One problem raised almost continually through our readings for this independent study has been defining information literacy, and I think this is where Christine Bruce makes a significant contribution. She does not offer a theory of literacy nor a theory of information, but she does provide a way of describing our object of inquiry, i.e. information literacy. Bruce treats information literacy in terms of experience, i.e. the relationship between a subject (the information user) and an object (information).
Bruce
(1997) draws a contrast between the then dominant behavioral model of
information literacy and her own relational model. She writes that in
the behavior model, literacy is treated as a characteristic of
individuals. Therefore information literacy is described terms of
attributes of individuals (p. 12). In other words, information literacy
is seen as a collection of skills possessed or expressed by a person.
Bruce's relational model, on the other hands, conceives of information
literacy as a practice, that information literacy is an experience
between a subject, i.e. an information user, and an object, i.e.
information (p. 111).
Bruce's relational model is able to encompass a range of activities, including both the more skills-based experiences and the more critical inquiry elements we have stressed this semester. Bruce
(1997) divides her relational model into seven categories of
information literacy experience. The first four experiences - using
technology to access information, finding information based on knowledge
of sources, following a process, and controlling / organizing
information - all treat information as an (useful) object in the
environment. In the last three categories - building up a knowledge
base, creating new insights, using information wisely - the use of
information transforms both the subject and object in the relationship. [These categories reappear in Bruce et. al. (2012).] The
difference between these categories, says Bruce (1997), rests in the
variations in subject / object relations which "constitute information
literacy" (p. 154). In
Bruce et. al. (2012), the makes a further differentiation between functional uses of
information and information literacy - perhaps associated with her
first four categories of information literacy experience - and those
experiences in which information is used "to learn, including
communicating and creating in" a range of contexts, "representing
transformative interpretations of information and information literacy"
(p. 524).
While
Bruce (1997) does not declare any of the various experiences of
information literacy "wrong," she does indicate that there is a
hierarchy among the categories in terms of some categories - i.e. the
last three - being "more complex" and "more powerful" in terms of their
transformational potential (p. 155-156). Bruce (1997) also marks a
difference in "outcome space," which increases as you move through the
categories of experience (p. 156).
Bruce's description of information literacy is attractive because it fits with the way we have talked about literacy as a mastery of the environment. Her approach foregrounds the engagement of an individual and his / her environment. The educational goal Bruce et. al. (2012) put forward, i.e. informed learning, merges well with our existing thoughts about information literacy as an expression of critical consciousness and capacity for critical inquiry. According
to Bruce et. al. (2012), informed learning involves making "explicit
awareness" of "different forms of information and their use, as well as
make explicit the various activities through which information is
interpreted and understood" (p. 527). She notes that informed learning
"builds upon information skills and develops effective, critical,
creative, reflective, and ethical information use for learning in any of
life's paths" (p. 525).
I also appreciate that Bruce et. al. (2012) takes the relational model of information literacy beyond the higher education context to workplace and community contexts.
Bruce (1997) remarks that, at least in the context of higher education, the development of learning opportunities falls on curriculum developers (p. 9). As she sees it, "Developing outcome statements in accordance with the relational approach to teaching and learning will ... result in an emphasis on conceptions and experience" as opposed to "skills and attributes of individuals." Therefore, the outcomes of information literacy, as Bruce conceives of it, are "no longer measurable" (p. 169). I do like her grouping of experiences: 1) "information technology and information sources conception," 2) "information process and information control conceptions," and 3) "knowledge construction, knowledge extension and wisdom conceptions" (p. 173).
A few other useful points I don't want to forget ...
Bruce (1997) provides a useful analysis of why information literacy "took root." She specifically mentions the association of information literacy with the idea of life long learning, the need to describe the "ideal" consumer of information in the information society, and the perception that the increased volume of information would prove a barrier to effective use that information (p. 2-3).
Bruce, C. (1997). The seven faces of information literacy. Blackwood, South Australia: Auslib Press.
Bruce, C. et. al. (2012). Supporting informed learners in the twenty-first century. Library Trends, 60 (3), pp. 522-545.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Idea Session II
I think the major thing we walked away with on Monday was sketch of the major aspects / dimensions of thinking about information literacy, of making information literacy a problem. These dimensions are:
1) empirical / historical piece
2) theory piece, i.e. how literacy works
3) normative piece, i.e. the "what should be," the end
4) practice piece, i.e. how to make end operational in context, meaning piece #1
In regards to the empirical piece, we discussed communication technologies and the various modes of interaction they support. We noted that technologies open up some literacy practices and close off others, synchronous vs. asynchronous technologies as per Braman, "hot" vs. "cold" technologies as per McLuhan.
We also tried to take up the problem of getting information in the absence of direct experience, i.e. through technology. We considered a number of "moments" when a literacy practice might not "come off." These included a lack of access to technology or an inability to use technology; economy, meaning one does not have the time and energy; intent, meaning one could be participating in the practice for entertainment as opposed to information seeking; or one may not possess the skills necessary to evaluate a particular claim.
1) empirical / historical piece
2) theory piece, i.e. how literacy works
3) normative piece, i.e. the "what should be," the end
4) practice piece, i.e. how to make end operational in context, meaning piece #1
In regards to the empirical piece, we discussed communication technologies and the various modes of interaction they support. We noted that technologies open up some literacy practices and close off others, synchronous vs. asynchronous technologies as per Braman, "hot" vs. "cold" technologies as per McLuhan.
We also tried to take up the problem of getting information in the absence of direct experience, i.e. through technology. We considered a number of "moments" when a literacy practice might not "come off." These included a lack of access to technology or an inability to use technology; economy, meaning one does not have the time and energy; intent, meaning one could be participating in the practice for entertainment as opposed to information seeking; or one may not possess the skills necessary to evaluate a particular claim.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Gee on Discourses and Literacies
[draft]
These appear to be the main points:
Discourses, as described by Gee (2012), are structures of recognizable practices and values. He writes that Discourses are "socially recognizable identities engaged in specific socially recognizable activities" (p. 152). Gee qualifies the "structured" element of Discourses by noting that there are "multiple ways" and "partial ways," "contradictory ways" and "disputed ways" of getting recognized; what matters, however, is "enactment and recognition" (p. 153).
