Information literacy and the academic library: a critical look at a concept and the controversies surrounding it

Information Literacy and the Academic Library: A Critical Look at a Concept and the Controversies Surrounding It by Edward K. Owusu-Ansah

Despite information literacy’s significant presence in discussions in academic libraries and academe, librarians continue to debate the definition of the concept. This article seeks a shift from exploring definitions to designing solutions by demonstrating that the concept has been adequately delineated in the many existing writings on the topic.

Edward K. Owusu-Ansah is Reference Librarian/Assistant Professor and Coordinator of Information Literacy at the College of Staten Island, City University of New York, 2800 Victory Blvd., Staten Island, New York 10314 ⬍[email protected]⬎.

I

nformation literacy is a familiar concept on campuses across the United States,1 to higher education accrediting bodies in the country,2 and beyond.3 Stephen Foster observed that the professional literature “currently reverberates with a near-missionary zeal with the cause of information literacy.”4 Lorie Roth, a college administrator, contended that information literacy “promotes the vision of what all universities want, work for, and hope for.”5 Nonetheless, contrary to what might be expected from such familiarity and engagement, discussions on the topic are still plagued with concerns over whether the concept of information literacy has been defined clearly and adequately enough to permit deliberations on how to achieve information literacy.6 Jeremy Shapiro and Shelley Hughes called information literacy “an often-used but dangerously ambiguous concept.”7 Writers like Loanne Snavely, Natasha Cooper, and Cushla Kapitzke essentially agreed with that opinion.8 These doubts and concerns notwithstanding, accrediting agencies continue to incorporate the desire for information literate students into their standards and expectations.9 Institutional forces persist in their efforts at reminding administrators, educators and the populace of the importance of information literacy and of the need to pay attention to it.10 Academia, as a result of these inputs and a desire to serve effectively students and society, finds itself compelled to deal with information literacy, even as controversies surrounding the exact meaning and implications of the concept persist. Caught in the midst of this unique development is that segment of the college and university traditionally responsible

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 29, Number 4, pages 219 –230

for managing availability and access to information and knowledge, the academic library. Academic librarians have been thrust into a new and unfamiliar role. They find themselves primarily responsible on many campuses for providing suggestions and steps toward achieving information literacy. They also find themselves occasionally engulfed in a debate over the meaning of a concept for which they are expected to provide a roadmap. Seeking solutions, but usually lacking the institutional recognition or power to succeed, frustration often sets in and redirects attention to the purportedly unresolved nature of information literacy as a concept. The result is a debate over definitions that often undermine concentration on the development of concrete solutions aimed at achieving information literacy in higher education. This article attempts a resolution of the definitional debate and hopes to discourage the escape from action it so often results in by reiterating and demonstrating the existence of a reasonably widespread understanding regarding the meaning of information literacy. That understanding should serve as a basis for action.

ON

UNCERTAINTIES FRUSTRATIONS

THE

AND

Reflecting on the terminological chaos surrounding the concept, Christine Bruce wrote that information literacy “may be seen as using information technology; as a combination of information and technology skills; as acquiring mental models of information systems; as a process; as an amalgam of skills, attitudes and knowledge; as the ability to learn; or as a complex of ways of experiencing information use.”11 The lack of clarity that the bundling of such array of concepts may oc-

July 2003 219

casion compelled Linda Langford to conclude that the literature and discussion on information literacy could be confusing to its audience and participants.12 Langford would later confess her earlier effort to explore a clarification of information literacy was the result of frustration “over a concept that was being bandied around.”13 Such concerns call for a critical look at what information literacy is, and induce a need to address the parameters of what appears to many within librarianship and academe to be a structureless colossus, a perception that undermines the academic library’s ability to initiate and maintain effective information literacy programs. Addressing the controversies surrounding the definition of information literacy is therefore, a practical imperative, summoned not only by the debates over definition that cloud discussions on the topic, but also by the crippling effects of those debates on the planning and implementation of steps to achieve information literacy. Unfortunately, the uncertainties resulting from the debates persist, and continue to evoke a sense of a definitional conundrum, though sufficient work has already been done toward defining the basic tenets and expectations of information literacy. This article will demonstrate that the concept of information literacy has been adequately clarified in the literature on the topic. It will also show that several key contributors involved in the process of that clarification agreed more in substance than they disagreed, that their aspirations and expectations converged in far more ways than they diverged.

DEFINITIONAL CONUNDRUM OVERREACH?

OR

The literature on information literacy reveals the presence of a consensual core that has developed as a result of a multitude of contributions towards the delineation of the concept. Some of these attempts were to define information literacy; some were to prescribe actions to effectuate it, some to improve on its practice. All were unanimous in the recognition of a needed result they branded literacy and specifically identified as information related. That so much controversy still exists regarding the term is not for a lack of a clear definition but the absence of a clear line of action and the will and practical chance to implement it. Kathleen Dunn was by all indications right in her conclusion:

220

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

“There are strong similarities between the various statements of information literacy skills developed to date. Regardless of how one describes the essential skills and knowledge necessary for information literacy, the processes are always the same.”14

The main discernable fault in several of the attempts at defining information literacy is that their proponents often displayed such an overarching desire to be all-inclusive that prescriptions for concrete and practical steps were frequently absent in their efforts, and when present were often submitted in vague terms. Stretching the boundaries of the concept to encompass all that is the duty and practice of the college and university, many of these proponents frequently placed the onus for achieving information literacy on all of academia.15 No particular segment of the college or university was assigned primary responsible for ensuring that students become information literate. Accountability, falling on all, effectively fell on none. Yet not a single member of the academic establishment will disagree that vague responsibilities and absence of accountability usually do not combine to produce positive results. Appropriate attitudes and concrete executions of programs and initiatives as well as a clear delineation of the library’s place in those processes is what still leaves much to be desired in the discourse on information literacy in higher education. Thus, though definitions are important, and this article attempts a definitional clarification, the author’s ultimate motive is to prepare grounds for facilitating action, not to explore definitions for the sole or primary purpose of defining a concept. The goal of the definitional engagement is to establish a broad degree of unanimity on the basic interpretation of what it is upon which there should be a desire or imperative to act. Such a commitment requires thoroughness. A clarification of the constituent terms of information and literacy, as definitional components of the concept of information literacy, must be addressed since they also represent potential grounds for controversy and misunderstanding.

ON THE CONSTITUENT TERMS: LITERACY AND INFORMATION Clearly, for a widely accepted definition of information literacy there exists none more popular or widely quoted than that

provided by the American Library Association (ALA) in 1989.16 The antecedents to that definition and an exploration of how it fortified for librarians the content and boundaries of information literacy cannot be neglected in any attempt to understand the concept and its significance to librarians. One would also, in identifying the concrete parameters of information literacy, have to submit to the Aristotelian view of the cumulative nature of the evolution of human ideas and knowledge.17 Thus, much as 1989 shaped the discourse that was to follow it, the evolving discussions have also clarified, enriched and strengthened what 1989 envisioned and articulated.

