The main idea behind teaching information is to provide people with the skills needed to evaluate, locate and use effectively the needed information which is covered exhaustively in the ALA Information Literacy Competency Standards. The information efficacy of the individual is crucial in order to navigate the information landscape and ultimately contribute to the individual’s ability to be a lifelong learner. And to conceptualize this further, Bruce associates people’s empowerment with the ability to operate within complex information environments.
Bruce, in her book, Informed Learning, goes on to develop this construct of “Informed Learning” as a compliment to Information Literacy with applications across disciplines, in the work place and the community. So while the ALA Information Literacy Competency Standards present a lists of skills necessary for utilizing information, the Informed Learning concept is a more comprehensive and transformative approach to information use ( Bruce, 2008).
My thoughts on the nature of information and literacy rest on access, aka politics, and questions regarding who gets what, when and how. For example, literacy rates in the US are high because of mandated public education courtesy of the State. Information Literacy is very much dependent on the information economy which is trending more towards the commodification of information. Just this week the New York Times announce that users of their web site will now have to pay for content. While this is not surprising and as a business decision, it makes sense for a newspaper to develop other revenue streams because the old advertisement base model is no longer viable in the Internet age, these are the decisions of a proprietary entity seeking to make profits. But I believe more and more information sources will choose to operate behind a pay wall of some sort. A tension exists between the public service principle of libraries, and an information society framework that is linked to privatization strategies that can further commoditize information. The ALA Information Literacy Competency Standards states that “the sheer abundance of information will not in itself create a more informed citizenry without a complementary cluster of abilities necessary to use information effectively”(American Library Association, 2000, p.4). I don’t believe this admirable and necessary goal (creating informed citizens) can be realize if libraries become just access points for ICT’s (Information and Communication Technologies). I know this may be far adrift from the blog question, but any discipline that claims to study the creation, use and access of information cannot ignore the larger socio-economic critiques.
American Library Association (2000). The Information Literacy Competency Standards for
Higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html.
Bruce, C. S. (2008). Informed Learning. Chicago: American Library Association.
It's always interesting seeing your more political perspectives on these questions, and I certainly agree with your concerns. Literacy is a moot point without accessible books, and information literacy is moot without access to freely available information.
ReplyDeleteMy question is, what do libraries do when two of its values, democracy and respect for the rights of information creators (including their right to make money) clash? What if libraries have to pay to make the New York Times database accessible to their patrons? What other things might lose out? How many patrons might ignore the resource if (as Kathleen pointed out on another post) it involves additional steps to access?
I’m not proud to say that I rarely follow politics and am not inclined to think much about them; nonetheless, I found your perspective really interesting. As you stated, "Information Literacy is very much dependent on the information economy which is trending more towards the commodification of information.” Yes, very little is free these days, information included. Unfortunately, libraries are a socialist construct trying to survive capitalism.
ReplyDeleteHmm...I'm trying to chase down my thoughts here 'cause they're running off in so many different directions! I guess my first thought addresses the commodification of information and the recent New York Times decision to charge for those viewers who regularly read the news on-line. I think the historical departure here is the last 10+ years in which viewers read the news for free. Traditionally, (as you pointed out) ad revenues and viewer subscriptions paid the bills. The decline in recent years has occurred on both fronts and they're trying to do something about it. So..I'm not necessarily celebrating the recent decision, but I do understand why they're doing it, and I don't think it reflects a huge change--they've always been profit based, haven't they? The question is, how does the newspaper industry survive in the age of the internet. (Look at the number of newspapers that have completely gone under or have cut their staffing to the bone in recent years!)
ReplyDeleteAs to the intersection of information literacy standards and social justice (who has access to information?), I'd like to hold this question in mind and review the ACRL standards another time. I wonder how much they're engaging in questions of access.
Oh, and the comment that is ringing in my ears is Kimberley's last sentence: "Unfortunately, libraries are a socialist construct trying to survive capitalism." I would love to have a longer conversation about this. My first thought was, "But aren't we a democracy with democratic ideals that happens to have a capitalist economic system?" I know this sounds entirely naive, but I sometimes think that we have come to think of ourselves (and much of the world certainly perceives us as) capitalists first. And capitalists may not care at all about certain democratic ideals such as an informed citizenry, but I think that's where we need to resist and say, "We are more than just a nation of profit-makers and debtors!!" Big sigh--I am without any answers.
ReplyDeleteIt's so interesting to see how the NY Times' new policy really does reflect the changing nature information access. It is in flux right now, and who knows how it eventually will play out. As information consumers, especially as librarians, we have a vested interest in how this plays out. I can't see how it will be possible to continue to have great sources without people getting paid to create them. The price of information has been steadily dropping over the last decade, but if it were 100% free, that would mean it would be backed entirely by advertisers. This could potentially affect the critical eye of those who write the stories in the information products we use.
ReplyDeleteI would like to say that we're a democratic society first and a capitalist one second, but unfortunately, I just don't think that's true. Historically (or at least, during the imperialist rush during the late 1800s/early 1900s), when it comes to a choice of democratic interests or economic interests, the United States has tended to weigh economic interests more heavily. (See banana republics, for instance.)
ReplyDeleteAlso, information creation has always had an economic aspect to it. Even hearkening back to the monasteries and the days of the patronage system, what was produced was what people were willing to pay for. Shakespeare was able to produce his plays (and his colleagues preserved them) because they made money.
So I guess the more important questions are: who is paid to create the information, what information, to what end, and who has the right to access it?
Damn! So much to say, so little time. I don't want you guys to think I'm some crazy Marxist. It's just that our economic system is pretty brutal these days... Anyway, I'll try a more cheerier approach next round.
ReplyDelete