been going through the ACRLs new information literacy framework, and I’m up to the penultimate frame:

  1. Scholarship is a Conversation
  2. Research as Inquiry
  3. Authority is Contextual and Constructed
  4. Format as a Process
  5. Searching as Exploration
  6. Information has Value

Right now, it’s time to ask if “searching is exploration” and I’m not going to beat around the bush here: I think this frame is the weakest of the bunch. Allow me to explain:

Overview

The framework gives us the following explanation as to how searching is similar to exploration

Locating information requires a combination of inquiry, discovery, and serendipity. There is no one size fits all source to find the needed information. Information discovery is nonlinear and iterative, requiring the use of a broad range of information sources and flexibility to pursuit alternate avenues as new understanding is developed.

The search for information is ignited by inquiry, the pursuit of which is rarely linear and requires the knowledge and use of a range of source types. It is also a process of discovery, and experts realize that methods employed may be fluid and that any element (including inquiry) of an overall approach can change based on increased understanding of a subject; discovering one source can lead to other sources or avenues of inquiry. Experts also recognize that there are boundaries for research, such as the context of the initial inquiry and time available to pursue it, and that part of the process is determining project scope based on these boundaries.

A novice researcher may rely on one or two familiar resources while an expert surveys the breadth of information sources to determine where to best obtain the information sought within the project scope. These sources include more than Internet resources, databases, social media, books, journals, etc. They include the knowledge, observations and expertise of people as well. For example, it may become necessary to conduct a formal interview or stop somewhere to ask for directions. Experts use resources that make the most contextual sense to satisfy an inquiry ethically.

Further, effective use of selected resources is predicated on understanding them. Just as understanding how a system is constructed and works will empower the expert to uncover more relevant results, an understanding of people and effective communication can enable access to their knowledge. The very best interviewers are more effective at teasing out details than beginners, for example. Experts will also spend time learning about their selected resource to better understand it and access needed information as different resources require different methods of access.

“Flexibility to pursuit alternate avenues?” Passive voice? Split infinitives? Unnecessary commas? Awkward phrasing? Run-on sentences? Yep. This was clearly written by committee. Let’s hope a proofreader gets to the Framework before final approval.

Grammar aside, I’m just not sure what to make of this frame given the frames we’ve already looked at. From “Research as Inquiry” we already know that finding information requires inquiry, iteration, and a willingness to change search strategies. From “Format as a Process” we already know that understanding “how a system is constructed” empowers research and that experts seek out a broad range of information sources. From “Authority is Constructed and Contextual” we already know that experts seek out information sources in the context of their particular need. Really, if you cross out the parts of this current frame that are repeated elsewhere, you get something like this:

Locating information requires a combination of inquiry, discovery, and serendipity. There is no one size fits all source to find the needed information. Information discovery is nonlinear and iterative, requiring the use of a broad range of information sources and flexibility to pursuit alternate avenues as new understanding is developed.

The search for information is ignited by inquiry, the pursuit of which is rarely linear and requires the knowledge and use of a range of source types. It is also a process of discovery, and experts realize that methods employed may be fluid and that any element (including inquiry) of an overall approach can change based on increased understanding of a subject; discovering one source can lead to other sources or avenues of inquiry. Experts also recognize that there are boundaries for research, such as the context of the initial inquiry and time available to pursue it, and that part of the process is determining project scope based on these boundaries.

A novice researcher may rely on one or two familiar resources while an expert surveys the breadth of information sources to determine where to best obtain the information sought within the project scope. These sources include more than Internet resources, databases, social media, books, journals, etc. They include the knowledge, observations and expertise of people as well. For example, it may become necessary to conduct a formal interview or stop somewhere to ask for directions. Experts use resources that make the most contextual sense to satisfy an inquiry ethically.

Further, effective use of selected resources is predicated on understanding them. Just as understanding how a system is constructed and works will empower the expert to uncover more relevant results, an understanding of people and effective communication can enable access to their knowledge. The very best interviewers are more effective at teasing out details than beginners, for example. Experts will also spend time learning about their selected resource to better understand it and access needed information as different resources require different methods of access.