“What ALA did in 1989 was adopt and popularize a concept that was a product of the fusion of two terms.” What ALA did in 1989 was adopt and popularize a concept that was a product of the fusion of two terms, both with huge and dedicated followings and laden with much debate and diverse interpretations. The legitimacy of that fusion and its application to a new educational requirement for citizens and students has not gone without expressed dissatisfaction. No look at the historical or current evolution of information literacy can be complete without examining the very legitimacy of the semantic manipulation that is at the root of the concept. That involves a clarification of the constituent terms and the establishment of whether their combination actually represents the phenomenon that is at the core of information literacy initiatives. Kathleen Tyner, examining perceptions of the concept by librarians, wrote: “Information literacy is an abstract concept. As a metaphor, it is a neatly packaged, imaginative, and descriptive phrase that is not literally applicable or easily interpretable, employing something more qualitative and diffuse than is evident in the historical meaning of both literacy and information.”18

Yet, the combination of both terms is appropriate and their fusion does delineate a concept many librarians recognize. A clarification and proof of such a contention requires a close look at the two terms and their possible definitions. That imposes some fundamental questions.

What is literacy? What is information? Is there a need for the isolation of such literacy as information literacy and if so how does it differ from the unending number of ‘literacies’ that emerge with varying life spans every now and then?19 Literacy Discussions of literacy have usually focused on the ability to read and write.20 Venezky provided a more comprehensive definition but still betrayed a readingwriting preoccupation when he described literacy as “a minimal ability to read and write in a designated language, as well as a mindset or way of thinking about the use of reading and writing in everyday life.”21 But, as Suzanne Houff observed, the effects of technology in broadening the individual’s knowledge base and increasing skill demands also calls for a broadening of the definition of literacy.22 That view is one that some who view literacy as dealing basically with reading and writing also accept.23 It is an acknowledgment that has altered discussions on literacy to include diverse focuses. As an indication of that acknowledgment, Audrey Gorman concluded that literacy “is not just about reading, or reading and writing.”24 Judith Montgomery defined literacy to include all usages of language in “reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking.”25 Montgomery’s view of literacy involved more than skills, and extended to the concept of social processes as opposed to earlier uses of literacy to identify “the ability of an individual to read and write his or her own native language.”26 The National Literacy Act of 1991 conceded the need for an expanded definition of literacy and provided one in legislative language that allowed for such expanded and comprehensive perception of the concept by defining literacy as “an individual’s ability to read, write, and speak in English, and compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on the job and in society, to achieve one’s goals, and develop one’s knowledge and potential.”27 This was a far cry from the limited definition of literacy that Judith Montgomery noted as characteristic of earlier definitions. Two years later, the authors of what has been described as a landmark study on adult literacy,28 a 1993 national adult literacy survey sponsored by the United States Department of Education, defined literacy as “using printed and written information to function in society, to

achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential.”29 The authors of the survey explained the novelty of their definition by stating: “Unlike traditional definitions of literacy, which focused on decoding and comprehension, this definition encompasses a broad range of skills that adults use in accomplishing the different types of literacy tasks associated with work, home and community contexts.”30

The acceptance of the branding of different tasks as constituting various expressions of literacy represented an acceptance of the legitimacy of discussions referencing multiple literacies. It is no wonder then that mention of divergent and multiple literacies has become common.31 Technological literacy, computer literacy, web literacy, visual literacy, media literacy, economic literacy and other ‘literacies’ are now familiar concepts. The International Technology Education Association defined technological literacy as “the ability to use, manage, assess, and understand technology.”32 These abilities included knowing what constitutes technology, understanding how it is created and how it affects society, as well as being aware of society’s influence on the evolution of technology.33 Robin H. Kay noted the changes in the definition of computer literacy as software and hardware developments dictated a modification of the skills and concepts required to be computer literate.34 He concluded that there was a growing consensus among researchers that computer literacy could be viewed as simply the ability of an individual to “use a computer to satisfy a particular need.”35 Rob Darrow defined Web literacy as “a subset of information literacy” requiring “the ability to access, search, utilize, communicate, and create information on the World Wide Web.”36 According to David M. Considine, visual literacy required the ability to “comprehend and create images in a variety of media in order to communicate effectively.”37 The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development defined media literacy as “the ability to decode, analyze, evaluate and produce communication in a variety of forms.”38 David Fettig reported that a broad-based attempt to define economic literacy resulted in the isolation of desirable outcomes that stressed the importance of understanding economic issues that impact “ personal finance and

public policy,” as well as the ability to evaluate economic policies and ideas.39

“There could be. . .as many types of literacy as the possible instances that required conversance with specialized skills and expertise.” Even a cursory look at these definitions suggests that each constituency, while focusing on a specific kind of literacy, viewed the qualified concept of literacy as dependent on and validated by what Patricia Breivik and Gordon Gee observed to be a “social, cultural political, and economic context.”40 In the adjustment to these contexts and the aspirations underlying them, literacy became an indicator of basic knowledge of a subject,41 familiarity with certain skills, and awareness of desirable concepts. There could be, in essence, as many types of literacy as the possible instances that required conversance with specialized skills and expertise. This is exactly what Pierre Walter alluded to when he talked of “multicultural literacy, computer literacy, Internet literacy, scientific literacy, mathematical literacy, media literacy, visual literacy, technological literacy, political literacy or any number of other literacies widely valued and discussed in our society.”42 Walter viewed literacy as a set of “skills, tasks, practices or critical reflection.”43 Such views reveal the intent and assert the practical benefits of literacy. They also carry the meaning of the concept beyond the limited parameters of reading and writing. Literacy, regardless of what type is addressed, is seen by the various approaches as a socially conditioned phenomenon. It is at once behaviorist and functional: behaviorist in its expected outcomes and functional within the contexts of its realization. Efficiency and effectiveness are thus often used as criteria for the assessment of literacy. Much as the attempts at measuring it may involve assessing aptitudes at given stages, the process of acquiring literacy is a neverending one. That process is never complete. Literacy is a continuous journey, with unfolding stages of improvement, geared towards perfection but never truly arriving there.

July 2003

221

Such is the literacy that information literacy proponents appear to target, a literacy which is specifically information related and also addresses skills and abilities, mindsets, individual knowledge bases as well as social processes, and addresses all these in the interest of attaining a level of proficiency necessary for social functioning and individual advancement. What all these proponents seek is a phenomenon that defines and advocates conversance with the universe of information within which information age participants operate in their everyday lives, in school, in their work environments, and within their social associations and interactions. The aspiration of information literacy proponents represents, therefore, a legitimate advocacy within higher education and the nation at large if the content of the concept of information, the qualifier that specifies the particular literacy in question, is appropriately determined. Information The term information, despite its wide usage, is not devoid of definitional controversy. From its more general and widely used context, in which it evoked communicated meaning,44 Shannon would transform it into a mathematical construct with discernible structure and outcomes,45 to which meaning was of no particular concern. As H. S. Heaps put it, Shannon viewed information content as an “amount of information required for identification of symbols or words rather than in terms of the knowledge communicated by them.”46 To this mathematician and engineer credited for launching information theory and expediting the growth of computer science, information could be measured in bits and the capacity to transmit information could be expressed in bits per seconds.47 Not only could information be measured, its transmission and reception could also be predicted with a relative degree of mathematical certainty.48 Thus, did discussion of an entropy of language, defined as “a statistical parameter which measures how much information is produced on the average for each letter of text,”49 become common to information theory.50 James F. Crow pointed out that Shannon used the term information in a way that was different from its usage in ordinary English.51 A fair and more relevant observation would however be the recognition that Shanon was interested in the

