Information literacy: a non-definition
Mon 7 Dec 2009, 5:58 pm
Edit: Iris blogged her own thoughts on this in her post What is Information Literacy Anyway?
Iris says on FriendFeed “I have to give a 10-minute presentation on information literacy today. I wish I knew what information literacy is.”
I know Iris is up to the challenge of explaining what information literacy is and then saying something useful about it in ten minutes. But it is true that “information literacy” can be slippery, and not everyone has the patience to get through ACRL’s Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. ACRL’s one-sentence definition is as follows: “Information literacy is a set of abilities requiring individuals to ‘recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information.’”
If I were going to give a talk where defining information literacy or showing the difficulty of defining information literacy was part of the brief, I might start with the difficulty of defining “regular” literacy. I believe once upon a time, to be legally literate, a person had to be able to sign his or her own name. Now, even incoming college students who are fully “literate” by contemporary definitions still need to boost their literacy to be able to read complex academic writing and to write in a way that the academy values.
In a similar way, in the recent past a person might have been reasonably information “literate” if she or he could find a book in a card catalog. Now our incoming college students can find all kinds of information on the web, but need to come to a more nuanced understanding of what’s available and what is considered relevant in academe to be literate enough for college work.
Or perhaps instead, if I were in Iris’s shoes I’d start with “information.” It’s a word that has bothered me ever since I started library school. Look back at that ACRL definition. It’s easy enough (perhaps) to know when I have an “information need” when I don’t know how to get somewhere and need driving directions. But when I’m looking for articles to support my paper where I’m arguing that the tension between Wallace Shawn’s work as an actor and his work as a writer leads to a public persona that is self-deconstructing–well, what kind of “information” do I need there? We often talk about finding sources so the student can “join the conversation,” and I sometimes say they need to find multiple viewpoints they can get in their papers “and make ‘em fight.” In that case it seems less like finding “information” than it seems like finding “dinner party guests” or “sparring partners.”
If a person’s idea of finding information is determining how to get from here to there, or the chief exports of Bolivia, no wonder so many of them are in search of what Wayne Bivens-Tatum calls the improbable source. As with so many areas where students need to adjust to college, I think the role of information literacy in higher education is to take what students already know and complicate it, extend it, deepen it, and test it.

Let me distract you with a response to your post while I craftily plagiarize the whole thing for the talk that got postponed until tomorrow…
Also, I have the beginnings of a blog post on this very topic, which I hope to publish in the next day or two.
Anyway, I’ve always had two problems with “information literacy” as a term: “information” and “literacy.” The first could mean almost anything and the second could mean doing almost anything with it. I’ve mostly gotten around the second with the definition “finding, evaluating, and ethically using,” but I’m still having trouble defining “information.” The problem for me is that I can start to think that it’s pretty easily defined as “evidence,” but that right there is a much more specific term than the original because it implies a whole apparatus of rhetoric and research and knowledge building. Basically, it’s a jargon term masquerading as a layman’s term.
But, by hook or by crook, I’ll have 10 insightful minutes of stuff to say by tomorrow.
Comment by Iris — December 7, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
Since I’ve tended to treat “information” as roughly equivalent to “inevitable”–that is, as having no meaning at all–it’s tough to comment here except to say that I really, really like this discussion. (And can’t think of a way I could
plagiarize ituse it as research material.)Comment by walt crawford — December 7, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
As someone who is an information architect, the word “information, to me”, means data that can be structured, digested, analyzed, and (re)used. Whether that is a website taxonomy or directions to the nearest Tim Hortons, people must be taught how to interpret the information, judge its usefulness and/or validity, and make a decision accordingly.
Comment by Cecily — December 7, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
Ugh. Errant quotation mark in the above comment.
Comment by Cecily — December 7, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
I am fascinated by this for many reasons, but mostly because my idea of information literacy is really kind of different. I should write my own blog post about that, though.
Comment by laura — December 7, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
In my opinion, informaton literacy is the ability of find the needed information and evaluate the accessed information
For example, I want to know what information literacy is, I know I am going to use the tools such as google, OPAC, and ask librarian, and when I gain the information, I have the ability to justify if it is proper and real
Comment by Henry — December 7, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
[...] Lawson from Colorado College then wrote a nice post on his blog, See Also…, which offered a great description of what students are supposed to be doing with multiple [...]
Pingback by Newman Library Idea Lab » Struggling to Define Information Literacy — December 8, 2009 @ 9:10 am
Thanks for pointing me to Bivens-Tatum’s posting about the improbably source. It perfectly describes the challenge a friend of mine had when asked by a student for “a book about the design of the iphone.”
Comment by David Fiander — December 14, 2009 @ 8:11 am