The only completely original parts of this frame are that finding information requires serendipity and that expert researchers consider their time when setting project scope. Neither of these observations strike me as particularly insightful.

Now, maybe you’ll disagree with a line I’ve crossed out and you can offer an interpretation to distinguish it from the other frames. That’s cool. But, when it comes to official guidelines for professional practice, I’d think that the bulk of the cognitive work of clarifying and interpreting these concepts should fall on the ACRL, not on us. I certainly don’t want the Framework to follow the rigidly descriptive format of the current ACRL standards, so I’m open to allowing for some interpretation. But there comes a point when things get so vague and open to so many potential interpretations that a frame runs the risk of losing its helpfulness. All I’m getting out of the “Searching is Exploration” frame is that searching and exploring are things I should think about when I’m thinking about information literacy.

Basically, I’ve read this frame so many times that I’ve lost count and I still can’t get a handle on it. Maybe I’m just dense. It’s like I can see certain concepts floating around in this frame, but they feel disjointed and imprecise. If I’m not seeing something in this frame (i.e., I haven’t crossed the threshold), please, please let me know in the comments. I just can’t hep but read this frame as a vague rehash of ideas from other frames. Maybe this frame is meant to point out some synthetic understanding that comes from grasping the previous frames? I really have no idea.

by stewdean on FLickr, CC-BY 2.0

by stewdean on Flickr, CC-BY 2.0

Knowledge Practices

Learners who are developing their information literate abilities:

Determine the scope of the question or task required to meet one’s needs.
This is really important. One of the biggest problems first-year students face is “right-sizing” their research. Your research question is “gun control”? That’s it? That’s not even a question! Students don’t get scope.

Identify interested parties that might produce information about a topic and how that information might be accessed.
In other words, “seek out conversations that are taking place in their area of research” and “identify which formats best meet particular information needs.”

Demonstrate the importance of matching information needs and search strategies to appropriate search tools.
Seems like good advice.

Recognize that some tools may be searched using both basic and advanced strategies, and understand the potential of each.
And now we’re back to database mechanics. I’m actually down with teaching students where to click and how to use a database. But I know a lot of library instructors absolutely hate the idea of teaching mechanics, so it’s interesting to see this skill included.

Are inclined to discover citation management and sharing features, moving them from searching for information to information management strategies.
First, this is an inclination, not a skill, so it should be moved to the dispositions section. Second, this is the first of only three mentions of citing sources in the document. We’ll see the other two when we get to the last frame. Finally, how did we get from “searching as exploration” to information management strategies? Info management is important, but I don’t see the connection to the original threshold concept.

Dispositions

Learners who are developing their information literate abilities:

Show through their searching that they value persistence, adaptability, and flexibility.
From the “Research as Inquiry” frame: “Value persistence, adaptability, and flexibility, and recognize that ambiguity can be beneficial.” Of course the same disposition can come into play in multiple frames. Just pointing out the similarity. Also, what’s the distinction between adaptability and flexibility?

Understand that first attempts at searching don’t always pay off.
This seems more like a knowledge practice, not a disposition. But I agree that it’s important that students are persistent and able to handle a failed search.

Are willing to analyze needs at the beginning of information searches.
Where does the Framework talk about needs? I have a great discussion/activity that frames research in terms of five needs (background, current events, data, research, analysis) but I might be totally off-base. It would be nice if the ACRL included something about analyzing information needs.

Recognize the value of browsing and other serendipitous methods of information gathering.
Good advice.

Reevaluate needs and next steps throughout the search process.
Searching is iterative and reflection is important. Got it.

The verdict: Is searching like exploration?

In one sense, it’s trivially true that searching is exploration: just look up “searching” in a thesaurus: this frame establishes that synonyms are a thing. In a slightly different sense, this frame seems to want to say something more interesting about the need for persistence and adaptability. But, like I said earlier, I have trouble figuring this frame out. Perhaps one of my stumbling-blocks has to do with the difference between search and research. I use those terms to mean different things, but I can’t tell if the ACRL does; the overlap between the search and research frames is so great that it almost seems they are talking about the same thing and that searching and researching are largely synonymous.