222

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

communication process and even within that in the actual process of transmission, a natural interest for one working in the telecommunications industry. What could be delivered and how that could be delivered was of critical importance to the industry. The engineering solutions that made that possible were of immediate concern to Shanon. Meaning and multiplicity of interpretation could only represent obstacles, and these semantic obstacles Shanon avoided dealing with. Yet, Shannon’s approach still casts a wide shadow on many of the contemporary discussions on information. Therefore, it is not surprising that a 1978 edition of a well regarded dictionary would provide the following meaning, among others, for information: “Any distinct signal element forming part of a message or communication, especially one assembled and made available for use by automatic machines, a digital computer; usually measured in bits.”52 Many dictionary interpretations, however, acknowledge the predominantly non-mechanistic nature of information.53 Therefore, it is not surprising that researchers like Robert M. Losee,54 Frank Webster,55 and Nancy Freeman Rohde56 observed that various individuals and professions use the term to indicate different things. Zhang Yuexiao provided a quantitative demonstration of the extent of that diversification when he reported 400 applications of the term,57 while some like Martha L. Hale concluded that the meaning of the word differed even among very limited groups of information professionals.58 Norman Stevens saw the diversity of meaning and application as a threat to constructing a consensual interpretation of information that could apply across disciplines.59 Despite such observations, some still saw the need for establishing a common ground in the determination of what constituted information.60 Such an endeavor was Robert Losee’s, who proposed a discipline-independent definition of the term.61 Losee was convinced that his definition, to be free of disciplinary constraints and therefore, applicable to all domains, was necessary for the promotion of interdisciplinary understanding and communication.62 Thus, he attempted to strip down the term to a basic interpretation in which it could be perceived in conjunction with processes. Information, according to Losee was “the values within the outcome of any process.”63 A further clarification of ‘value’ as a variable’s “at-

tribute or characteristic” allowed “different kinds of processes to be information carrying or information producing phenomena.”64 Brilliant as this synthesizing attempt may be, the limitation of information to an attribute attendant to a process diminished its propensity for independent existence, complicating rather than clarifying what actually constitutes information. If information were an attribute in the sense in which Losee saw it, then it could not be expected to have existence outside the process within whose outcomes it emerged. That made information a corollary product, a dependent variable that lacked the capacity for independent existence. It was not a thing in itself. Accepting such a definition implied, contrary to Losee’s intentions, a more limiting rather than expansive meaning for information.65 What were data or facts generated in the course of an empirical research to be considered? Were they to earn the right to be called information only on the merit of the process within which they were uncovered? If one were to respond to that in the affirmative and further studies conducted to test those data or facts confirmed them, then which process could be considered the basis for the information status of such data or facts? An inflexible insistence on dependence on processes could thus create a tangle in which extracting the informational nature of the data/fact in question could become a difficult task. A more expedient and viable approach would be to accept that such data and facts constitute information not by virtue of the process in which they were generated but by virtue of the fact that data and facts if they are to be communicated or received, and have the potential to induce awareness of something that before them was not, can be regarded, by such status, as information. The processes within which they emerge may provide further and needed context and clarification, but those processes are not principal determinants of, and definitely not the reasons for, the informational status of such data/facts. If “to make known”66 is to inform, then that which is made known is information. But Losee’s approach still reinforced the notion that the term information may not be considered in isolation, that usages of the term imply and necessitate context. That is an observation worth paying attention to as contributors to the debate on information literacy malign the use of the term information and its combination

with literacy and force upon information absolutized definitions originating in limited perspectives. That caution compels the concession that even the most comprehensive perceptions of information will be operationally suspect for particular applications. But one can try to be comprehensive and from the point of view of a profession project a conception that is as all embracive as possible but not diminishing of the particular or specialized application intended. To that end, it was Norman D. Stevens’ definition that best summarized as well as stated the central interpretations of the term information in a manner most applicable to the librarian’s use and yet remained accommodating of usages in other fields. Stevens defined information as “factual data, ideas, and other knowledge emanating from any segment of society that are identified as being of value, sometimes gathered on a regular basis, organized in some fashion, transmitted to others, and used in some meaningful fashion.”67 This is an appropriate and useful starting point for the ‘information’ that is the subject of information literacy. The only note of caution to be attached to Stevens’ definition is the reference to value as a condition for defining information. To be valuable or not is a predominantly subjective determination to which a viable definition of information cannot be subjected. Thus, if the quoted definition were amended to exclude an insistence on value because of its subjective trappings, then a fully workable definition could emerge, one with the potential to generate sufficient consensus among librarians and non-librarians as they deliberate on information literacy and attempt a clarification of the information component of the terminology. Such a definition will also eliminate the frequent concerns about the relationship between information skills and knowledge acquisition, as it clearly suggests that knowledge may indeed also be seen as information, a proposition implicitly rejected by those who categorically posit that knowledge is not information, and that knowledge, not information, should be the concern of information literacy. Indeed information literacy is about knowledge navigation, processing and creation and information is to knowledge what building materials are to a house, houses to a community, and communities to a nation. Information and knowledge are intertwined by their very structure and exis-

tence. They are integral to each other’s state of being. The significance of information is of little import if information were totally divorced from its anticipated contribution to a desired result that is knowledge. The relationship between the two phenomena permeates the various levels and mutations in their constant transformation, none ever truly having an existence in isolation from the other. Any attempt to forcefully divorce information and knowledge and deny their interchangeability or complementary relationship entails a fallacy of perception. To Samuel Johnson, that distinguished 18th century English writer and lexicographer, to inform was “to supply with knowledge.”68 Yet, some continue to insist on a clear separation of information and knowledge.

“Any attempt to forcefully divorce information and knowledge and deny their interchangeability or complementary relationship entails a fallacy of perception.” THE FALLACY OF THE ‘INFORMATION VERSUS KNOWLEDGE’ DEBATE Paul Zurkowski, believed to be the first to use the term information literacy, was also perhaps the first writer on the topic to categorically separate information from knowledge. “Information is not knowledge,” he wrote to initiate the prologue to his much-cited 1974 work.69 That assertion would find its way into the thinking of many more writers. “Information is not knowledge and getting information is not thinking,” cautioned Jane Kansas.70 Librarians and many in academia have echoed that view over and over again. Inherent in that claim appears a value judgment that assumes the inferiority of the information gathering process to a more substantive and valuable operation of knowledge creation. The caution may be useful, but pitching information against knowledge neither concedes the role of information in knowledge creation nor accepts the eventual transformation of knowledge into information. Donald J. Hillman posited that knowledge consisted of “organized bodies of information.”71 He also recognized that not all organized bodies of information

constituted knowledge. To resolve the potential confusion arising from the seemingly contradictory nature of the two observations, Hillman concluded that a significant characteristic of “much information acquired in the course of ordinary experience is that. . . it is seldom accompanied by any explanation. By contrast, it is the desire for explanations that generates knowledge.”72 One may however impose a further need for clarification by asking what that explanation becomes eventually once at the disposal of its recipients. The obvious answer, it would seem, is to acknowledge that it becomes knowledge waiting to be transmitted as information. The borders between knowledge and information are not as clear-cut as Hillman inadvertently suggested. However, James Marcum would insist: “information is not knowledge.”73 Marcum branded information “an overworked concept that is often confused with knowledge.”74 Arguments like those of Zurkowski and Marcum suggest a distinctive difference between information and knowledge, a difference so acute as to potentially undermine the contributions of librarians who emphasized the importance of information instead of asserting the significance of knowledge. This concern certainly emanates from a view of information reminiscent of Shannon’s desire to measure with mathematical precision and tools the information content of any communication. That limited interpretation compelled the framing of an uncontroversial issue in a manner that evoked an aura of controversy. The development is an unfortunate one. Not only are information and knowledge often and rightfully used in a complementary sense, they do indeed often converge. Joanne Roberts judged well when she saw an interactive relationship between information and knowledge: “Knowledge creation is dependent upon information, yet the development of relevant information requires the application of knowledge.”75 The feeling of an urgent need to insist on the difference between the two and unequivocal rejection of their mention in one breath exposes a failure to appreciate the intrinsic interconnectedness of the two phenomena. Defining specifically what knowledge is, is not an easy task. “All agree that knowledge is valuable, but agreement about knowledge tends to end there,” wrote Keith Lehrer.76 Bertrand Russell reiterated this lack of consensus: “. . .the question ‘What do we mean by ‘knowl-

