Authoritative? Information Literacy Standards
Central issue in scholarly research and in critical thinking and maybe in just about any decision making we do: how do we get good information? It it the peer review process that ensures high quality? The name of the writer? The name of the publication? The appearance of the website? The cost of the information? Is Wikipedia "bad" because it's free? Is open access of lower quality because we don't have to pay for it?
I remember these same questions being raised back in the 80's (and I'm sure they are still being raised today) in Feminism and Post colonialism: certain types of discourse are considered more authoritative than others. A personal experience is interesting and maybe colorful, but it's not reliable or generalizable.
But, it is those "outside of power" who always seem to be creating the discourse that is devalued. Is there any solution to this issue?
In the 2014 ACRL Framework, the emphasis is on teaching students to identify reliable sources of information: read sources that come from "insiders". Granted, this is not a blanket acceptance of all sources from insiders as much as it is a rejection of those sources that can't make it inside.The ACRL notes this issue in its "authority is contextual and constructed" frame, but does not really offer an alternative to the usual methods of evaluation, which comes down to "credentialism" which is just another word for "insiders".
The framework defines what makes an expert, which is a very interesting topic in itself. At what point is someone an expert? And most of us will never be experts but still need not only access to good information but the ability to produce and share it (and not just with our neighbors).
Is the internet an ocean of garbage from which we must hire an expert fisherman to navigate?
What role do information scientists have in addressing this conflict?
References
I remember these same questions being raised back in the 80's (and I'm sure they are still being raised today) in Feminism and Post colonialism: certain types of discourse are considered more authoritative than others. A personal experience is interesting and maybe colorful, but it's not reliable or generalizable.
But, it is those "outside of power" who always seem to be creating the discourse that is devalued. Is there any solution to this issue?
In the 2014 ACRL Framework, the emphasis is on teaching students to identify reliable sources of information: read sources that come from "insiders". Granted, this is not a blanket acceptance of all sources from insiders as much as it is a rejection of those sources that can't make it inside.The ACRL notes this issue in its "authority is contextual and constructed" frame, but does not really offer an alternative to the usual methods of evaluation, which comes down to "credentialism" which is just another word for "insiders".
The framework defines what makes an expert, which is a very interesting topic in itself. At what point is someone an expert? And most of us will never be experts but still need not only access to good information but the ability to produce and share it (and not just with our neighbors).
Is the internet an ocean of garbage from which we must hire an expert fisherman to navigate?
What role do information scientists have in addressing this conflict?
References
Association of College and Research Libraries (2014). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (revised draft)
Beatty, J. (2014). Locating information literacy
within institutional oppression. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. Retrieved
from http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/ 2014/locating-information-literacy-withininstitutional-oppression/
Comments
Post a Comment