So, I’m going to decline to make a ruling on this one. To me the frame seems to be a combination of vague ideas mostly covered in more detail in other frames. If anyone can help me out, feel free to share in the comments.

Read Full Post »

UPDATE: 22 July 2016. This post reviews the draft Framework. For a review of the final frame, “Information Creation as a Process” please visit this link: https://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2016/07/22/revisiting-the-framework-is-information-creation-a-process/

Beta_tape_sizes_2

Hope you’re ready for Frame Four of the ACRL Information Literacy Framework. Just to recap, the six frames are…

  1. Scholarship is a Conversation
  2. Research as Inquiry
  3. Authority is Contextual and Constructed
  4. Format as a Process
  5. Searching as Exploration
  6. Information has Value

Let’s dive right in.

Overview

The fourth frame, “Format as a Process”, is described as follows:

Format is the way tangible knowledge is disseminated. The essential characteristic of format is the underlying process of information creation, production, and dissemination, rather than how the content is delivered or experienced.

A print source is characterized by its physical structure (e.g., binding, size, number of pages) as well as its intellectual structure (e.g., table of contents, index, references). A digital source is characterized by its presentation, intellectual structure and physical structure (e.g., file format). In many cases, the way that information is presented online obscures not just the format, but also the processes of creation and production that need to be understood in order to evaluate the source fully. Understanding what distinguishes one format from another and why it matters requires a thorough knowledge of the information and research cycles, scholarly communication, and common publishing practices, especially for those who have never experienced the print version of formats.

The expert understands that the quality and usefulness of a given piece of information is determined by the processes that went into making it. The processes of researching, writing, editing, and publishing information–whether print or digital–can be highly divergent, and information quality reflects these differences. From tweets to magazines to scholarly articles, the unique capabilities and constraints of each format determines how information can and should be used. The expert learns that the instant publishing found in social media often comes at the cost of accuracy, while the thorough editorial process of a book often comes at the cost of currency. Whatever form information takes, the expert looks to the underlying processes of creation as well as the final product in order to critically evaluate that information for use as evidence

Hmm. Where to begin? Well, ‘format’ is just the way something is organized and displayed. And to assert that format affects information quality implies that the same semantic information, when disseminated through different formats, will see its quality or utility change. So, for example, my prized hardcover novelization of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a different format from the paperback version of the same work. Hence, it is of a different quality or usefulness.

But, wait. Both books have the same words. How does repagination or a difference in paper quality make the information substantially different? Is the ebook also different? The audiobook? The serialized web version? Don’t get me wrong, format changes can affect quality. Audio formats are a good example: whether you purchased your Indiana Jones soundtrack on vinyl, CD, or mp3, there will be measurable changes to the information quality due to sampling rate, compression, and similar format specific issues. But, is a scholarly article substantially different in print compared to its corresponding online PDF? Is it necessarily so? The research, writing, and editing are the same. The publication process is almost the same, the only difference being the end format.

Here’s the thing: this frame isn’t about format at all. From the standpoint of information use, the differences between a .jpg image and a .png image, or a print book and an ebook, are an engineering issue, not an information literacy issue. I think the real focus of this frame is media, not format, and a more intuitive way to state the concept might simply be “Medium Matters.” Abstracting away a little bit, the frame seems to be saying that the path or channel that information takes between points A and B can have an effect on the information quality. Again, this is not format: it’s medium and medium does have to play a role in how we evaluate infor—-

 

mcluhan

Crap. It’s Marshall McLuhan. I should have known he’d show up. He’s certainly popped up in some of the online discussion I’ve seen on this ACRL Frame.

[Sigh.]