July 2003

223

edge’?’ is not one to which there is a definite and unambiguous answer.”77 However, from Plato to the present, epistemological deliberations on the origin of knowledge assumed and continue to assume the preeminence of the knower.78 In its elemental stage, knowledge is a structured construct residing within the cognitive confines of its possessor or possessors. Once it leaves those confines, knowledge becomes information and is transformed into a potential building block for future knowledge. To talk of information, therefore, is not to preclude knowledge, for though not all information is knowledge all knowledge represents potential information. This is why James Marcum could only be partially right when he proclaimed in the course of his critique of the information literacy movement: “Knowledge, not information, is the goal of the enterprise.”79 Information and knowledge are what the enterprise is about. Keith Lehrer, therefore, got it right when he argued “knowledge in the information sense” was the only sense in which knowledge could be considered “fundamental to human cognition and required both for theoretical speculation and practical sagacity.”80

INFORMATION LITERACY, THE DEFINITIONAL CONUNDRUM THAT ISN’T Having delineated the parameters and aspirations of literacy pertinent to the current discourse, and having clarified the nature and essence of information and its relationship to knowledge, the meaning and content of the concept created by the fusion of the two terms should be apparent. Indeed, nothing underscores the existence of a consensus on the meaning of information literacy more than the fact that virtually every recent writer who dealt with the definition of the concept resorted to reiterating or tacitly accepting what the ALA provided in 1989 through a presidential committee report.81 Most available definitions espoused in the writings of librarians owe their origin to or share the view advanced in the ALA report.82 ALA did not coin the term. The credit for that goes to Paul Zurkowski,83 who linked information literacy to work: “People trained in the application of information resources to their work can be called information literate.”84 Zurkowski claimed, “The individuals in the remaining portion of the population, while literate in the sense that

224

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

they can read and write, do not have a measure for the value of information, do not have an ability to mold information to their needs, and realistically must be considered information illiterate.”85

Shirley Behrens provided a valuable and concise overview of the development of information literacy as well as the usages of the phrase from Zurkowski’s application to the definitional attempts of the 1980s and early 1990s. Behrens concluded that as the 1980s came to a close, information literacy had received enough attention and study and was “no longer an embryonic concept.”86 On the contrary, “It had been defined with clarity, and its realm comprehensively delineated by the identification of the actual skills and knowledge that are required for information handling in an information-permeated, technologically advanced society.”87

Behrens also believed ALA’s interpretation of the term was generally accepted by the beginning of the 1990s, and thought the association’s 1989 presidential report incorporated within its pages all the leading issues found in the definitional attempts of the 1980s. The most significant achievement of the report, Behrens concluded, was its identification of specific information handling skills that constituted prerequisites for information literacy. The 1989 ALA report defined information literacy in practical terms, using as its measures the expected outcomes or benefits of being information literate. The precise delineation of the concept was therefore, achieved more from inference than from a direct definition. The Presidential Committee’s enumeration of what could be expected of an information literate individual was the closest it came to defining the concept. According to the committee, “To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information.”88

The report went on to further identify information literate people as people who knew how to learn because they were familiar with how knowledge was organized, knew how to find and use information, and had by virtue of such abilities been transformed into lifelong learners.89 The report clearly revealed the committee’s belief that information gave a distinct advantage to its possessor and

that the need for literacy in the tools and knowledge for ascertaining and using information could determine not only intellectual but also social status. Information literacy then, precipitated by the information overload attendant to a rapidly growing information universe, was a tool for social empowerment. Quoting Harlan Cleveland,90 the report reiterated that there was “ample evidence that those who learn now to achieve access to the bath of knowledge that already envelops the world will be the future’s aristocrats of achievement, and they would be far more numerous than any other aristocracy in history.”91

For academia, that crown jewel of the New World, where the democratizing ideals of education and the utilitarian charge of higher education so finely fused to serve a society in search of excellence and yearning for fairness and opportunity the challenges presented by such observations were obvious. ALA left no doubts about what it expected of schools and academia. Ensuring information literacy meant equipping students with the skills and knowledge enabling effective identification of information required to address given problems/issues, the ability to find, evaluate, organize, and effectively use the information to address those problems/issues.92 Clear and laudable as this attempt at delineating a new literacy appeared, developments in the course of actual implementation exposed shortcomings in the original definitional attempt. While the 1989 report provided a list of skills and aptitudes that made an individual information literate, and by so doing successfully established the parameters and content of information literacy, the expectations attendant to those parameters and content were, unfortunately, too overwhelming. They involved universal principles and implicated the whole of society in the attainment of the goals set forth. Behrens suggested ALA’s adoption of the information literacy goals set in the report was actually “the library profession’s response to having its role essentially ignored or overlooked in the educational reform process.”93 If that was the case then the response was perhaps too broad and too far-reaching. Though libraries were thrust into a lead position the onus was also placed on individuals, schools and the workplace. The expressed desirables encompassed, in one breadth, such a broad array of outcomes

and processes like problem solving, decision-making, critical thinking, lifelong learning, learning processes and performance of civic and professional duties. Herein lay an inherent danger for potential obscurity. Later definitional attempts to further delineate the substance and parameters of the concept have focused on attributes, experiences and processes. They have however been woeful in their attempts to assert differences that proved inconsequential, a failure that underscores the fact that these attempts had, in actuality, more in common than their proponents were prepared to concede.

“ALA provided in 1989 the defining characteristics of an information literate individual and expected the aggregation of those characteristics to determine the essence of a central and unifying concept called information literacy.”

ATTRIBUTES, EXPERIENCES AND PROCESSES: MORE CONVERGENCE, LITTLE DIVERGENCE Post 1989 definitions of information literacy tried to overcome the overwhelming and thereby diffused nature of the ALA presidential report’s approach, which often resulted in ambiguous pronouncements and lacked a concrete roadmap for achieving information literacy. ALA provided in 1989 the defining characteristics of an information literate individual and expected the aggregation of those characteristics to determine the essence of a central and unifying concept called information literacy. Some of the definitional attempts that emerged after 1989 strived to be more specific and complete. They proposed concise definitions augmented with enumerated expectations. The concise definition represented the general and integrated essence of the concept, while the enumerated expectations became the concrete and specific attributes or abilities of the information literate. One of the most successful of those attempts was Christina S. Doyle’s approach. Summarizing the results of a study conducted for the National Forum on Information Literacy, Doyle provided the following definition:

“Information Literacy is the ability to access, evaluate and use information from a variety of sources.”94