Gee makes a distinction between primary and secondary Discourses. Primary Discourses are acquired through socialization in early life. This socialization provides one's "initial and often enduring sense of self" (p. 153). Gee further notes that one's primary Discourse is "biologically and historically rooted" in "face-to-face communications and interactions" (p. 174). While one's primary Discourse is foundational, it is also capable of change (p. 153). Secondary Discourses are "acquired within institutions that are part and parcel of wider communities," e.g. voluntary associations, schools, work environments, etc. (p. 154). Gee notes differences in types of secondary Discourses: "local community-based" Discourses and more public sphere Discourses existing on a continuum (p. 172). Part of what defines secondary Discourses is that "they involve by definition interaction with people with whom one is either not 'intimate' ... or they involve interactions" that require a person to "take on an identity that transcends" one's "primary socializing group" (p. 172).
Gee defines literacy as "mastery of a secondary Discourse." Therefore, literacies are always plural (p. 173). Because there are community-based and public sphere secondary Discourses - and everything in between - there are community-based literacies and public sphere literacies (p. 173). Gee, however, sets aside "liberating literacies" as something distinct from others, defined not as mastery over a secondary Discourses but rather as the use of a Discourse, namely to critique other Discourses (p. 174). Secondary Discourses are acquired through modeling and practice; "liberating discourses" are learned through rational thought (p. 174-175).
There are a number of problems with Gee's approach to literacies as rooted in Discourses. I am troubled by Gee's use of the term Discourse to talk about how human beings engage with their social environment. (And it is their social environment as opposed to their physical environment ... and their informational environment?) The use of the term Discourse leads to a focus on structured ways of being in the world, to a focus on roles and performance in various contexts. He writes:
"It is sometimes helpful to say that it is not individuals who speak and act, but rather that historically and socially defined Discourses speak to each other through individuals. The individual instantiates, give voice and body to a Discourse every time he or she acts or speaks, and thus carries it, and ultimately changes it, through time" (p. 159).
The way Gee approaches Discourse, it is difficult to see a role for human agency and the potential for change, though Gee does assert an ability to alter our way of being in the world and to negotiate the performance of a discourse. What is missing is the bodily, the material.
These appear to be the main points:
Discourses, as described by Gee (2012), are structures of recognizable practices and values. He writes that Discourses are "socially recognizable identities engaged in specific socially recognizable activities" (p. 152). Gee qualifies the "structured" element of Discourses by noting that there are "multiple ways" and "partial ways," "contradictory ways" and "disputed ways" of getting recognized; what matters, however, is "enactment and recognition" (p. 153).
Gee makes a distinction between primary and secondary Discourses. Primary Discourses are acquired through socialization in early life. This socialization provides one's "initial and often enduring sense of self" (p. 153). Gee further notes that one's primary Discourse is "biologically and historically rooted" in "face-to-face communications and interactions" (p. 174). While one's primary Discourse is foundational, it is also capable of change (p. 153). Secondary Discourses are "acquired within institutions that are part and parcel of wider communities," e.g. voluntary associations, schools, work environments, etc. (p. 154). Gee notes differences in types of secondary Discourses: "local community-based" Discourses and more public sphere Discourses existing on a continuum (p. 172). Part of what defines secondary Discourses is that "they involve by definition interaction with people with whom one is either not 'intimate' ... or they involve interactions" that require a person to "take on an identity that transcends" one's "primary socializing group" (p. 172).
Gee defines literacy as "mastery of a secondary Discourse." Therefore, literacies are always plural (p. 173). Because there are community-based and public sphere secondary Discourses - and everything in between - there are community-based literacies and public sphere literacies (p. 173). Gee, however, sets aside "liberating literacies" as something distinct from others, defined not as mastery over a secondary Discourses but rather as the use of a Discourse, namely to critique other Discourses (p. 174). Secondary Discourses are acquired through modeling and practice; "liberating discourses" are learned through rational thought (p. 174-175).
There are a number of problems with Gee's approach to literacies as rooted in Discourses. I am troubled by Gee's use of the term Discourse to talk about how human beings engage with their social environment. (And it is their social environment as opposed to their physical environment ... and their informational environment?) The use of the term Discourse leads to a focus on structured ways of being in the world, to a focus on roles and performance in various contexts. He writes:
"It is sometimes helpful to say that it is not individuals who speak and act, but rather that historically and socially defined Discourses speak to each other through individuals. The individual instantiates, give voice and body to a Discourse every time he or she acts or speaks, and thus carries it, and ultimately changes it, through time" (p. 159).
The way Gee approaches Discourse, it is difficult to see a role for human agency and the potential for change, though Gee does assert an ability to alter our way of being in the world and to negotiate the performance of a discourse. What is missing is the bodily, the material.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Media Literacy II
This sections readings address mediated communication, the production and consumption of messages through technologies of various sorts. The type of communication under discussion includes everything except face-to-face communication. I see two broad themes in this section's readings: 1) media provides a method of accessing information in the environment in the absence of direct experience, and 2) media technologies shape the interaction between human beings and their environment.
Absence of Direct Experience
Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion, published in 1922, provides an earlier take on what I believe are similar issues that arise in thinking about media and media literacy today. Lippmann's work takes up the use of media in the early 20th Century and particularly in the wake of World War I. He wrote in Public Opinion that the "real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance." The only way to deal with the "variety" and "permutations and combinations" is to "reconstruct" the environment "on a simpler model" (Lippmann, 1997, p. 11). Lippmann uses the word stereotype to identify the tool human beings use to manage a complex environment in the absence of direct experience. The use of stereotypes is matter of economy. Lippmann writes that "modern life is hurried and multifarious, above all physical distance separates men who are often in vital contact with each other ... There is neither time nor opportunity for direct acquaintance." So human beings notice a trait marking a "well known type, and fill in the rest of the picture by means of the stereotypes we carry in our heads" (Lippmann, 1997, p. 59).