So, McLuhan came up with the whole “media is the message” theory and there does seem to be something vaguely McLuhan-esque about this Frame. McLuhan’s basic thesis was that communications technologies (i.e., media) are the dominant forces conditioning human cognition. Further, he argued, you can’t understand information independently from it’s medium. While that’s all well and good, McLuhan ran with this technological determinism and claimed that the medium itself was more important than the information the medium carried. Information doesn’t change society, media does.

When I first read McLuhan ’round about 1998, he blew my mind. But now…not so much. I don’t want to fall down the rabbit hole of explaining why I don’t think McLuhan’s ideas hold any water; let’s just say I consider him the Malcolm Gladwell of the 60s and that linking this frame to McLuhanism is not necessarily going to help anyone out.

Anyway, I think the core of this frame is simply that the medium used to communicate information can have an effect on information quality (can…not must). Communicating via social media typically involves a different level of editing than communicating via a newspaper, a magazine, or a scholarly article. Whether a publisher is involved (and which publisher) makes a huge difference as well. And where these rather obvious ideas get lost is in the way that web research tends to mask the original medium. It’s like a slide from a presentation I saw tweeted a month ago: students look at Google search results and see “website, website, website, website…” Librarians look at the same Google results and see “government document, book, blog, scholarly article, commercial website….” (sorry, I have no idea whose presentation it was. anyone remember so I can give credit?).

Overall, the basic idea is pretty straightforward and other than mixing up the terms format and medium, the ACRL is on the right path here. But, as with other frames, the overwrought language is more obfuscating than helpful.

1024px-MeKuWi-Logo

Knowledge Practices (Abilities)

I’ll annotate these.

Learners who are developing their information literate abilities:

Understand that format and method of access are separate entities.

Okay.

Recognize that different creation processes result in the presence of distinct attributes.

Awkwardly worded, but trivially true

Articulate the purposes of various formats, as well as their distinguishing characteristics.

So, what is the purpose of a book, anyway? The purpose of a tweet? This can get pretty metaphysical pretty quickly.

Identify which formats best meet particular information needs.

Also known as “knowing where to look.” I need a telephone number? I’m not going to turn to academic articles. Again, a fairly obvious practice.

Decide which format and mode of transmission to use when disseminating their own creations of information.

Also known as, “knowing where to publish.” Here we also get the first and only distinction between format and medium, even though it only really makes sense to think of the frame in terms of medium. And that phrase “their own creations of information” is just awful.

Transfer knowledge to new formats in unpredictable and evolving environments.

You just know that they mean “social media” here.

 

Dispositions

Learners who are developing their information literate abilities:

Are inclined to seek out markers for information sources that indicate the underlying creation process.

Inclined to find out how it was made. I’m down with that.

Identify the most effective format in seeking information.

Sounds more like a skill/ability/practice than a disposition. Unless they mean the student is inclined to seek the most “effective  format.” Wait. The “most effective format in seeking information?” That grammar! What does that even mean? Perhaps they mean that students should be disposed to look to whichever medium is most appropriate for their information need. Is that simpler? It is to me. But most people aren’t me, so I don’t know. Whatever the case, it needs to be reworded for clarity.

Understand that different formats of information dissemination with different impacts are available for their use.

Ugh. That awkward writing again. “formats of information dissemination?” Do you mean media? Aren’t you just saying that students should understand that there are lots of different media they can use? That sounds better to me. But whatever the case, this is clearly a skill-based concept, not a disposition.

 

The verdict: Is format a process?

This frame could have a lot going for it, but it just comes across as confused. Mixing up format and medium makes it seem (to me) that the relevant concepts weren’t understood or weren’t researched properly, which sort of casts doubt on other parts of the Framework.* The knowledge practices are pretty straightforward for the most part, but they also seem fairly shallow. Same goes for the dispositions. Which kind of leads me to a general concern with the way this frame treats students. I might be oversensitive here, but this entire frame seems to take a rather dim view of student’s intelligence. Do undergraduates really find the concept troublesome? It would be nice if we had some evidence to support the ACRL’s contention that all or most students struggle with issues surrounding format/medium. Maybe some evidence to show that “format is a process” isn’t something we can share with students in a simple, intuitive way. But, all I’ve seen are occasional anecdotes. Yes, students will benefit from understanding the processes underlying different media. But calling it a “threshold concept” that will blow students’ minds comes across as somewhat infantilizing. I guess I tend to give my students more credit than the ACRL wants to.