Doyle’s definition was not altogether new, for Patricia Breivik provided in 1985 a definition attributed to Martin Tessmer, according to which information literacy was “the ability to effectively access and evaluate information.”95 That contained two of the three elements in Doyle’s definition. Tessmer obviously concentrated mainly on what was regarded as being more within the scope of the library and the expertise of its personnel. The third component of Doyle’s definition, the use dimension, though absent in Tessmer was present in the 1989 ALA attempt at delineating the expectations of information literacy. Doyle’s contribution lay in her attempt at enumerating attributes96 that represented steps in the progress through accessing, evaluating and using information. The precursors to those attributes were present in the 1989 ALA report. Doyle called her attributes “potential rubrics for a checklist of skills comprising the process,”97 and regarded her definition as a valuable tool that went beyond explaining the function of information literacy by also providing an operational list of desired outcomes. That was a path the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) would later tread. Doyle, in a more recent work, suggested that the ultimate educational goal of information literacy is to provide students “practice in communication, critical thinking and problem-solving skills.”98 In the end then, Tessmer, ALA and Doyle did not differ much in their ultimate objectives. Carol Collier Kuhlthau, insisting on process rather than attributes, held that information literacy is a way of learning, not a discrete set of skills.99 Her position was close to that of Christine Bruce, who placed information literacy within the thinking-reasoning process that students engage in as they deal with subject matter.100 Claiming the prevailing approach was predominantly behaviorist and overly focused on attributes, Bruce proposed a “phenomenography of information literacy,” in which the conceptions of information users occupied center stage in the definitional effort.101 The result was the isolation of seven attendant experiences that involved the following: browsing; familiarity with, use, processing, and management of information; knowledge construction, research and development; and

professional ethics. This was a position Bruce would reiterate some years later.102 A careful observation of Bruce’s approach reveals, however, a greater insistence on methodology over results. For the eventual attempt at conceptualizing information literacy produced similar perceptions to that of Doyle. The ‘behaviorist’ and ‘phenomenographic’ expectations were not far apart. Indeed, they were more similar than they were dissimilar, and were in practical terms virtually identical, though Bruce went to painstaking lengths to demonstrate the “contrasting characteristics” between her view and Doyle’s.103 Any observer would however be confronted with a difficult task if asked to show how Bruce’s ‘experiences’ differed from Doyle’s attributes. But then, that is the problem the critical researcher is faced with in the case of Kuhlthau too, when she asserts “Education that guides students through stages of information need, to solve a problem or shape a topic, enables them to use information for learning. Information literate users are prepared to apply library and information skills through the course of their life.”104

The processes advocated by Bruce and Kuhlthau clearly required an amalgamation of skills for their success, just as Doyle’s skills had as their ultimate goal a conceptual result that implied a process. Bruce’s differentiation between “information literacy as a process” and “information literacy. . .as executing a process”105 remained, at best, a semantic ploy that reinforced no substantive theoretical or practical difference. Thus, Tessmer, ALA, Doyle, Bruce, and Kuhlthau were, effectively, on the same page when it came to identifying the meaning and intent of information literacy. The insistence on differences that surfaced in some of their argumentations was essentially much ado about nothing. Bruce eventually conceded that though her approach may not have been consistent with those of Doyle and others, it was nonetheless “not in conflict with them.”106 That was an understatement, for her approach was in no substantive way different from those of Doyle and others, at least not on the issue of defining information literacy.

ACRL AND ITS OVERREACH: LITTLE ADDITION, MORE CONFUSION The ACRL, building on the 1989 work of the ALA presidential committee and the

July 2003

225

researchers who followed, and hoping to provide an elaborate direction for information literacy programs, produced a comprehensive list of competency standards for higher education.107 These standards were the ACRL’s instruments for illuminating the landscape for both the academic librarian and the rest of academe on matters concerning information literacy. Before enumerating the standards, ACRL saw a need to delve into the issue of definitions. Viewing information literacy as a set of abilities, ACRL reiterated ALA’s 1989 definition and outlined seven things information literate people should be able to do: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Determine the extent of their information need; Access that information effectively and efficiently; Critically evaluate both information and its sources; Incorporate into their knowledge base selected information; Effectively use information to achieve a purpose; Understand the economic, legal and social aspects of information use; and Access and use information ethically and legally.108

These looked more like a return to Christina Doyle’s “attributes” and were not far from Christine Bruce’s “experiences.” ACRL went on to reiterate an important distinction between information literacy and information technology, pointing out that though information technology may be desired of information literates, information literacy itself went far beyond the technological aspirations of fluency in information technology and the even more limited concept of computer literacy. D. Scott Brandt made the same point when he argued that students must be technology literate to be information literate in networked environments. Brandt regarded fluency in information technology as a prerequisite for information literacy.109 Dough Johnson and Mike Eisenberg reinforced that argument when they contended that computer skills “support and enhance the student’s information problem-solving abilities, but they do not supplant the more general information skill.”110 The competency standards, therefore, followed an established tradition and growing consensus. Approved by the ALA Board of Directors on January 18, 2000, the competency standards isolated five distinct standards

226

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

with twenty-two performance indicators and eighty-seven outcomes. The outcomes, to serve as guidelines, specified the practical expectations of a successful information literacy program. They were detailed and thorough, attempting to include every desirable result of such a program. The excessively exhaustive aspirations of the drafters placed, however, the standards, performance indicators and outcomes beyond the boundaries of what could be expected of librarians and detailed roles exclusive to subject faculty as well. The journey from Tessmer’s librarian-centered approach to the all-inclusive addition of information use and its attendant minefields was complete. The desire to reach every segment of the academic community was an expressed one: “These outcomes serve as guidelines for faculty, librarians, and others in developing local methods for measuring student learning in the context of an institution’s unique mission.”111

nor teaching faculty could realistically claim an ability to address.115 The overreach even compelled situations in which outcomes were not necessarily in tune with the performance indicators they were expected to serve as outcomes for.116 Despite the above concerns, however, the most egregious pitfall of the standards, performance indicators and outcomes formulated by ACRL lay in the constituencies they addressed and the manner in which they addressed those constituencies. For the ACRL attempted in breathtaking thoroughness and exceptional brevity to address in one place and time librarians whose formal teaching role was in question on many campuses117 and faculty who rarely took their clues and marching orders from library associations. Addressing both and reaching none effectively the inevitability of the uncertainty of the current condition was essentially preordained. But it was not one that could be blamed on lack of definitional clarity.

CONCLUSION

“. . .the thoroughness of what the drafters of the standards produced may well have compromised the practical viability of their work.” Sheila Webber and Bill Johnston have noted that the ACRL approach reduced “a complex set of skills and knowledge to small, discreet units.”112 But that is a fragmentation present, though to a lesser degree, in Doyle and Bruce as well. Perhaps the greater pitfall of the ACRL approach originated in its overwhelming desire to be all- inclusive and complete. Expedient or noble as that desire may appear, the thoroughness of what the drafters of the standards produced may well have compromised the practical viability of their work. For the ACRL, by attempting to speak to all constituents of the academic enterprise through the standards, performance indicators and outcomes provided little concrete guidance to its core constituency, academic librarians, and expressed occasionally expectations that could not be easily circumscribed. Thus, many of the standards and performance indicators were outside the purview of the librarian,113 some exceeded what could be realistically demanded of subject faculty,114 others presented obscurities that neither librarians

The debates and concerns over definitions continue in the library literature and in libraries across the country. Yet, as this article has hopefully demonstrated, there exists a sufficient enough mass of understanding on what constitutes information literacy. The controversies and uncertainties surrounding the conceptual delineation of information literacy therefore suggest a deeper professional dilemma, one that concise definitions and elaborate standards have failed to resolve. That dilemma involves not definitional uncertainties but rather difficulties of execution, arising within the dynamics of the educational environment, the deliberations of its power brokers, and the influence and results the relative image and power of the participating interests allows. The fact that information literacy is widely talked about in higher education, and accrediting bodies require it, should suffice to assert its importance and demand concrete platforms for its execution. But the conflicting interests and political capital of the deliberating stakeholders has impeded progress, and it is this impasse and the relative weakness of librarians to assert a position that often causes the retreat to debate definition and content, instead of evoking and allowing practice to shape the concrete forms that information literacy instruction should take.