I noted in another piece that the "capitalist mode of production for profit has necessitated (and facilitated) greater interdependence among a wider range of people in terms of breadth, i.e. geographic extent, and depth, i.e. increase points of interaction. The result of this socio-economic integration is an extended reach of unintended consequences of human action and an increased difficulty on the part of individuals in recognizing the source of their personal 'troubles.'" I see this as a structural issue, a social issue, as opposed to a cultural issue. The issue here is a change in objective conditions as opposed to interpretations of what those changes mean.
Like Lippmann, who saw stereotypes, generalizations, etc. as constituting a pseudo-environment to which people react, Gee (2012) sees ideology and theory as methods of making sense of a complex environment. Though Gee is not clear on this point, I think he sees a difference between generalizations and theory. He defines theory as a "set of generalizations about an area ... in terms of which descriptions of phenomena in that area can be couched and explanations can be offered" (p. 13). So theory might best be considered as organized generalizations. Generalizations and theories about the world are shaped, Gee says, by human interaction with the social and physical environment. Jan et. al. (2011) note a number of significant factors shaping socialization, and I would add generalizations as well. These include family, schools, economic background, friends and associations, among other factors (p. 198).
Gee (2012) draws a useful distinction between tacit and explicit theories. When generalizations and theories are made apparent, they can becomes objects of inquiry, they become factors in evaluating claims (p. 13). Gee further suggests we think about tacit and explicit theories as existing along a continuum (p. 16).
Media Technologies, Extensions of Man (and Woman)
Sourbati (2009) makes a useful distinction between the analogue media moment and the digital media moment. The analogue moment was about providing universal service, in the form of physical access to mass media technologies. In the digital moment, however, "there is not a straightforward correspondence between access to a network and the ability to use a service." On one hand, there is an expanded array of services provided by the "transmission infrastructure." Additionally, access to the technology does not equate with being able to use the services provided (p. 249). Sourbati argues, therefore, for the importance of teaching media literacy skills in the local context, relying on local resources, e.g. volunteers to assist users.
Traditionally, when when we think about media, we think of mass media forms such as newspapers, radio or television broadcasting, movies. Something that struck me this week was that various social media forms - Twitter, Facebook, etc. - should perhaps also be considered mass media forms that allow a person to communicate a message to a large amount of people. Just as newsreels and radio provided war news to the home front during World War II, Twitter and YouTube are being used by protestors and revolutionaries in the Middle East to communicate information to people around the world.
Braman's (2009) discussion about the "convergence of communication styles" adds something useful to our discussion. Braman notes that media have, in the past, been distinguished by the "number of message receivers," the "nature of interactivity," and the "difference between synchronicity and asynchronicity" (p. 57). Traditional broadcast mediums, she says, are characterized by one sender with many receivers and no direct interactivity and are experiences synchronously "by its entire audience." She contrasts this was telephony and "personal letter writing." Braman says that the Internet "blends communication styles in all three dimensions" (p. 59).
I appreciated the definition of media literacy provided by the United Kingdom's Office of Communications, cited in Sourbati (2009): "the ability to access, understand and create communications in a variety of contexts" (p. 248). However, I think this definition is insufficient for determining the relationship between media literacy and information literacy. Is media literacy integrated into our current working definition of information literacy? When we speak about media literacy, are we talking more about the instrumental side of the literacy equation? What is the relationships between communication and information? Are all messages information?
Braman, S. (2009). Change of state: Information, policy, and power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jan, M. et. al. (2011). Public opinion & political socialization through the lens of media. European Journal of Scientific Research, 55 (2), p. 196-206.
Lippmann, W. (1997). Public opinion. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sourbati, M. (2009). Media literacy and universal access in Europe. The Information Society, 25, p. 248-254.
Absence of Direct Experience
Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion, published in 1922, provides an earlier take on what I believe are similar issues that arise in thinking about media and media literacy today. Lippmann's work takes up the use of media in the early 20th Century and particularly in the wake of World War I. He wrote in Public Opinion that the "real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance." The only way to deal with the "variety" and "permutations and combinations" is to "reconstruct" the environment "on a simpler model" (Lippmann, 1997, p. 11). Lippmann uses the word stereotype to identify the tool human beings use to manage a complex environment in the absence of direct experience. The use of stereotypes is matter of economy. Lippmann writes that "modern life is hurried and multifarious, above all physical distance separates men who are often in vital contact with each other ... There is neither time nor opportunity for direct acquaintance." So human beings notice a trait marking a "well known type, and fill in the rest of the picture by means of the stereotypes we carry in our heads" (Lippmann, 1997, p. 59).
I noted in another piece that the "capitalist mode of production for profit has necessitated (and facilitated) greater interdependence among a wider range of people in terms of breadth, i.e. geographic extent, and depth, i.e. increase points of interaction. The result of this socio-economic integration is an extended reach of unintended consequences of human action and an increased difficulty on the part of individuals in recognizing the source of their personal 'troubles.'" I see this as a structural issue, a social issue, as opposed to a cultural issue. The issue here is a change in objective conditions as opposed to interpretations of what those changes mean.
Like Lippmann, who saw stereotypes, generalizations, etc. as constituting a pseudo-environment to which people react, Gee (2012) sees ideology and theory as methods of making sense of a complex environment. Though Gee is not clear on this point, I think he sees a difference between generalizations and theory. He defines theory as a "set of generalizations about an area ... in terms of which descriptions of phenomena in that area can be couched and explanations can be offered" (p. 13). So theory might best be considered as organized generalizations. Generalizations and theories about the world are shaped, Gee says, by human interaction with the social and physical environment. Jan et. al. (2011) note a number of significant factors shaping socialization, and I would add generalizations as well. These include family, schools, economic background, friends and associations, among other factors (p. 198).
Gee (2012) draws a useful distinction between tacit and explicit theories. When generalizations and theories are made apparent, they can becomes objects of inquiry, they become factors in evaluating claims (p. 13). Gee further suggests we think about tacit and explicit theories as existing along a continuum (p. 16).