 

 

1280px-Toddler_running_and_falling

 

* Granted, I may just be overly pedantic on this point and, in reality, librarians could be using ‘format’ to mean ‘medium’ as a matter of practice. I doubt it, but I think the general critique still stands: focusing on communication channels is what’s really important here.

Read Full Post »

UPDATE: 22 July, 2016. This post looks at the draft Framework. For a review of the approved version of the frame “Authority is Constructed and Contextual” please visit https://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2016/07/19/revisiting-the-framework-is-authority-constructed-and-contextual/

by Cory Doctorow on Flickr, CC BY 2.0

by Cory Doctorow on Flickr, CC BY 2.0

Ready for round three?

So far I’ve looked at two of the ACRL’s proposed threshold concepts for information literacy, noting that scholarship is only a conversation at a superficial and metaphorical level and that research is indeed inquiry, though the ACRL’s frame describing it is needlessly complex for such a simple, definitional concept. So, where are we?

  1. Scholarship is a Conversation
  2. Research as Inquiry
  3. Authority is Contextual and Constructed
  4. Format as a Process
  5. Searching as Exploration
  6. Information has Value

Looks like it’s time to look at authority.

Authority is Constructed and Contextual

Overview

From the ACRL draft framework, we get the following description of authority:

Authority of information resources depends upon the resources’ origins, the information need, and the context in which the information will be used. This authority is viewed with an attitude of informed skepticism and an openness to new perspectives, additional voices, and changes in schools of thought.

Experts understand that authority is the degree of trust that is bestowed and as such, authority is both contextual and constructed. It is contextual in that the information need may help determine the level of authority required. For instance, getting a weather forecast before going on a picnic does not require the foremost meteorological authority while a dissertation on the latest weather models may. It is constructed in that various communities may recognize different types of authority. For instance, a religious community may recognize the authority of religious leaders and texts which may not be as highly regarded by others who are not part of the community. Scholars within a discipline may value specific publications or publishers over others. Allowing that some kinds of expertise are more worthy than others can result in privileging certain sources of information unduly.

An understanding of this concept enables learners to critically examine all evidence – be it a Wikipedia article or a peer-reviewed conference proceeding – and ask relevant questions about origins, context, and suitability for the information need of the moment. Thus, the learner both respects the expertise that authority represents, while remaining skeptical of both the systems which have elevated that authority and the information created by it. The experienced researcher knows how to seek authoritative voices, but also recognizes that unlikely voices can be authoritative, depending on need. The novice researcher may need to rely on superficial indicators of authority such as type of publication or author credentials where experts recognize schools of thought or discipline-specific paradigms.

First off, we need to be clear on what kind of authority we’re talking about. This ain’t political authority, which is often synonymous with power. Though information literacy absolutely should address issues of power (and kudos to task force member Troy Swanson for carrying the torch on this one), this particular frame is not about systemic inequality, hierarchies of control, or oppressive social structures. Rather, this frame deals with cognitive authority, which deals instead with trust and credibility. And talking about cognitive authority gives me a chance to throw a shout-out to an LIS hero, the late professor Patrick Wilson: librarian, philosopher, and dean of the library school at Berkeley. Working at the intersection of social epistemology and library science (see why I like him?), Wilson wrote the book on authority. Literally. His 1983 Second-Hand Knowledge: An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority is one of the most widely read theoretical works on information literacy.