The duty then of the academic educator-librarian, is one of determining the scope of the concept in the context of the librarian’s role and expected contribution to the realization of campus information literacy objectives, and to delineate specific and executable ways of effectuating information literacy. The need is for academic libraries to come to some consensus on the desired structure and content of a program that is comprehensive enough to ensure the information literacy training of every college and university student, and to convince the entire college/university community of the viability and effectiveness of that program. Academic librarians should direct their energies to addressing such a challenge, while they concede the existence of a crystallized definition of information literacy, and acknowledge the presence of a conceptual basis for their efforts.

NOTES

AND

REFERENCES

1. Gabriela Sonntag, in a report on the results of a national information literacy survey, saw a widespread adoption of the concept and concluded that many institutions that did not use the term “information literacy” were still familiar with the concept under another name. See Gabriela Sonntag, “Report on the National Information literacy Survey: Documenting Progress Throughout the United States.” College & Research Libraries 62 (10) (November 2001): 996 – 1001; Thomas Kirk actually considered information literacy synonymous with other terms used to describe the education activities of librarians. See Thomas Kirk Jr., “Information Literacy: New Buzzword or New Library Service?” Library Issues 21 (6) (2001). 2. “The higher education accreditation associations, both general and disciplinaryspecific, are aware of and embracing information literacy, and are either considering or have adopted information literacy standards,” Gabriela Sonntag wrote. See Gabriela Sonntag, “Report on the National Information literacy Survey: Documenting Progress Throughout the United States.” 3. Citing the United States, Canada, UK, Sweden, Singapore, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Japan and China as examples, Christine Bruce concluded that information literacy “has captured the imagination of librarians, other educators and information professionals around the world.” See Christine Bruce, “Information Literacy Programs and Research: An International Review,” Australian Library Journal (August 2000): 209 –218.

4. Stephen Foster, “Information Literacy: Some Misgivings,” American Libraries 24 (April 1993): 344 –345. 5. Lorie Roth, “Educating the Cut-andPaste Generation,” Library Journal 124 (November 1999): 42– 44. 6. Lori Arp expressed more than a decade ago a concern that still reverberates today, that “theoreticians or practitioners in the field” had failed to adequately define information literacy. Arp cautioned librarians: “a great deal of confusion will occur unless we continue to articulate the parameters of this question.” See Lori Arp, “Information Literacy or Bibliographic Instruction: Semantics or Philosophy,” RQ 30 (Fall 1990): 46 – 49. 7. Jeremy J, Shapiro & Shelley K. Hughes, “Information Technology as a Liberal Art,” Educom Review 31 (March/April 1996): 31–35. 8. Loanne Snavely & Natasha Cooper, “The Information Literacy Debate,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 23 (January 1997): 7–14; Cushla Kapitzke, “Information Literacy: The Changing Library,” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 44 (February 2001): 450 – 456. 9. Five of the six regional accrediting bodies in the United States make specific mention of an information literacy requirement. See Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Handbook of Accreditation (Alameda, CA: Western Association of Schools and Colleges, 2001), p. 20. [Online]. Available: http://www.wascweb. org/senior/handbook.pdf (accessed August 29, 2002); Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, The Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Criteria for Accreditation (Decatur, Georgia, 1997), Section V [Online]. Available: http:// www.sacscoc.org/criteria.asp (accessed August 29, 2002); Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education: Standards for Accreditation (Philadelphia, PA: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2002), p. 38; The Higher Learning Commission, North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Addendum to the Handbook of Accreditation, 2nd ed. (Chicago: North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, 2002), p. 58 [Online]. Available: http://www.ncacihe.org/resources/HandAddendMarch2002.pdf (accessed August 29, 2002); The New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Standards for Accreditation (Bedford, MA: The New England Association of Schools and Colleges, 2001), p. 19 [Online]. Available: http://www.neasc.org/ cihe/standards.PDF (accessed August 29,

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

2002). The only body not to use the phrase information literacy was The Commission on Colleges and Universities of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges. The Commission did, however, require in standard 5. B. 2 that the library and information services of the institutions under its auspices “contribute to developing the ability of students, faculty, and staff” by enabling them to “independently and effectively” use the resources provided by the library and information services. See The Commission on Colleges and Universities of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, Standards [Online]. Available: http://www.nwccu.org (accessed August 30, 2002). The American Library Association and the National Institute for Information Literacy have been on the forefront of such activities, with an increasing number of voices from academic libraries. Beverly Lynch and Kimberley Smith noted that after 1998 more diversified job titles, such as ‘information literacy librarian,’ began to replace the popular and until then almost exclusive title of reference librarian. See Beverly P. Lynch & Kimberley Robles Smith, “The Changing Nature of Work in Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 62 (September 2001): 407– 420. Christine Bruce, “Information Literacy Programs and Research: An International Review.” As further evidence of the confusion, a 1994 –1995 ACRL survey on information literacy programs in higher education also concluded: “Despite statements to the contrary, some of the respondents associated information literacy with computer literacy.” See Association of College and Research Libraries, “Data Collection on Information literacy Programs at Higher Education Institutions: Analysis and Report by the Association of College and Research Libraries, 1994 –1995,” in Student Learning in the Information Age, edited by Patricia Senn Breivik (Phoenix, Arizona: Oryx Press, 1998), pp. 141–153. “One should be forgiven if one becomes confused when confronted with educational writing and discussion on information literacy,” Langford wrote. See Linda Langford, “Information Literacy: A Clarification.” School Libraries Worldwide 4 (1998): 59 –72. Linda Langford, “Critical Literacy: A Building Block Towards the Information Literate School Community,” Teacher librarian 28 (June 2001): 18 –21. Kathleen Dunn, “Assessing Information Literacy Skills in the California State University: A Progress Report,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 28 (January– March 2002): 26 –35. James Marcum alluded to this when he wrote: “As developed to date, IL sets too

July 2003

227

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22. 23.

24. 25. 26. 27.

228

broad a target. . . Altogether, information literacy reaches too far, attempts more than can be realistically developed within existing realities, at least without a major coalition of professionals and public entities dedicated to that purpose.” See James Marcum, “Rethinking Information Literacy,” Library Quarterly 72 (January 2002): 1–26. See American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, Final Report (Chicago: American Library Association, 1989). Aristotle argued of the growth of human ideas and knowledge, that though some individuals “may individually contribute little or nothing, yet out of the collaboration of all there arises a great mass.” See Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. by Richard Hope (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1952), p. 35. Kathleen Tyner, Literacy in a Digital World: Teaching and Learning in the Age of Information (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998), p. 97. Kathleen Tyner argued that it might be more useful to “break down literacy into any number of multiple literacy modes, each with distinctive characteristics that reveal a variety of social purposes.” Ibid., pp. 60 – 68. Patricia Breivik & Gordon Gee acknowledged this as they called for a more expanded definition. See Patricia Senn Breivik & Gordon Gee, Information Literacy: Revolution in the Library (New York: Macmillan, 1989), p. 22; M. N. Okenimpke extended the meaning beyond just reading and writing though those two abilities remained the central attributes: “It is generally agreed that it entails reading, writing and, although disputable, computing. Obviously, arithmetic usually goes with reading and writing; hence we talk of the 3Rs.” See M. N. Okenimpke, “Traditionalism versus functionality in adult literacy education,” Convergence 25 (1992): 32– 42. Toward Defining Literacy, R. Venesky, D. Wagner, & B. Ciliberti (Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1990 p 142. Suzanne Houff, “LAWS for Literacy,” Teacher Librarian 29 (February 2002): 16 –19. See for example Roselmina Indrisano & Jeanne S. Chall, “Literacy Development,” Journal of Education 177 (1995): 63– 83. Audrey Gorman, “Toward a New Definition of Literacy,” American Libraries 29 (December 1998): 38. Judith Montgomery, “The Challenge of Literacy,” ASHA 37 (May 1995): 5. Ibid. National Literacy Act of 1991, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., H. R. 751, [Online].