Media Technologies, Extensions of Man (and Woman)
Sourbati (2009) makes a useful distinction between the analogue media moment and the digital media moment. The analogue moment was about providing universal service, in the form of physical access to mass media technologies. In the digital moment, however, "there is not a straightforward correspondence between access to a network and the ability to use a service." On one hand, there is an expanded array of services provided by the "transmission infrastructure." Additionally, access to the technology does not equate with being able to use the services provided (p. 249). Sourbati argues, therefore, for the importance of teaching media literacy skills in the local context, relying on local resources, e.g. volunteers to assist users.
Traditionally, when when we think about media, we think of mass media forms such as newspapers, radio or television broadcasting, movies. Something that struck me this week was that various social media forms - Twitter, Facebook, etc. - should perhaps also be considered mass media forms that allow a person to communicate a message to a large amount of people. Just as newsreels and radio provided war news to the home front during World War II, Twitter and YouTube are being used by protestors and revolutionaries in the Middle East to communicate information to people around the world.
Braman's (2009) discussion about the "convergence of communication styles" adds something useful to our discussion. Braman notes that media have, in the past, been distinguished by the "number of message receivers," the "nature of interactivity," and the "difference between synchronicity and asynchronicity" (p. 57). Traditional broadcast mediums, she says, are characterized by one sender with many receivers and no direct interactivity and are experiences synchronously "by its entire audience." She contrasts this was telephony and "personal letter writing." Braman says that the Internet "blends communication styles in all three dimensions" (p. 59).
I appreciated the definition of media literacy provided by the United Kingdom's Office of Communications, cited in Sourbati (2009): "the ability to access, understand and create communications in a variety of contexts" (p. 248). However, I think this definition is insufficient for determining the relationship between media literacy and information literacy. Is media literacy integrated into our current working definition of information literacy? When we speak about media literacy, are we talking more about the instrumental side of the literacy equation? What is the relationships between communication and information? Are all messages information?
Braman, S. (2009). Change of state: Information, policy, and power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jan, M. et. al. (2011). Public opinion & political socialization through the lens of media. European Journal of Scientific Research, 55 (2), p. 196-206.
Lippmann, W. (1997). Public opinion. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sourbati, M. (2009). Media literacy and universal access in Europe. The Information Society, 25, p. 248-254.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Media Literacy I
This segment's readings take up the impact of technologies that enable human beings to engage their environment, particularly how these technologies shape how information, in the form of messages, is received and processed.
Protectionist vs. Empowerment Perspectives
Hobbs (2011) outlines two approaches to media literacy. Protectionist approaches define media literacy "in relation to the goal of reducing negative effects of exposure to mass media." Empowerment perspectives, on the other hand, approach media literacy as a way of making individual more deliberate consumers and producers of media (p. 422). Protectionist approaches see audiences as victims, and empowerment approaches see audiences as active participants in the making of meaning (Hobbs, 2011, p. 424). In Hobbs' (2011) view, the educational goal of media literacy, from empowerment perspectives, is critical autonomy on the part of media consumers and producers. She specifically mentions the techniques of close reading and media production in advancing the educational goal of media literacy (p. 426).
Hobbs (2011) places Potter (2010) in the category of protectionists who primarily view media literacy as an "antidote to mass media exposure" and "blinded inadvertently to the wider range of aims of media literacy education (Hobbs, 2011, p. 421). I think Hobbs (2011) is a little unfair to Potter (2010), who notes a general consensus that the "purpose of becoming media literate is to gain greater control over influences in one's life, particularly the constant influence from the mass media" (p. 681). A number of the definitions Potter (2010) offers in his list of "Sampling Definitions of Media Literacy" highlight the role of audiences in actively creating meaning from images generated - or accessed? - through mass media devices (p. 676).
Something that we (or I) need to give more attention to is thinking out the difference between media literacy and digital literacy, both terms that Hobbs (2011) uses in her piece. However, I do not see where she defines digital literacy. In my novice mind, I could see how those concerned with digital literacy, focusing on digital technologies that enable users greater opportunity to be producers of content, could more easily see active audiences engaged in the production of meaning. Let me be clear, I think human beings are always engaged in the activity of making meaning. They are not always engaged in the activity of producing content, but digital technologies have made this production of content much easier for a wider range of people. It is a historical phenomenon. Media literacy seems more tied to dealing with mass media, e.g. radio, movies, television, etc. These are medium that flow in one direction; there is not a feedback loop, necessarily. Radio is broadcast out to thousands, and these individual thousands do not broadcast back. Focusing on mass media could lead one to neglect the ways audiences do push back against the messages they receive. The cultural studies scholarship of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s went a long way in advancing our understanding of how audiences engage with mass media, highlighting the power these audiences have in constructing the meaning of, or interpreting, the messages they receive. These cultural studies scholars were working in response to media scholars of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s who recognized the potential of mass media for controlling audiences, for shaping opinions, e.g. propaganda, advertisements, etc.
Extensions of Man (and Woman)
The potential digital technologies hold for enabling more individuals to become producers of content - and the information and communication technologies that support such production - makes a nice segue to a discussion of McLuhan (1994), who examines various technologies - media - as methods of interfacing with the environment. Media, in the context of McLuhan (1994), does not refer to content but rather to the technologies that "extend" human beings into their environment.
I found Understanding Media a difficult book, and I'm still working out the main ideas. McLuhan's thesis does come early in the book. The first technology McLuhan takes up is literacy, which he writes provided human beings with the "power to act without reacting," Literacy - and the machine age technologies - fragmented human beings and allowed them to carry out the "most dangerous social operations with complete detachment." However, in the electric age, in the age of automation, technologies have extended human beings to such an extent that the "whole of mankind" is incorporated, and therefore human beings "necessarily participate, in depth, in the consequences of every action" (McLuhan, 1994, p. 4). This has ushered in an "Age of Anxiety," born of an "electric implosion that compels commitment and participation" (McLuhan, 1994, p. 5). A cultural lag exists, however. McLuhan (1994) writes, "we continue to think in the old, fragmented space and time patterns of the pre-electric age" (p. 4).