I’ve written before about the importance of testimonial knowledge and Wilson has argued essentially the same thing: the vast majority of what we know comes from the testimony of other people. As Wilson puts it, “all I know of the world beyond the narrow range of my own personal experience is what others have told me. It is all hearsay. But I do not count all hearsay as equally reliable. Some people know what they are talking about, others do not. Those who do are my cognitive authorities.” (1983, p. 13). These cognitive authorities are the people we deem credible and Wilson points out that this credibility is constrained in several ways. Cognitive authorities are credible only within limited spheres of influence, so, for example, an astrophysicist may not be an authority on literature and vice versa. Some spheres are very small and specialized (the authority on the mating habits of the Sao Tome Shrew) but I should add that many people are authorities in several spheres of influence.It’s also the case that these spheres of authority are contextual. For example, when I’m with my friends and family, I’m the authority on library and information science. But at work or at a conference I’m nothing special and I defer to cognitive authorities of the library world. What makes me an authority in some spheres and not an authority in others is not my expertise–that doesn’t change–but the nature of the relevant community. And that’s actually an important point that Wilson makes: having cognitive authority is not the same as having expertise. Being an expert is having a certain body of knowledge or know-how; being an authority is having credibility within a sphere of influence independently of knowledge or know-how. It’s all in the context. Of course, in many cases, authorities obtain their credibility by being experts or reliable sources for knowledge. But, it’s not a requirement.

SaoTomeShrew

Back to the ACRL concept…

Overall, this overview is pretty good; it tracks Wilson’s work pretty closely. There are just a few lines that need to be changed or clarified:

“various communities may recognize different types of authority.”

This is true but I wish the frame was more explicit that (1) while different communities accept different authorities, (2) that doesn’t mean all authorities are equally valid and (3) it doesn’t mean those communities have good information. Sure, evangelical christians take the Bible as their authoritative source on social and scientific issues. But, that shouldn’t imply that the Bible is on par with science when it comes to authority. Then again, many social constructionists have argued just that. Richard Rorty, in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature argued:

But can we then find a way of saying that the considerations advanced against the Copernican theory by Cardinal Bellarmine—the scriptural description of the fabric of the heavens—were ‘‘illogical or unscientific?’’. . . [Bellarmine] defended his view by saying that we had excellent independent (scriptural) evidence for believing that the heavens were roughly Ptolemaic. Was his evidence brought in from another sphere, and was his proposed restriction of scope thus ‘‘unscientific?’’ What determines that Scripture is not an excellent source of evidence for the way the heavens are set up? (1981, 328-9).

On Rorty’s account, Bellarmine’s appeal to scripture (to support a geocentric universe) was just as rational as Galileo’s use of a telescope (to establish heliocentrism). The problem should be obvious. If you don’t see it, then you might try considering how similar reasoning would play out in a moral situation. But, seeing as how I’ve done the anti-relativism thing in the past, lets consider it settled and move on.

“Allowing that some kinds of expertise are more worthy than others can result in privileging certain sources of information unduly.”

First, expertise and authority are not synonymous and they really ought to be distinguished. If anything, the ACRL needs a separate concept for expertise.  Anyway, I’m also concerned by that dangling ‘unduly’ at the end. It seems that this sentence is saying that evaluating some information sources as better than others amounts to improper privileging. But, isn’t that the point? Aren’t we supposed to admit that some kinds of authority/expertise are better than others? Even this very frame admits that a local weather report won’t cut it for doctoral research on climate science. Sorry, ACRL, but I’m going keep on teaching students that it’s a good thing to privilege some information sources over others (in context).

“the learner both respects the expertise that authority represents”

Again, authority represents credibility, not expertise. Though the two often appear together, many so-called authorities aren’t experts at all; many experts aren’t authorities.

“The novice researcher may need to rely on superficial indicators of authority such as type of publication or author credentials…”

I’d contend that even expert researchers look to types of publications and author credentials for evidence of authority qua community acceptance.