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

28.

29.

30. 31.

32.

33. 34.

35. 36. 37.

38.

39.

40. 41.

42.

Available: http://www.nifl.gov/publiclaw.html (accessed August 30, 2002). Peter West, “A Matter of Definition: Researchers Push For Spectrum of Skills To Describe Literacy,” Education Week 13 (October 13, 1993): 6 –7. Irwin S. Kirsch, et al., Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey (Washington, D. C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Dept. of Education, 1993), p. 2. Ibid., p. 3. As Donald J. Leu Jr. put it: “We are experiencing a historic change in the nature of literacy and learning as digital, multimedia resources enter our world.” See Donald J. Leu Jr., “Sarah’s Secret: Social Aspects of Literacy and Learning in a Digital Information Age,” Reading Teacher 50 (October 1996): 162–164. International Technology Education Association, Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association, 2000), p. 9. Ibid. Robin H. Kay, “The Computer Literacy Potpourri: A Review of the Literature, Or MacLuhan Revisited,” Journal of Research on Computing in Education 24 (Summer 1992): 4446 – 4456. Ibid. Rob Darrow, “Are You Web Literate?,” Library Talk 12 (September/October 1999): 35–36. David M. Considine, “Visual Literacy & Children’s Books: An Integrated Approach,” School Library Journal 33 (September 1986): 38 – 42. For a more contemporaneous account see Jean Trumbo, “Visual Literacy and Science Communication,” Science Communication 20 (June 1999): 409 – 425. Quoted by David Considine. See David M. Considine, “National Developments and International Origins,” Journal of Popular Film and Television 30 (Spring 2002): 7–15. David Fettig, “Seeking a Blueprint for Economic Literacy: A Report on the economic Literacy Symposium,” The Region (June 1999): 3–7. Patricia Senn Breivik & E. Gordon Gee, Information Literacy: Revolution in the Library, p. 23. Loanne Snavely and Natasha Cooper suggest that all 34 alternative terms mentioned in their article denote basic knowledge in the specified subjects/ fields. See Loanne Snavely and Natasha Cooper. “The Information Literacy Debate.” Pierre Walter, “Defining Literacy and its Consequences in the Developing World,” International Journal of Life-

43. 44.

45.

46. 47. 48. 49.

50.

51. 52.

53.

54.

long Education 18 (January 1999): 31– 48. Ibid. Recordings of usages of the term such as those found in widely used dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary, Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Webster’s New World College Dictionary and American Heritage Dictionary provide interpretations that see information as involving more than data and inclusive of facts and knowledge regardless of their source or process of communication or reception. The essence of information, these sources suggest, is to bring or possess the ability to bring to the cognition or awareness of an individual or individuals a fact, data or knowledge, the nature of the delivery process itself being secondary to the actual arrival/receipt of the data, fact or knowledge. See Claude E. Shannon, “The Mathematical Theory of Communication,” in Claude E. Shannon and Warren Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication, (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1964), 29 –125. H. S. Heaps, Information Retrieval: Computational and Theoretical Aspects (New York: Academic Press, 1978), p. 6. Claude E. Shannon, “The Mathematical Theory of Communication.” See C. E. Shannon, “Prediction and Entropy of Printed English,” Bell System Technical Journal 30 (1951): 50 – 64. Hamid Moradi, Jerzy W. GrzymalaBusse, & James A. Robert, “Entropy of English Text: Experiments with Humans and a Machine Learning System Based on Rough Sets,” Information Sciences 104 (January 1998): 31– 47. For some examples see T. M. Cover, “A Convergent Gambling Estimate of the Entropy of English,” IEEE Transaction on Information Theory 24 (1978): 413– 421; Hamid Moradi, Jerzy W. GrzymalaBusse, & James A. Roberts, “Entropy of English Text: Experiments with Humans and a Machine Learning System Based on Rough Sets.” James F. Crow, “Shannon’s Brief Foray into Genetics,” Genetics 159 (November 2001): 915–917. Funk & Wagnalls New Comprehensive International Dictionary of the English Language: Encyclopedic Edition (New York: Publishers Guild Press, 1978), p. 650. For some examples see The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) and Webster’s New World College Dictionary (New York: Macmillan, 1996). Losee wrote: “The term ‘information’ is used differently by individuals in different walks of life, from specialists working in information based professions,

55.

56.

57.

58.

59. 60.

61. 62.

such as communication media and information management, those in the computing and cognitive sciences, as well as by people involved in less scholarly pursuits.” See Robert M. Losee, ”A Discipline Independent Definition of Information,“ Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48 (3) (1997): 254 –269. Frank Webster observed that the phenomena lumped together under the term information were “as diverse as the sales of tabloid newspapers and the expansion in number of doctoral candidates in universities.” Webster concluded that such a bundling “actually collapses different definitions of the word itself.” See Frank Webster, “Information: A Skeptical Account,” Advances in Librarianship 24 (2000): 1–23. Nancy Freeman Rohde concluded that even within the same field the term “may not be used the same way because the theoretical constructs of the researchers differ.” See Nancy Freeman Rohde, “Information Needs,” Advances in Librarianship 14 (1986): 49 –73. Zhang Yuexiao, “Definitions and Sciences of Information,” Information Processing and Management 244 (1988): 479 – 491. Martha Hale isolated three groups of information professionals: librarians, information managers and records managers. All three, Hale claimed, applied a different meaning to the word “information.” See Martha L. Hale, “Administrators and Information: A Review of Methodologies Used for Diagnosing Information Use,” Advances in Librarianship 14 (1986): 75–99. Norman Stevens, “The History of Information,” Advances in Librarianship 14 (1986): 1– 48. Frank Webster, while skeptical of any cross-disciplinary definitions of the term, acknowledged the potential advantage of such an attempt. See Frank Webster, “Information: A Skeptical Account.” Echoing Webster’s concession Martha Hale suggested that if her three groups of information professionals could expand their definition to include variables in the definitions of the other groups then the results of their studies could be shared, suggesting the mutual benefits and desirability of such a possibility. See Martha L. Hale, “Administrators and Information: A Review of Methodologies Used for Diagnosing Information Use.” Robert M. Losee, “A Discipline Independent Definition of Information.” To Losee, a discipline independent definition was not only advantageous, but also necessary. “A more general definition allows frameworks, theories, and results to be transferred across disciplinary boundaries, and provides for dialogue

63. 64. 65.

66.

67. 68.

69.

70.

71.

72. 73. 74. 75.

76. 77. 78.

across these boundaries, while at the same time allowing individual disciplines to focus on the specific information phenomena of their discipline,” he wrote. Ibid. Ibid., p. 254. Ibid. Attempting to satisfy everybody, Losee compromised the usefulness of his solution in specific instances. His attempt demonstrated the potential futility (though not impossibility) of attempting context-free definitions of a term regarded by many as evasive. This explanation, one of several provided by the Oxford English Dictionary, appears the most exact for purposes of delineating the nature and scope of the term information. See Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., Vol. 7 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), p. 943. Norman D. Stevens, “The History of Information,” Advances in Librarianship 14 (1986): 1– 48. Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language: In Which the Words Are Deduced From the Originals, and Illustrated in Their Different Significations by Examples From the Best Writers (New York: AMS Press, 1967). Paul G. Zurkowski, The Information Environment: Relationships and Priorities (Washington D. C.: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, 1974): p. 1. Jane Kansas, Mockingbird FAQ. [Online]. Available: http://mockingbird. chebucto.org/faq.html (accessed January 20, 2003). Donald J. Hillman, “Knowledge Transfer Systems,” The Many Faces of Information Science, inedited by Edward C. Weiss (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1977), 75–103. Ibid. James W. Marcum, “Rethinking Information Literacy,” Library Quarterly 72 (January 2002): 1–26. Ibid. Joanne Roberts, “From Know-how to Show-how? Questioning the Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Knowledge Transfer,” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 12 (2000): 429 – 443. Keith Lehrer, Theory of Knowledge (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990), p. 1. Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1948), p. 158. To Plato, knowledge, whether obtained through perception, derived from “true judgment” or the result of “true belief followed by an account or explanation,” resided within the knower. See Francis Macdonald Cornford, Plato’s Theory of Knowledge: The Theaetetus and the

79. 80. 81.

82. 83.

Sophist of Plato Translated with a Running Commentary (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1957). For more epistemological analysis on the nature and origin of knowledge by philosophers since Plato, see the following authoritative works: E´ tienne Gilson, The Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. Edward Bullough (New York: Dorset Press, 1986); Rene´ Descartes, Discourse on the Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, edited by David Weissman (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996); Richard I. Aaron, John Locke (London: Oxford University Press, 1965); T. E. Jessop editor, The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, Vol. 2. (London: Thomas Nelson, 1967); David Hume, Treaties of Human Nature, Vol. 1 (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1911); Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J. M. D. Meiklejohn (New York: Willey Book Company, 1900); Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Science of Knowledge, editors and trans. Peter Heath and John Lachs (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970); G. W. F. Hegel, The Phenomenology of Mind, trans. J. B. Baille (New York: Humanities Press, 1966); Elizabeth R. Eames, Bertrand Russell’s Theory of Knowledge (New York: George Braziller, 1969); Karl Popper, Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem, edited by M. A. Notturno (London; New York: Rutledge, 1994); A. J. Ayer, The Problem of Knowledge (New York: Macmillan, 1965); Jacques Maritain, Distinguish to Unite or The Degrees of Knowledge (New York: George Scribner’s Sons, 1959); Thomas English Hill, Contemporary Theories of Knowledge (New York: The Ronald Press, 1961). James W. Marcum. “Rethinking Information Literacy.” Keith Lehrer, Theory of Knowledge (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990), p. 4. Sheila Webber & Bill Johnson also observed that the 1989 ALA definition has been “quoted by numerous other commentators.” See Sheila Webber and Bill Johnson, “Conceptions of Information Literacy: New Perspectives and Implications,” Journal of Information Science 26 (2000): 381–397. American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, Final Report. There is widespread consent on the matter of designating Paul Zurkowski as the first to actually use the phrase. See Shirley J. Behrens, “A Conceptual Analysis and Historical Overview of Information Literacy,” College & Research Libraries 55 (July 1994): 309 –322; Sheila Webber & Bill Johnson, “Conceptions of Information Literacy.”

July 2003

229

84. Paul G. Zurkowski, The Information Service Environment: Relationships and Priorities, p. 6. 85. Ibid. 86. Shirley J. Behrens, “A Conceptual Analysis and Historical Overview of Information Literacy.” 87. Ibid. 88. American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, Final Report. p. 1. 89. Ibid. 90. Harlan Cleveland, The Knowledge Executive: Leadership in an Information Society (New York: Dutton, 1985). 91. American Library Association Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, Final Report, p. 4. 92. Ibid. p. 7. 93. Shirley J. Behrens, “A Conceptual Analysis and Historical Overview of Information Literacy.” 94. Christina S. Doyle, Outcomes Measurement for Information Literacy within the National Education Goals of 1990, Final Report to the National Forum on Information Literacy, Summary of Findings (Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources, 1992), p. 2, ERIC, ED 351033. 95. Patricia Senn Breivik, “Putting Libraries Back in the Information Society,” American Libraries 16 (November 1985): 723. 96. For Doyle’s list of attributes see Christina S. Doyle, Outcomes Measurement for Information Literacy within the National Education Goals of 1990, p. 2. 97. Ibid. 98. Christina S. Doyle, “Information Literacy in an Information Society,” Emergency Librarian 22 (April 1995): 30 –32. 99. Carol Collier Kuhlthau, Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1993). 100. C. S. Bruce, Seven Faces of Information

230

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

101. 102.

103. 104. 105. 106. 107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112. 113.

Literacy (Adelaide, Australia: Auslib Press, 1993). Ibid. Christine Bruce, “Information Literacy Programs and Research: An International Review,” Australian Library Journal 48 (August 2000): 209 –218. See for example Bruce’s list of differences in Seven Faces of Information Literacy, p. 13. Carol Collier Kuhlthau, Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services, p. 154. Bruce, Seven Faces of Information Literacy, p. 160. Ibid., p. 12. Association of College and Research Libraries, “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000). Ibid. ACRL listed these as six distinct abilities, choosing to combine the last two into a single requirement. However, these last two may be correctly seen as two distinct and separate abilities (though closely related), because legal and ethical use of information do not flow automatically from an understanding of the economic, legal, and social issues involved in information use. D. Scott Brandt, “Information Technology Literacy: Task Knowledge and Mental Models,” Library Trends 50 (Summer 2001): 73– 86. Doug Johnson & Mike Esienberg, “Computer Literacy and Information Literacy: A Natural Combination,” Emergency Librarian 23 (May/June 1996): 12–16. Association of College and Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, p. 6. Sheila Webber & Bill Johnston, “Conceptions of Information Literacy.” See for example Standard Two, outcome

114. 115.

116.

117.

5e; Standard Three, performance indicators 3, 4, 5; Standard Four and all its performance indicators and outcomes. See Association of College and Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. See Standard Five, outcomes 2d and 2e. Ibid., p. 14. See for instance the last expectation of Standard Three, requiring that information literate students be able to incorporate new information into their value system. Ibid., p. 11. How do the outcomes of investigating “differing viewpoints encountered in the literature” and determining “whether to incorporate or reject viewpoints encountered” relate to a student’s ability to determine whether any newly acquired knowledge “has an impact on the individual’s value system.” The relationship appears unclear, the expectations at best bizarre. Yet that is what outcomes a and b of Standard Three are supposed to do for performance indicator 5 of that standard. See ibid., p. 12. Studies showing a decline in credit offerings by the academic library and widespread practice of course related/ integrated bibliographic instruction suggest a limitation of the librarian’s direct teaching role within higher education, and academia’s current accommodation of only such a limited role. For studies on instructional trends see Teresa B. Mensching, “Trends in Bibliographic Instruction in the 1980s: A Comparison of Data from Two Surveys,” Research Strategies 7 (Winter 1989): 4 –13; Linda Shirato & Joseph Badics, “Library Instruction in the 1990s: A Comparison with Trends in Two Earlier LOEX Surveys,” Research Strategies 15 (1997): 223-237.