Advertisement

Peeling Back the Layers: Deconstructing Information Literacy Discourse in Higher Education

  • Alison HicksEmail author
  • Annemaree Lloyd
Conference paper
  • 199 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12051)

Abstract

The discourses of information literacy practice create epistemological assumptions about how the practice should happen, who should be responsible and under what conditions instruction should be given. Analysis of a wide range of documents and texts emerging from the Higher Education (HE) sector suggest that information literacy (IL) is shaped by two competing and incongruent narratives. The outward facing narrative of information literacy (located in information literacy standards and guidelines) positions information literacy as an empowering practice that arms students with the knowledge and skills to battle the complexity of the modern information world. In contrast, the inward facing narrative (located in information literacy texts) positions students as lacking appropriate knowledge, skills and agency. This deficit perception, which has the capacity to influence pedagogical practice, is at odds with constructivist and action-oriented views that are espoused within information literacy instructional pedagogy. This presentation represents the first paper in a research programme that interrogates the epistemological premises and discourses of information literacy within HE.

Keywords

Information literacy Positioning theory Discourse analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Secker, J., Coonan, E.: A New Curriculum for Information Literacy: Curriculum and Supporting Documents. https://newcurriculum.wordpress.com/project-reports-and-outputs/. Accessed 29 Aug 2019
  2. 2.
    Jacobson, T.E., Mackey, T.P.: Proposing a metaliteracy model to redefine information literacy. Commun. Inf. Lit. 7(2), 84–91 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries). Framework for information literacy for higher education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework. Accessed 29 Aug 2019
  4. 4.
    ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/standards.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2019
  5. 5.
    Bruce, C.: The Seven Faces of Information Literacy. Auslib Press, Adelaide (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lloyd, A.: Information literacy: different contexts, different concepts, different truths? J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. 37(2), 82–88 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tuominen, K., Savolainen, R., Talja, S.: Information literacy as a sociotechnical practice. Libr. Q. 75(3), 329–345 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bombaro, C.: The framework is elitist. Ref. Serv. Rev. 44(4), 552–563 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drabinski, E., Sitar, M.: What standards do and what they don’t. In: McElroy, K., Pagowsky, N. (eds.) Critical Pedagogy Handbook. Neal-Schuman, Chicago (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    AACU (Association of American Colleges and Universities). Information literacy VALUE rubric. http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/information-literacy. Accessed 29 Aug 2019
  11. 11.
    Smith Macklin, A.: Integrating information literacy using problem-based learning. Ref. Serv. Rev. 29(4), 306–314 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arnold-Garza, S.: The flipped classroom teaching model and its use for information literacy instruction. Commun. Inf. Lit. 8(1), 7–22 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin, J.: Refreshing information literacy: learning from recent British information literacy models. Commun. Inf. Lit. 7(2), 115–127 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morgan, P.K.: Pausing at the threshold. Portal: Libr. Acad. 15(1), 183–195 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilkinson, L.: The problem with threshold concepts. Sense and Reference (2014). https://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/the-problem-with-threshold-concepts/. Accessed 29 Aug 2019
  16. 16.
    Burkholder, J.M.: Interpreting the conventions of scholarship: rhetorical implications of the ACRL Framework. Portal: Libr. Acad. 19(2), 295–314 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elmborg, J.: Critical information literacy: implications for instructional practice. J. Acad. Librariansh. 32(2), 192–199 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kapitzke, C.: (In)formation literacy: a positivist epistemology and a politics of (out)formation. Educ. Theory 53(1), 37–53 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lloyd, A.: Information literacy as a socially enacted practice: sensitising themes for an emerging perspective of people-in-practice. J. Doc. 68(6), 772–783 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Given, L.: Discursive constructions in the university context: social positioning theory and mature undergraduates’ information behaviours. New Rev. Inf. 3, 127–142 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McKenzie, P.: Positioning theory and the negotiation of information needs in a clinical midwifery setting. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 55(8), 685–694 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holland, D., Leander, K.: Ethnographic studies of positioning and subjectivity: an introduction. Ethos 32(2), 127–139 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McVee, M., Silvestri, K., Barrett, N., Haq, K.: Positioning theory. In: Alvermann, D., Unrau, N., Sailors, M., Ruddell, R. (eds.) Theoretical Models and Processes of Literacy. Routledge, New York (2019)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moghaddam, F., Harré, R.: Words, conflicts and political processes. In: Moghaddam, F., Harré, R. (eds.) Words of Conflict, Words of War: How the Language We Use in Political Processes Sparks Fighting. Praeger, Santa Barbara (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tirado, F., Gálvez, A.: Positioning theory and discourse analysis: some tools for social interaction analysis. Hist. Soc. Res./Historische Sozialforschung 33(1), 224–251 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Slocum-Bradley, N.: The positioning diamond: a trans-disciplinary framework for discourse analysis. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 40(1), 79–107 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bravender, P., McClure, H., Schaub, G.: Teaching Information Literacy Threshold Concepts: Lesson Plans for Librarians. Neal-Schuman, Chicago (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Godbey, S., Wainscott, S., Goodman, X.: Disciplinary Applications of Information Literacy Threshold Concepts. Neal-Schuman, Chicago (2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Burkhardt, J.M.: Teaching Information Literacy Reframed: 50+ Framework-Based Exercises for Creating Information-Literate Learners. Neal-Schuman, Chicago (2017)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jacobson, T.E., Mackey, T.P.: Metaliteracy in Practice. Neal-Schuman, Chicago (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Harmeyer, D., Baskin, J.J.: Implementing the Information Literacy Framework: A Practical Guide for Librarians. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham (2018)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hosier, A., et al.: The Information literacy user’s guide: an open, online text book. https://textbooks.opensuny.org/the-information-literacy-users-guide-an-open-online-textbook/. Accessed 29 Aug 2019
  33. 33.
    Mackey, T.P., Jacobson, T.E.: Metaliteracy: Reinventing Information Literacy to Empower Learners. Facet Publishing, London (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jacobson, T.: Foreword. In: Harmeyer, D., Baskin, J.J. (eds.) Implementing the Information Literacy Framework: A Practical Guide for Librarians. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham (2018)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    McLaughlin, K.: Empowerment: A Critique. Routledge, Abingdon (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Adams, R.: Empowerment, Participation and Social Work. Palgrave Macmillan, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Furedi, F.: I don’t want to have my awareness raised, thanks. http://www.frankfuredi.com/newsite/article/i_dont_want_to_have_my_awareness_raised_thanks. Accessed 29 Aug 2019
  38. 38.
    Walton, G., Cleland, J.: Information literacy: empowerment or reproduction in practice? A discourse analysis approach. J. Doc. 73(4), 582–594 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College, London (UCL)LondonUK

Personalised recommendations