Knowledge Practices

The frame on authority establishes the following dispositions, which I’ll annotate, lightly:

  • “Determine how authoritative information should be for a particular need.”
    • Should be clear that it’s the information source that’s authoritative, not the information itself.
  • “Identify markers of authority when engaging with information, understanding the elements that might temper that authority.”
    • Seems like a good idea
  • “Understand that many disciplines have acknowledged authorities in the sense of well-known  scholars and publications that are widely considered “standard,” and yet even in those situations, some scholars would challenge the authority of those sources.”
    • This is a tricky point. We should never take an information source to be infallible, so it makes sense to question even what we read in in the most influential journals. But, when we question cognitive authority, what are we supposed to do? For example, we can admit that an article in an authoritative journal is wrong without diminishing the authority of the journal. Of course, repeated wrongs will diminish reliability which will diminish credibility, but my point is that we need to be careful: are we questioning the veracity of a source provided by a cognitive authority or are we are we questioning cognitive authority itself. The former does not automatically imply the latter.
  • “Recognize that authoritative content may be packaged formally or informally, and may include dynamic user-generated information.”
    • “may include dynamic user-generated information”? So, you’re saying comments, right? Online articles have comments? What does this have to do with authority?
  • “Acknowledge that they themselves may be seen, now or in the future, as authorities in a particular area, and recognize the responsibilities that entails.”
    • It would be nice if the ACRL mentioned what those responsibilities are.
  • “Evaluate user response as an active researcher, understanding the differing natures of feedback mechanisms and context in traditional and social media platforms.”
    • Again, how do comments and retweets factor into authority. I might be able to accept the practice if the ACRL explained this point, but honestly it just seems like a strange addition. (As an aside, the Framework comes across as having a strange relationship with social media. Whenever social media is mentioned, it feels like an afterthought desperately shoehorned in.)

Dispositions

Again, lightly annotated:

Learners who are developing their information literate abilities are:

  • Inclined to develop and maintain an open mind when encountering varied and sometimes conflicting perspectives.”
    • I totally agree. Now what does it have to do with authority in particular?
  • “Motivated to find authoritative sources, recognizing that authority may be conferred or manifested in unexpected ways.”
    • No problem here
  • “Aware of the importance ofassessing content critically to the best of their ability.”
    • This is just generally good advice. Not sure how it’s specific to authority.
  • “Recognize that there are potential problems with traditional notions of granting authority.”
    • There certainly are, but it might help to talk about them.
  • “Conscious that maintaining these attitudes and actions requires frequent self monitoring.”
    • “Be aware of what you’re doing.” Good advice across the board. Why is it specifically here. You know, several of the dispositions, throughout the framework, really need to be pulled out and given their own space. I’m thinking it could just be called “Critical Thinking.”

critical-thinking

The Verdict: Is authority contextual and constructed?

I’m going to agree with the ACRL on this one: authority is constructed and contextual. Hopefully this concept will bring renewed attention to Wilson’s work on cognitive authority, but I’m not keeping my fingers crossed. Thankfully, the concept as written doesn’t commit itself to either strong constructionism or naive realism, so it should be palatable to a wide range of librarians. However, it would help if the relationship between authority and expertise were fleshed out a little better. If it helps, I’ve got a post on the nature of expertise and another on the expertise of librarians. Really, if there’s a problem with this frame, it’s in the knowledge practices and dispositions. First, the parts on social media are tacked on sort of awkwardly. Second, many of the knowledge practices suffer from lack of explanation. “Markers of authority,” “packaged formally or informally,” “responsibilities that [authority] entails,” “user response.” These aren’t explained in the overview and can be interpreted in many ways. There’s nothing wrong with leaving things open to interpretation, but it does work against the purported “thresholdiness” of the concepts if they can be freely interpreted however librarians want. Third, several of the dispositions are just generally good intellectual traits and it’s hard to see why they are coupled with authority in particular. Other frames make more explicit connections between their dispositions and the concepts in question. This frame? Not so much.

And at three frames in I’ve reached the halfway point. The scholarship frame points to a helpful metaphor, but it also oversimplifies scholarship in an unhelpful way. The research frame gets things right, but it also doesn’t say that much. As Paul Hrycaj pointed out in the comments, “Given the meaning of “inquiry,” this frame seems equivalent to ‘Research is research.'” And the authority frame also gets things right but leaves a lot unexplained. Still, each frame is stronger than the last and I’m hopeful that the trend continues.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »