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.