There do appear to be at least three pieces to McLuhan's discussion:
1) Technologies - used in a very liberal sense to include the written word - are tools / methods by which human beings "extend" their mastery of their environment, both in terms of scope, e.g. geographic distance, time, etc., but also in terms of control.
2) Technologies shape or impact the interaction between human beings and their environment, e.g. "hot" and "cold" technologies.
3) There is a historical argument here as well. At some point, the technologies shifted from providing a fragmentation and "explosion" to integration and "implosion." Automation, electric technologies mark the shift.
Right? So there is this theoretical piece about what technologies do, an empirical component that deals with experiences of environment via particular technologies, and this historical piece.
Hobbs, L. (2011). The state of media literacy: A response to Potter. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55 (3), p. 419-430.
McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1964)
Potter, J. W. (2010). The state of media literacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54 (4), p. 675-696.
Protectionist vs. Empowerment Perspectives
Hobbs (2011) outlines two approaches to media literacy. Protectionist approaches define media literacy "in relation to the goal of reducing negative effects of exposure to mass media." Empowerment perspectives, on the other hand, approach media literacy as a way of making individual more deliberate consumers and producers of media (p. 422). Protectionist approaches see audiences as victims, and empowerment approaches see audiences as active participants in the making of meaning (Hobbs, 2011, p. 424). In Hobbs' (2011) view, the educational goal of media literacy, from empowerment perspectives, is critical autonomy on the part of media consumers and producers. She specifically mentions the techniques of close reading and media production in advancing the educational goal of media literacy (p. 426).
Hobbs (2011) places Potter (2010) in the category of protectionists who primarily view media literacy as an "antidote to mass media exposure" and "blinded inadvertently to the wider range of aims of media literacy education (Hobbs, 2011, p. 421). I think Hobbs (2011) is a little unfair to Potter (2010), who notes a general consensus that the "purpose of becoming media literate is to gain greater control over influences in one's life, particularly the constant influence from the mass media" (p. 681). A number of the definitions Potter (2010) offers in his list of "Sampling Definitions of Media Literacy" highlight the role of audiences in actively creating meaning from images generated - or accessed? - through mass media devices (p. 676).
Something that we (or I) need to give more attention to is thinking out the difference between media literacy and digital literacy, both terms that Hobbs (2011) uses in her piece. However, I do not see where she defines digital literacy. In my novice mind, I could see how those concerned with digital literacy, focusing on digital technologies that enable users greater opportunity to be producers of content, could more easily see active audiences engaged in the production of meaning. Let me be clear, I think human beings are always engaged in the activity of making meaning. They are not always engaged in the activity of producing content, but digital technologies have made this production of content much easier for a wider range of people. It is a historical phenomenon. Media literacy seems more tied to dealing with mass media, e.g. radio, movies, television, etc. These are medium that flow in one direction; there is not a feedback loop, necessarily. Radio is broadcast out to thousands, and these individual thousands do not broadcast back. Focusing on mass media could lead one to neglect the ways audiences do push back against the messages they receive. The cultural studies scholarship of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s went a long way in advancing our understanding of how audiences engage with mass media, highlighting the power these audiences have in constructing the meaning of, or interpreting, the messages they receive. These cultural studies scholars were working in response to media scholars of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s who recognized the potential of mass media for controlling audiences, for shaping opinions, e.g. propaganda, advertisements, etc.
Extensions of Man (and Woman)
The potential digital technologies hold for enabling more individuals to become producers of content - and the information and communication technologies that support such production - makes a nice segue to a discussion of McLuhan (1994), who examines various technologies - media - as methods of interfacing with the environment. Media, in the context of McLuhan (1994), does not refer to content but rather to the technologies that "extend" human beings into their environment.
I found Understanding Media a difficult book, and I'm still working out the main ideas. McLuhan's thesis does come early in the book. The first technology McLuhan takes up is literacy, which he writes provided human beings with the "power to act without reacting," Literacy - and the machine age technologies - fragmented human beings and allowed them to carry out the "most dangerous social operations with complete detachment." However, in the electric age, in the age of automation, technologies have extended human beings to such an extent that the "whole of mankind" is incorporated, and therefore human beings "necessarily participate, in depth, in the consequences of every action" (McLuhan, 1994, p. 4). This has ushered in an "Age of Anxiety," born of an "electric implosion that compels commitment and participation" (McLuhan, 1994, p. 5). A cultural lag exists, however. McLuhan (1994) writes, "we continue to think in the old, fragmented space and time patterns of the pre-electric age" (p. 4).
There do appear to be at least three pieces to McLuhan's discussion:
1) Technologies - used in a very liberal sense to include the written word - are tools / methods by which human beings "extend" their mastery of their environment, both in terms of scope, e.g. geographic distance, time, etc., but also in terms of control.
2) Technologies shape or impact the interaction between human beings and their environment, e.g. "hot" and "cold" technologies.
3) There is a historical argument here as well. At some point, the technologies shifted from providing a fragmentation and "explosion" to integration and "implosion." Automation, electric technologies mark the shift.
Right? So there is this theoretical piece about what technologies do, an empirical component that deals with experiences of environment via particular technologies, and this historical piece.
Hobbs, L. (2011). The state of media literacy: A response to Potter. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55 (3), p. 419-430.
McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1964)
Potter, J. W. (2010). The state of media literacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54 (4), p. 675-696.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Idea Session I
I think we walked away from our Monday "idea session" with a hypothesis. Namely:
Information literacy refers to the historically specific practices used for understanding and producing meaning in the informational environment.
The word "information" in this instance references certain objective conditions made possible by information and communication technologies ... technologies that created and sustain the informational environment, the "network," the "information society," etc. The word "information" in this instance is NOT referencing content but rather the environment being engaged. As it is being treated here, information literacy could not exist prior to the emergence of the information environment.
