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:

• 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 also discussed the role of power relations in shaping literacy practices.  Social and cultural norms, Gee (2012) notes, exert a kind of power, ruling out some meanings within specific contexts (p. 52).

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.

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.

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.

Information

Floridi (2010) identifies a "general definition of information," i.e. data plus meaning (p. 20), which bears some similarity to the dictionary's description above of information as "a signal or character representing data."  This definition of information is also not too different from that expressed in what Rowley (2007) calls the "data-information-knowledge-wisdom hierarchy," in which information is understood be to composed of meaningful data (p. 171).  Data serves as the building blocks of information when it is structured according to a "chosen system, code, or language" (Floridi, 2010, p. 21).  Floridi (2010) complicates this "general definition" by outlining three broad types of information: mathematical information, environmental information, and semantic information.

In the context of the mathematical theory of information, "information has an entirely technical meaning," notes Floridi (2010, p. 44).  The semantic content - i.e. it's meaning - is irrelevant.  This approach is generally known as "information theory" and is associated with the work of Claude Shannon.  The mathematical approach quantifies information into bits and bytes and focuses on the transmission of these units.  The environmental approach holds that "data might be meaningful independent of an intelligent producer / informer" (p. 32).  Floridi (2010) points to the genetic code found in human DNA as an example of environmental information.  Semantic information most closely meets common understandings of information.  Floridi (2010) identifies two broad types of semantic information: instructional information, which conveys the need for action, and factual information, which is representative of a fact.

Another question for consideration: What is the relationship between the mathematical theory of information and semantic information?  What is the best way of articulating that relationship?  We as librarians certainly use the language of "information theory" - e.g. noise, redundancy, signal - in our work, e.g. reference services.  What is the relationship of "information theory" - in the Claude Shannon sense - to information literacy?

Literacy

Gee (2012) notes that literacy is "traditionally" viewed as the "ability to read and write" and is commonly situated in the "individual person rather than society" (p. 26).  This implies that literacy is the same regardless of context.  In other words, the literacy skills acquired in a classroom setting apply anytime and anywhere.  Both Gee (2012) and Kalman (2008) challenge this traditional approach to the concept of literacy, arguing that literacy should be treated as a historically situated social and cultural practice.  Gee (2012) explains that a person learns to "interpret texts of a certain type in certain ways through having access to, and ample experience in, social settings where texts of that type are read in those ways" and that each person is socialized across multiple groups and institutions (p. 45).  For this reason, it is perhaps better to talk about "literacies" as opposed to "literacy."

As historically specific social and cultural practices, literacies are subject to power relations.  I appreciated that Kalman (2008) made a distinction between "availability" - which concerns the "material aspects" of literacy, such as the "presence of texts" - and "access," which concerns the "social conditions necessary for literacy learning" (p. 531).  However, in addition to issues of access, power relations are also in play in regards to social and cultural norms, e.g. the correctness or truthfulness of one's interpretation of a text in a particular context.  "The ruling out of some interpretations," writes Gee (2012), is an "assertion of power, a power that may reside in institutions that seek to enforce it" (p. 52).

The "Fourth Revolution"

Information and communication technologies, and the networks they support, have altered objective social conditions.  Information and communication technologies make possible and sustain global capitalism.  They collapse time and distance between individuals and therefore expand the range of the intended and unintended consequences of human action.  But in addition to these social consequences, information and communication technologies have had cultural consequences.  These technologies have, since the 1950s, brought about what Floridi (2010) calls a "fourth revolution" in "our understanding of the external world" and "our conception of who we are" (p. 8-9).  The reason Floridi believes these are "transforming" technologies is because they "engineer [informational] environments that the user is then enabled to enter through (possibly friendly) gateways" (p. 11). 

Based on this week's readings and previous knowledge, here's my preliminary interpretation of the impact of information and communication technologies in the context of our present inquiry into information literacy:  These technologies increase the potential scope and depth of one's social and informational environment because they have altered object social conditions, e.g. increased social integration.  It is necessary at this point to be clear.  I see a distinction between the objective "world out there" that we "bump" into and a person's social and informational environment.  And it's an important distinction to make because it acknowledges that human beings are affected by things in the "world out there" whether they are aware of or acknowledge these things.  There are material consequences resulting from human action.  Environment, on the other hand, is, for lack of a better term, the interface between a person and the "world out there."  Perhaps culture is a better word for it, and I will likely use both terms as we move forward.  Expanding and mastering one's social and informational environment through interaction and problem-solving is what literacy can provide. So might "information literacy" refer to engagement with the informational environment?

Budd (2009), Gee (2012), and Kalman (2008) converge around the idea that education in general and literacy in particular requires engagement with social groups and culture, e.g. the informational environment, as opposed to the cultivation of a skill set.  Does the informational environment count as a historically specific social context as Gee (2012) and Kalman (2008) discussed them?  What level of granularity is necessary for describing literacy practices in regards to engaging and mastering the informational environment?  Can one speak about the entire informational environment, and what would that really mean?  Or is it more appropriate to talk about specific instances of engagement or interaction?  The outcome of literacy should be growth defined as expansion of mastery in engaging one's environment - and an expansion of the environment itself as one interacts with a greater number and more diverse social groups? - and freedom defined as the ability to act deliberately in one's environment.

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.

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?