Bruce on Information Literacy

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.