The word "literacy," as it relates to our definition, involves understanding meaning and the deliberate production of meaning. We decided that literacy is more than language, meaning one can speak a language without understanding meaning and being able to deploy the language, within a specific context, with purpose. During our idea session, we drew a distinction between stimulus and response and literacy. Literacy includes a pause, and it is the pause that opens up the opportunity for critical reflection, inquiry, and decision making. Understanding occurs within the pause. We also acknowledged that literacy refers to something different that the cognitive process of thinking. The act of thinking, I would suggest, is universal, meaning all human beings go through the same cognitive process in thinking. Literacy, however, is tied to context. One is literate in a specific context.
What is meant by literacy practices? While we did not come to a firm definition of "literacy practices," we did generate a set of questions for thinking about what constitutes a "literacy practice." For example:
We identified freedom as an end-in-view for acquiring literacy skills in any context. Literacy increases one's mastery over one's environment and expands the range of contexts in which one can act.
What we are talking about right now is a general definition of literacy in general and information literacy in particular. Education for literacy, literacy education, is a different conversation.
Information literacy refers to the historically specific practices used for understanding and producing meaning in the informational environment.
The word "information" in this instance references certain objective conditions made possible by information and communication technologies ... technologies that created and sustain the informational environment, the "network," the "information society," etc. The word "information" in this instance is NOT referencing content but rather the environment being engaged. As it is being treated here, information literacy could not exist prior to the emergence of the information environment.
The word "literacy," as it relates to our definition, involves understanding meaning and the deliberate production of meaning. We decided that literacy is more than language, meaning one can speak a language without understanding meaning and being able to deploy the language, within a specific context, with purpose. During our idea session, we drew a distinction between stimulus and response and literacy. Literacy includes a pause, and it is the pause that opens up the opportunity for critical reflection, inquiry, and decision making. Understanding occurs within the pause. We also acknowledged that literacy refers to something different that the cognitive process of thinking. The act of thinking, I would suggest, is universal, meaning all human beings go through the same cognitive process in thinking. Literacy, however, is tied to context. One is literate in a specific context.
What is meant by literacy practices? While we did not come to a firm definition of "literacy practices," we did generate a set of questions for thinking about what constitutes a "literacy practice." For example:
- When is the practice appropriate?
- Who can participate? Whose voices are counted as authoritative?
- What is counted as an appropriate method for producing or understanding meaning?
We identified freedom as an end-in-view for acquiring literacy skills in any context. Literacy increases one's mastery over one's environment and expands the range of contexts in which one can act.
What we are talking about right now is a general definition of literacy in general and information literacy in particular. Education for literacy, literacy education, is a different conversation.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Definitions II
This week's readings add to our discussion of definitions of "information," "literacy," and "information literacy" by addressing a number of broad issues: the differences and similarities between orality and literacy, the history of "information literacy" as a concept, and critical reflection as an end-in-view for information literacy education.
Orality and Literacy
McLuhan (1994) treats language and literacy as "extensions" of human beings. For example, writes McLuhan (1994), language enabled human "intellect to detach itself from the vastly wider reality." It is a technology that causes a pause between the organism and its environment, enabling a shift in attention (p. 79). Literacy - in this context referring to the written word - advances the detachment. The phonetic alphabet, argues McLuhan (1994), was a homogenizing force, extending patterns of "uniformity and continuity" across space and time (p. 84). As a technology, the phonetic alphabet - "semantically meaningless letters" corresponding to "semantically meaningless sounds" - allowed human beings to break out of the local communities that provided the context for understanding spoken language (p. 83).
While it does not appear to me that McLuhan (1994) is necessarily placing a value judgment on either orality or literacy, he does clearly imply that literacy is a further, or more advanced, "extension" of human beings. The "literacy thesis" discussed by Buschman (2009) does hold that literacy brings a number of positive consequences [such as?] and that literate cultures are more advanced or civilized, and therefore better, than primarily oral cultures. The thesis also posits a clean break between between orality and literacy. Buschman's (2009) analysis of critiques of literacy and information literacy highlight thinkers who call that strict division into question. The "literacy thesis" is critiqued from two angles, according to Buschman. The first questions whether there is indeed a "great divide" between oral cultures and literate cultures and whether literacy leads to a series of cultural developments, including democracy, bureaucracy, scientific rationalism, etc. (p. 99-100). The second critique questions whether this is even a fundamental difference between orality and literacy (p. 100).
Buschman (2009) does, however, seem to support anthropologist Jack Goody's conclusion that the written word does enable a certain distancing. Goody notes "The analytic process that writing itself entails ... make[s] possible the habitual separating out into formally distinct units of the various cultural elements," destroying the "mystical 'wholeness' of nonliterate societies" (Goody in Buschman, 2009, p. 103). This conclusion is not much different than the one McLuhan (1994) draws. However, Buschman (2009) makes clear that Goody does not believe in the strict division between orality and literacy (p. 104). McLuhan (1994) seems to agree on this point as well. He writes, "electric technology seems to favor the inclusive and participational spoken word over the specialist written word" (McLuhan, 1994, p. 82).
I wonder to what degree "critical reflexivity," as it is being used here - i.e. to talk about the distancing activity that allows parts of the environment to become objects of inquiry - is just the outcome of language, the making of significant (vocal) gestures, in general?
Critical Reflection
Buschman (2009) argues that information literacy shares with other "new" literacies - e.g. media literacy, digital literacy, etc. - the notion that literacy education should "teach and enhance the cognitive results of literacy," i.e. critical reflexivity (p. 107). Critical reflexivity, as I understanding Buschman (2009), is the potential outcome of the distancing inherent in the written word, as described by Goody and McLuhan (1994). But why is critical reflexivity important? Why is that a valuable goal?
For Budd (2009), reflection, guided by an intention (or interest?) - i.e. reflection is about something or directed towards something in particular - is a process leading to understanding, to finding meaning. This is in contrast to merely applying meaning (p. 134). Reflection requires moving from a "natural attitude" to a "phenomenological attitude." Budd (2009) says the "natural attitude" is "more readily intuited and is the commonplace mode of thought in our everyday lives" (p. 129). The "phenomenological attitude," in contrast, "entails reflection on the natural attitude" and is an "examination of the world that the self and others live in" (p. 130). I understand Budd (2009) to mean that reflection should involve making oneself in the world (in the physical, social, and informational environment?) an object of inquiry. A key aspect of the "phenomenological attitude" is doubt, meaning the "suspension of judgment" (p. 135). Further, the fruit of phenomenological reflection, as I understand Budd (2009), is the "growth of knowledge" (p. 135).
I appreciated Budd's (2009) definition of "attitude": "an overall manner of being or stance which orients our lived experience" (p. 139). It caught my attention for the similarities with the way the word "attitude" is used John Dewey when describing the "scientific attitude" in Freedom and Culture. He writes that the elements of the "scientific attitude" include the "willingness to hold belief in suspense," the "ability to doubt until evidence is obtained," the "willingness to go where evidence points instead of putting first a personally preferred conclusion," the "ability to hold ideas in solution and use them as hypotheses to be tested instead of dogmas to be asserted," and the "enjoyment of new fields for inquiry and of new problems" (Dewey, 1989, p. 114). Dewey argued throughout his career that the "scientific attitude" should be applied in all areas of inquiry, not just in the natural sciences; he felt it could be used when approaching ethical, political, and social problems. I wonder to what extent the "phenomenological attitude" and the "scientific attitude" are directed to the same (or similar) ends.
Information Literacy
So where does this leave us in terms of defining the object of inquiry, i.e. "information literacy"? It actually still seems really muddy to me, and I think that is because there are a lot of different elements that do not necessarily coalesce into a nice whole. Here are some of these elements:
Buschman (2009) suggests that information literacy is really not that different from other forms of literacy in that its end-in-view is the same as all other literacies, i.e. to enhance critical reflexivity.
Budd (2009) draws a contrast between information literacy as a set of skills, instrumental in nature - e.g. the ACRL Information Literacy Standards - and phenomenological cognitive action, which focuses on intentional and situated (and therefore historical?) "search for understanding" through a process of actively engaging with "complex discourse" (p. 33). Does this phenomenological cognitive action program move us too far from the literacy part of information literacy? Budd's (2009) framework seems geared towards cultivating the "phenomenological attitude" as opposed to literacy as it is understood by Buschman (2009). However, Buschman (2009) does highlight how literacy moves a person toward or makes possible critical reflexivity. So could we say a "phenomenological attitude" is build on the very skills that Budd (2009) critiques as instrumental?
Budd, J. (2009). Framing library instruction: A view from within and without. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.
Buschman, J. (2009). Information literacy, "new" literacies, and literacy. Library Quarterly, 79 (1), 95-118.
Dewey, J. (1989). Freedom and culture (1939). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man (1964). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Orality and Literacy
McLuhan (1994) treats language and literacy as "extensions" of human beings. For example, writes McLuhan (1994), language enabled human "intellect to detach itself from the vastly wider reality." It is a technology that causes a pause between the organism and its environment, enabling a shift in attention (p. 79). Literacy - in this context referring to the written word - advances the detachment. The phonetic alphabet, argues McLuhan (1994), was a homogenizing force, extending patterns of "uniformity and continuity" across space and time (p. 84). As a technology, the phonetic alphabet - "semantically meaningless letters" corresponding to "semantically meaningless sounds" - allowed human beings to break out of the local communities that provided the context for understanding spoken language (p. 83).
While it does not appear to me that McLuhan (1994) is necessarily placing a value judgment on either orality or literacy, he does clearly imply that literacy is a further, or more advanced, "extension" of human beings. The "literacy thesis" discussed by Buschman (2009) does hold that literacy brings a number of positive consequences [such as?] and that literate cultures are more advanced or civilized, and therefore better, than primarily oral cultures. The thesis also posits a clean break between between orality and literacy. Buschman's (2009) analysis of critiques of literacy and information literacy highlight thinkers who call that strict division into question. The "literacy thesis" is critiqued from two angles, according to Buschman. The first questions whether there is indeed a "great divide" between oral cultures and literate cultures and whether literacy leads to a series of cultural developments, including democracy, bureaucracy, scientific rationalism, etc. (p. 99-100). The second critique questions whether this is even a fundamental difference between orality and literacy (p. 100).
Buschman (2009) does, however, seem to support anthropologist Jack Goody's conclusion that the written word does enable a certain distancing. Goody notes "The analytic process that writing itself entails ... make[s] possible the habitual separating out into formally distinct units of the various cultural elements," destroying the "mystical 'wholeness' of nonliterate societies" (Goody in Buschman, 2009, p. 103). This conclusion is not much different than the one McLuhan (1994) draws. However, Buschman (2009) makes clear that Goody does not believe in the strict division between orality and literacy (p. 104). McLuhan (1994) seems to agree on this point as well. He writes, "electric technology seems to favor the inclusive and participational spoken word over the specialist written word" (McLuhan, 1994, p. 82).
I wonder to what degree "critical reflexivity," as it is being used here - i.e. to talk about the distancing activity that allows parts of the environment to become objects of inquiry - is just the outcome of language, the making of significant (vocal) gestures, in general?
Critical Reflection
Buschman (2009) argues that information literacy shares with other "new" literacies - e.g. media literacy, digital literacy, etc. - the notion that literacy education should "teach and enhance the cognitive results of literacy," i.e. critical reflexivity (p. 107). Critical reflexivity, as I understanding Buschman (2009), is the potential outcome of the distancing inherent in the written word, as described by Goody and McLuhan (1994). But why is critical reflexivity important? Why is that a valuable goal?
For Budd (2009), reflection, guided by an intention (or interest?) - i.e. reflection is about something or directed towards something in particular - is a process leading to understanding, to finding meaning. This is in contrast to merely applying meaning (p. 134). Reflection requires moving from a "natural attitude" to a "phenomenological attitude." Budd (2009) says the "natural attitude" is "more readily intuited and is the commonplace mode of thought in our everyday lives" (p. 129). The "phenomenological attitude," in contrast, "entails reflection on the natural attitude" and is an "examination of the world that the self and others live in" (p. 130). I understand Budd (2009) to mean that reflection should involve making oneself in the world (in the physical, social, and informational environment?) an object of inquiry. A key aspect of the "phenomenological attitude" is doubt, meaning the "suspension of judgment" (p. 135). Further, the fruit of phenomenological reflection, as I understand Budd (2009), is the "growth of knowledge" (p. 135).
I appreciated Budd's (2009) definition of "attitude": "an overall manner of being or stance which orients our lived experience" (p. 139). It caught my attention for the similarities with the way the word "attitude" is used John Dewey when describing the "scientific attitude" in Freedom and Culture. He writes that the elements of the "scientific attitude" include the "willingness to hold belief in suspense," the "ability to doubt until evidence is obtained," the "willingness to go where evidence points instead of putting first a personally preferred conclusion," the "ability to hold ideas in solution and use them as hypotheses to be tested instead of dogmas to be asserted," and the "enjoyment of new fields for inquiry and of new problems" (Dewey, 1989, p. 114). Dewey argued throughout his career that the "scientific attitude" should be applied in all areas of inquiry, not just in the natural sciences; he felt it could be used when approaching ethical, political, and social problems. I wonder to what extent the "phenomenological attitude" and the "scientific attitude" are directed to the same (or similar) ends.
Information Literacy
So where does this leave us in terms of defining the object of inquiry, i.e. "information literacy"? It actually still seems really muddy to me, and I think that is because there are a lot of different elements that do not necessarily coalesce into a nice whole. Here are some of these elements:
Buschman (2009) suggests that information literacy is really not that different from other forms of literacy in that its end-in-view is the same as all other literacies, i.e. to enhance critical reflexivity.
Budd (2009) draws a contrast between information literacy as a set of skills, instrumental in nature - e.g. the ACRL Information Literacy Standards - and phenomenological cognitive action, which focuses on intentional and situated (and therefore historical?) "search for understanding" through a process of actively engaging with "complex discourse" (p. 33). Does this phenomenological cognitive action program move us too far from the literacy part of information literacy? Budd's (2009) framework seems geared towards cultivating the "phenomenological attitude" as opposed to literacy as it is understood by Buschman (2009). However, Buschman (2009) does highlight how literacy moves a person toward or makes possible critical reflexivity. So could we say a "phenomenological attitude" is build on the very skills that Budd (2009) critiques as instrumental?
Budd, J. (2009). Framing library instruction: A view from within and without. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.
Buschman, J. (2009). Information literacy, "new" literacies, and literacy. Library Quarterly, 79 (1), 95-118.
Dewey, J. (1989). Freedom and culture (1939). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man (1964). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Definitions I
We decided, as an initial point of entry into the topic of information literacy, to examine definitions of the two words that compose the term: "information" and "literacy." My dictionary defines "information" in multiple ways, e.g. "knowledge obtained from investigation," "the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something," and "a signal or character representing data." And my dictionary defines "literacy" as the "quality or state of being literate," i.e. being "educated" or "cultured," being "able to ready and write." The readings for this week identify what might be called generic or traditional definitions of these words and then offer critical perspectives. Comments regarding the readings and my additional thoughts will hopefully serve as a good conversation starter.
Budd, J. (2009). Framing library instruction: A view from within and without. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.
Floridi, L. (2010). Information: A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gee, J.P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kalman, J. (2008). Beyond definition: Central concepts for understanding literacy. International Review of Education, 54, 523-538.
Rowley, J. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, 33 (2), 163-180.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Problem
[draft]
My general intellectual aim is to grapple with what I believe is a practical, felt problem for many people – namely an underlying anxiety and sense of impotency concerning one’s personal circumstances that is often assuaged by retreating into entertainments and immediate satisfactions or by embracing simplistic representations of the world and false promises of certainty. A guiding assumption, one shared by multiple social and cultural theorists and critics, is that modern (and post-modern) social and cultural conditions make locating the source of personal “troubles” more difficult and do not support the cultural and personal habits necessary for coping with shared anxiety individually felt. To be clear, the anxiety I am talking about is both general (or shared, if not always recognized as such) and specific (or individual) but in both instances historical, meaning it is shaped, at least in part, by human choices and actions (or interaction) rather than just “human nature.” In other words, the anxiety I believe is generated from conditions of modernity (and post-modernity) is not part of a universal human condition. The long-term project is to develop adequate language and theoretical tools to talk about the problem and possible solutions. (from "Bowen Theory Working Prospectus," April 2012)
So ... this independent study is an opportunity to take up this "problem" in the context of libraries and information centers, in the context of library and information science. The link between the first paragraph and the one to follow lies in the question: Why would information literacy be considered as the best path for thinking about this problem in the first place? What were my going assumptions that directed by attention to information literacy as a possible topic that would illuminate this problem?
How do librarians use information and communication technologies to put into concrete practice the normative standards, goals, and ends described in the American Library Association policy statements when other forces are using these same technologies to undermine these ends? This author believes librarians must offer more than information. Providing users with instruction in information literacy might be the best avenue available to librarians interested in fostering a vital democracy. This instruction should include more than how to evaluate information resources. It should also include cultivating a critical stance towards how information is used and the value of treating controversial or challenging materials objectively. There are clearly limits to a librarian’s ability to foster habits of information use conducive to rational debate and negotiation. If instruction is not an option, libraries might devote more space and time to public programming and local organizations, thereby providing the venue for a public sphere to arise. Reading groups around issues of public concern also offer an opportunity for librarians to model democratic habits of rational argumentation, listening, responsible debate, and compromise. (from "Social Constructs of Information" final paper, May 2012)
What is information literacy? We do not start with a "blank slate," so what is the discourse? What tools do we have to critique it?
What is the problem information literacy is meant to solve? How is this related to existing discourse and practice?
Why is information literacy of value?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)